Citizens can comment on Dept. of Energy proposal challenging EPA endangerment finding

Thank you, @Terry Hansen, for adding this important topic to our forum.

Yesterday, I read Roger Pielke Jr.’s post on Substack about the new climate report, commissioned by the Department of Energy: “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” (July 23, 2025). It presents the views of five climate skeptics selected to offer a “balanced” review of climate science.

I approached the report with an open mind. As someone who values evidence over ideology and listens to both conservative and progressive voices, I’m willing to revise my thinking when compelling new data emerges. But this report doesn’t deliver. It overcorrects in some areas and ignores the escalating costs of inaction in others. It feels less like honest scientific inquiry and more like a political setup—particularly given its timing to justify reversing the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding.

Reading it, I was left asking: If not this path, then what? There’s no actionable alternative being offered —just a dismissal of urgency.

We’ve seen this playbook before. When proponents of “Creation Science” tried to force their way into public school science curricula under the guise of “balance” and “academic freedom,” scientists like Stephen Jay Gould responded with rigor, clarity, and courage. Their testimony in key court cases exposed the flaws in the argument and preserved the integrity of science education.

Now, climate science needs its Gould. With the DOE inviting public comment, we must respond—forcefully and thoughtfully. Even if the outcome feels preordained, it’s vital we build a public record that challenges this narrative. For future legal challenges. For political accountability. And for history.

Personally I am not expert enough to step forward, but hopefully there are some CCLers who are – even if they only bite into one chapter or section of the report. Every bite will help.

@Terry Hansen
Thank you for this prompt response to a truly horrific climate development announced by Lee Zeldin, who, you may recall, was a member of the Climate Solutions Caucus-- recruited and matched with a Democrat by CCL. My, how times have changed.

I received the email below this morning from the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health, which provides a link to a Moms Clean Air Act August 4th webinar on how to make our voices heard and a link to registering to testify at the EPA virtual public hearing, which has to be done by August 12th.

Let's flood the EPA with registrations.

@Terry Hansen

Moms Clean Air Force webinar registration linked on the APHA (co-sponsor) website:

https://www.apha.org/events-and-meetings/apha-calendar/endangerment-finding-action-workshop-with-congresswoman-ansari

From the EPA website on how to register to testify on the repeal of the Endangerment Finding:

Pre-registration is now open.

Public hearing registration will be open through the last day of the hearing, however, we ask that you pre-register by August 12, 2025 if you intend to testify or are requesting special accommodations. To the extent possible, EPA will work to accommodate late requests. All attendees (including those who will not be presenting verbal testimony) must register. Please submit a separate registration form for each person attending the hearing. More information on how to join the hearing will be sent to the email address that you provide for registration.

To register, please send an email to EPA-MobileSource-Hearings@epa.gov.

@Wayne Willis
Thank you Wayne and Terry,

Here's the link to the Federal Registry about public comments on [Docket No. DOE-HQ-2025-0207]
Notice of availability: A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the
U.S. Climate:

https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-14519.pdf

I've been reading the EPA document about 2009 Reconsideration of 2009 Endangerment Finding and Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Standards. As far as technical writing goes both of these documents over personalize and emotionalize the topic and the EPA doc comes right out and says it on account of Trump's executive order about “unleasing American Energy”. But if that is the case, why does this administration appear to be going out its way to do everything possible to undermine science and viable new discoveries. In 2023 MIT released info about a phenomenon recently discovered that they termed the “hydromolecular effect” where the green wavelength in the light spectrum evaporates water without heat. Among other things, this would help enable low-power desalinization of salt water to generate water for producing green hydrogen for hydrogen power and also has ramifications on current climate maps where science is continually evolving accurate measument of earth's atmosphere.

Informed debate about how to get to a better place is always critical. I'm still deciphering the EPA document but it gets easier once you are familiar with which paragraphs to home in on for the background on where/how the EPA arrived at their perspective. Since Zeldin stated on day one that the role of the EPA should be making automobiles more affordable and not doing so constituted creating hardship for people, it all seems extrememly biased towards specific business interests.

Peter Favant

I put together a new thread on the endangerment finding and CCL's planned action, @Peter Favant @Terry Hansen @Wayne Willis @Deirdre Henderson:

@Peter Favant A question more for CCL leadership: is it possible (advisable) for CCL as an organization to make comments on this proposal, or does that mean burning bridges that shouldn't be burned or other jeopardies, like perhaps implying the leadership's response reflects the views of all CCL-ers? Regardless, what is the advise of the leadership? flood the website with individual comments without identifying ties to CCL?

@Frans Kopp Sorry, never mind, I see Dana already posted the CCL will make a formal response