EPA says power plant carbon emissions aren't dangerous. We asked 30 scientists: Here's what they say

Unfortunately under the current administration and from the scientific point of view the US became a rogue nation, in many fields experts have been fired or silenced so political appointees can repeat anti-scientific claims that the government want to push for economic profit of a few. Decades of diligent work that made the US a scientific power destroyed in a few weeks.

When incompetents are intentionally put in charge of formerly respected institutions, the decline of the US is put into acceleration.

"It is hard to imagine a decision dumber than putting the short-term interests of oil and gas companies ahead of the long-term inters of our children and grandchildren."

How about creating more nuclear weapons

Depends upon the type of power plant, where its located, how new, how well equipped with latest pollution control tech. quality of mgmt. team, etc.

Power plants needed to run any economy, naturally poorer countries tend to have the 'direst' power plants because of economic pressures, for example India or China with their many coal-fired power plants.

Depends upon the type of power plant, where its located, how new, how well equipped with latest pollution control tech. quality of mgmt. team, etc.

No, it does not, these factors only help (in very limited ways) to reduce the dangerous carbon emissions but they do contribute very importantly to the pollution so the EPA declaration is demonstrably false.

Power plants needed to run any economy

Which still makes it wrong to rely on the most polluting ones when much cleaner technologies are available.

If your argument is that poorer countries are the ones that pollute the most, are you then arguing the US is becoming a poor nation? Otherwise it makes no sense.

Clean technologies not that 'clean' in reality, require many rare earths that cause terrible environmental damage to obtain, and subsidies to be commercially competitive, borne by the taxpayer naturally.

Furthermore, we just saw what happened in Spain and Portugal, their entire grid crashed due to reliance on intermittent 'clean' tech. That's costly $folks.

Imagine you're driving in an autonomous AI vehicle in the 2030's, as a passenger naturally, and suddenly the power plants are tapped out and rolling blackouts kick in. How many accidents and deaths will be acceptable?!

1glennToday  09:25 am JST

When incompetents are intentionally put in charge of formerly respected institutions, the decline of the US is put into acceleration.

Let's give Trump Admin time to see how their policy efforts in energy, etc. play out, rather than pre-judge. So far, until Israel Iran war, energy's YTD trending down, gas prices lowest on inflation adjusted basis in decades, etc.

We also Japan signing major US LNG contracts.

Remember, it is still the Biden Admin's continuing resolution budget that runs until 30 Sept., Trump's first Budget, which represents policy choices, starts Oct 1st.

Clean technologies not that 'clean' in reality, require many rare earths that cause terrible environmental damage to obtain, and subsidies to be commercially competitive, borne by the taxpayer naturally.

In comparison with carbon plants? yes, they are extremely clean and cause much lower environmental damage, this is why the scientists clearly call carbon plants the much worse option, and those that try to make this excuse can never bring the opinion of environmental experts supporting those claims.

Furthermore, we just saw what happened in Spain and Portugal, their entire grid crashed due to reliance on intermittent 'clean' tech. 

Already well debunked,

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/29/what-caused-the-blackout-in-spain-and-portugal-and-did-renewable-energy-play-a-part

Daniel Muir, a senior European power analyst at S&P Global, said: “The nature and scale of the outage makes it unlikely that the volume of renewables was the cause, with the Spanish network more often than not subject to very high volumes of such production.”

What is the point of using claims that are well known to be false? make evident that you could not find anything true to criticize clean technologies?

Let's give Trump Admin time to see how their policy efforts in energy, etc. play out, rather than pre-judge.

There is no pre-judging in place, the EPA is openly lying and pushing antiscientific claims by orders of the current administration. The precipitous descend of the scientific respect the US institutions had is well described including in this article, even you had to recognize that the US is now a poor country so it "has" to pollute more as in your previous comment.

require many rare earths that cause terrible environmental damage to obtain, and subsidies to be commercially competitive, borne by the taxpayer naturally.

Just as coal and oil damage the environment from mining and drilling to end use in plastics or burned in plants. The oil and coal industry is subsidized more than renewables. So taxpayers are paying to poison their air and water. Renewables are just dirty in the upfront mining and dont continue to emit pollutants like coal and oil.

Spain and Portugal, their entire grid crashed due to reliance on intermittent 'clean' tech.

The entire NE grid of NA crashed in 2003 while running on oil gas and nuclear.

First, appoint incompetents to head the EPA.

Second, have those incompetents declare whatever nonsense you feel makes you look better in the public eye, regardless of facts and science.

HopeSpringsEternal

Clean technologies not that 'clean' in reality, require many rare earths that cause terrible environmental damage to obtain, and subsidies to be commercially competitive, borne by the taxpayer naturally.

So you have flip-flopped on your previous EV and renewable energy.

Is someone counting how many days until this nincompoop is out of office?