The EPA, led by Lee Zelden, has a global impact even before reconsidering the 2009 Endangerment Finding, which classifies CO2 and other greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
Yesterday, the Washington Examiner published “Green banking group softens rules in bid to stem Wall Street exodus.”
One of the largest international green banking alliances moved to loosen its climate targets as an increasing number of banks have abandoned the group and its targets altogether in an apparent effort to get ahead of the Trump administration’s attempts to crack down on climate-focused initiatives and policies.
Launched in April 2021, the Net-Zero Banking Alliance aims to bring together global banks and institutions to set climate targets that align with the Paris Agreement.
Existing rules require members of the United Nations-backed coalition to commit to an energy transition in their portfolios and operations, putting them on a path to net zero. This means members are committed to removing as much carbon pollution from the atmosphere as they emit by 2050 or sooner. Members are also required to align their financing with the intention of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.
Roughly 80% of NBZA’s members voted Tuesday on changing these rules, with 90% of the financial institutions voting in favor of loosening the targets, according to Reuters.
Members will now be able to align financing with a broader range of net-zero pathways looking to meet expanded Paris Agreement temperature targets, including “well below 2 C” and not just 1.5 C, according to briefing documents reviewed by Bloomberg.
The Net-Zero Banking Alliance has reportedly been considering changing its rules for weeks, as several major U.S.-headquartered and other Western banks withdrew from the coalition.
In December and January, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, and Bank of America departed from the international alliance.
The financial institutions did not explicitly explain why they left the group but insisted they would continue to focus on their sustainability goals.
Following the U.S. exodus, a number of Canadian banks also followed suit.
The UN and EU weaponized the Greenhouse gas classification and the other global elites, turning it into money and changing global energy policies.
The Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not officially reclassified CO2 as a non-pollutant, but it has taken steps to reconsider the 2009 Endangerment Finding, which classifies CO2 and other greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act due to their threat to public health and welfare. Since the reclassification hasn’t occurred, I’ll address the potential effects based on the proposed reconsideration and related deregulatory actions, drawing on available evidence and reasoning through the implications.
Potential Effects of Reclassifying CO2 as a Non-Pollutant
- Undermining Climate Regulations
- The 2009 Endangerment Finding is the legal foundation for regulating CO2 emissions from power plants, vehicles, oil and gas operations, and other industries under the Clean Air Act. The left says reclassifying CO2 as a non-pollutant would likely dismantle these regulations, allowing industries to emit CO2 without federal limits. This could increase greenhouse gas emissions, accelerating climate change impacts like heatwaves, floods, and storms. I disagree and would say that Climate Change happens. Studies are coming out that explain how the narrative has been controlled through false reporting.
- For example, the Obama-era Clean Power Plan aimed to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants by setting performance rates. However, the Trump administration replaced it with the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, which projected only a 1% reduction in emissions compared to no policy. Removing CO2’s pollutant status could eliminate even these weaker standards, potentially increasing emissions by millions of tons annually. A 2019 study estimated that Trump’s rollbacks could boost U.S. CO2 emissions by over 200 million tonnes annually by 2025. I need to review that study to see who paid for it. We find way too many reports paid for by people with ulterior motives.
- Economic and Energy Sector Impacts
- Proponents of deregulation argue that removing CO2 restrictions would reduce costs for industries like coal, oil, and gas, potentially lowering energy prices and boosting jobs. The Trump administration claimed its policies saved households $2,500 annually through lower energy costs. However, these savings are contested, as the left says deregulatory actions could increase electricity costs by over $110 per household by 2026 if incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act are clawed back. I disagree.
- Conversely, weakening CO2 regulations could harm the renewable energy sector, which the left says has driven job growth and innovation. My response is “At what cost?”. The left would say rolling back clean energy incentives could threaten $500 billion in economic investments and 1 million jobs by 2030. I disagree and say that it could double the other way, as we need to look at energy as being able to survive on its own, fiscally responsible merits for producing more energy than it takes to create, like hydrogen or ethanol.
- Legal and International Ramifications
- The 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA established that CO2 is an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Congress reinforced this in 2022 by amending the Act to include greenhouse gases explicitly. Reclassifying CO2 would face significant legal challenges, as environmental groups and states (e.g., New York, California) have successfully sued over similar rollbacks.
- Get ready for unprecedented lawfare.
- Internationally, undermining CO2 regulations could damage U.S. credibility in global climate efforts, as seen when the U.S. withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement. This could reduce trust in cooperative climate action, potentially leading other nations to weaken their commitments.
- Long-Term Climate Consequences
- The Trump administration’s own EPA data showed a 25% reduction in power plant GHG emissions from 2011 to 2019, partly due to market shifts to natural gas and renewables, not deregulation. Reversing CO2’s pollutant status could stall this progress, with irreversible effects, as CO2 persists in the atmosphere for decades. So we need to look at science and plant more trees.
- Critics argue that the administration’s focus on short-term economic gains ignores the avoided costs of climate action, such as reduced healthcare expenses and fewer climate-driven disasters.
- As long as the EPA looks to regulating actual pollution, we may see an end to the ability of the globalists to create carbon tax systems like the UN-associated programs.
- The story “ABC News Blames Tornado Surge On Climate Change—But Data Says Otherwise” presents some great data points and examines how the mainstream media often uses fear-mongering to make a point.
Critical Perspective
The push to reconsider CO2’s status aligns with a broader deregulatory agenda prioritizing fossil fuel industries, as evidenced by the EPA’s 31 announced rollbacks in March 2025. However, claims of economic benefits are often overstated, as compliance costs for regulations like the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards were absorbed mainly by 2018, yet the EPA still sought to weaken them.
The left will say that the scientific consensus on CO2’s role in climate change is overwhelming, and denying this risks public health and global stability for uncertain gains. On the flip side, defenders of deregulation argue that market-driven innovation (e.g., methane capture in the natural gas industry) can reduce emissions without heavy-handed rules. However, historical data shows voluntary measures often fall short. My argument here is that the voluntary measures often fall short of goals that are based upon a climate religion and wealth transfer rather than science.
Conclusion
The more money drained from the global climate alarm, the better. The United States Department of the Interior, the EPA, and the Department of Energy are on the right track to reduce regulations while redefining pollution and how it can impact us.
Make no mistake: reasonable regulations are essential to allowing energy to be produced with the least impact on the environment. Look at the global oil and gas sector market. The Exploration and Production companies in the United States are the cleanest operators in the world. Canadian standards are right up there as well, but when you look at oil production practices worldwide, there are some huge environmental issues.
The way forward in the short run is to use all forms of energy that sustain themselves in an open market and publish the health benefits vs. the economic costs. We have been lied to about the benefits vs. the cost of “Renewable Wind and Solar,” with Trillions of dollars spent globally. They have not replaced fossil fuels but rather have proved “Turley’s Law” correct every year.
“The more money invested in wind, solar, and hydrogen, the more fossil fuels will be used.” Another quote that should be considered for adding to the Law is that “High Energy prices cause regimes to change, and cause deindustrialization and fiscal collapse.”
Today, we are seeing the world change for the better right before our eyes. Take a deep breath and go out and do something epic for yourself, your family, and your friends.
As the Energy News Beat podcast is at the intersection of energy, finance, and geopolitical issues, we invite any CEO, politician, Author, or industry leader who would like to be on the show to reach out to the show. We want to hear from everyone and hear all sides of the story.
This story originally ran on https://theenergynewsbeat.substack.com/
Energy News Beat