The world is changing faster than most people think. And not all of that change is bad.

Lee Zeldin, the administrator for the United States Environmental Protection Agency, is about to drive a dagger into the heart of the green grifting industry with a move that can only be described as seismic and one with global implications, including for us right here at home in Australia. If the EPA follow through on what’s been announced, then that will be the end of all the US climate lawsuits. It’ll be the end of electric car subsidies, the end of emissions trading, and it will bring undone in a single stroke of a pen decade’s worth of legal precedent that will literally bring the entire climate gravy train to a crashing halt, at least in the US. And where the US goes, the rest of us tend to follow sooner or later. Or at least we used to. Let’s see if that’s still true today.

Now, there is actually quite a few layers to this story. First is what’s actually been announced by Lee Zeldin, which is that the EPA are planning to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding, which happened under the Obama administration and is essentially the lynch pin upon which the entire climate doom mongering industry hangs. More on that in a minute. But there’s another layer here that’s worth touching on as we go through. And it’s the way in which this literally planet-shaping change in policy was announced. It was announced very casually on a podcast. The world is changing in more ways than one. Not only did Donald Trump make the most of podcasts on his way back to the White House at the most recent presidential election, but also the president of the United States now conducts diplomacy on social media. And now some of the biggest policy changes of this year are being casually discussed over a podcasting table before the mainstream media even knows about it.

Now, I’ll play you the clip from that podcast in a minute, but first, my name is Topher Field. This is the Topher project and I help busy people like you to make sense of the nonsense and to keep up with the world as it changes around you. This is what I do all day every day and I am 100% viewer supported. Quite often my videos get demonetized on YouTube because I’m saying what’s true rather than saying what’s safe. So if you appreciate this kind of content then please head over to topherfield.net and buy me a coffee via the button. And if you haven’t already read my best-selling book on government, power, and civil disobedience, then head over to goodpeoplebreakbadlaws.com and grab a copy of my first book or my second book or my multi-award-winning DVD or my t-shirts and hoodies and long sleeve tees as well. And you’ll be helping me to keep the Topher project going.

Okay, let me play you this clip from the Ruthless podcast where EPA administrator Lee Zeldon pretty much just casually gives them breaking world-changing news.

[From video]

“You’ve got some big things in the works. Yeah, actually later today we’re going to be making a big announcement in Indiana. And uh something that happened back in the Obama administration 2009 was that they uh put forward this regulation called the endangerment finding. Now a lot of people are out there listening, they might not know what the endangerment finding is. If you were ask congressional Democrats to describe what it is, the left would say that it means that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is an endangerment to to uh human health. They might say methane is a pollutant. Methane is an endangerment to human health. And that’s an oversimplified I would say inaccurate way to describe it. Uh the way they did this u was following a Supreme Court case in Massachusetts for EPA. And the Obama administration said that carbon dioxide when mixed with a bunch of other well-mixed gases, the greenhouse gases, that it contributes to climate change. How much? They don’t say. It’s more than zero. And they say that climate change endangers human health. Mhm.

So because of these different mental leaps, and by the way, when it’s carbon dioxide mixed with all these well-mixed gases, they were only looking at mobile sources like vehicles, but a bunch of those greenhouse gases aren’t even emitted from from vehicles. Now, why does all of this matter? Like right out of the gate here, we’re getting very wonky on like what this regulation means. Well, then there were all sorts of different vehicle regulations that followed. So this is like the endangerment finding in and of itself is the hub to the spoke of the left’s environmental agenda essentially.

So this has been referred to as basically driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion. Like there there are people who care I mean most Americans we care about the environment. We want clean air, land, and water. Conservatives love the environment. We want to be good stewards of the environment. There are people who then in the name of climate change are willing to bankrupt the country. Yeah. In the name of environmental justice uh they will get tens of billions of dollars appropriated to their friends rather than actually remediating environmental issues. So they created this endangerment finding and then they were able to put all these regulations on vehicles, on airplanes, on stationary sources to uh basically regulate out of existence in many cases a lot of forms of segments of our economy and it costs Americans a lot of money. What’s the significance? How big is the endangerment finding? Well, repealing it will be the largest deregulatory action in the history of America. You. So, it’s kind of a big deal.” [End video]

The biggest deregulation in the history of America, and I don’t think that’s an overstatement either.

The endangerment finding came 2 years after the court case that Administrator Zeldin mentioned in that clip, Massachusetts versus EPA. And that’s important because that case was brought by a group of Democrat-dominated states for the specific purpose of making the US federal government regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The case was brought because the EPA had previously refused to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles on the basis that a greenhouse gas in and of itself is not a pollutant. So it was not captured under the Clean Air Act and they were correct. But the activists weren’t happy about it. So they grabbed all the states they could the ones they could con into helping them and they brought a lawsuit against the EPA specifically convincing five out of the nine Supreme Court justices at the time. Yes, it came down to a single vote that the greenhouse gases including CO2 are pollutants.

Now, that’s an extraordinary thing to say given that that would make nature itself a polluter. Every wildebeest and hippopotamus is now a polluter according to these five well-dressed idiots. But never mind that it makes no sense. That is what they said. Now, if CO2 was a pollutant, then suddenly it fell within the EPA’s remit under the Clean Air Act. And so the EPA now had to decide if this pollutant was a danger to public health or welfare. For the following two years, the activists pressured the EPA to rule that indeed the very air that we breathe out is a danger to the planet’s survival. And in 2009, the EPA gave its now infamous endangerment finding. The activists got what they wanted, which was nothing less than the largest unelected power grab in history.

What this endangerment finding did was give the activists via the EPA the ability to literally control the entire US economy without needing a single vote and without needing any new legislation to do it.

Remember, they won their court case by a single vote from one Supreme Court justice. And on the strength of that one decision hangs every single EPA rule and regulation around CO2. All made possible by this endangerment finding.

Now, you may be wondering, can the EPA really reverse the endangerment finding given that the results of that court case were that CO2 is a pollutant? And given that the EPA can’t, and nor should they be able to overrule a court decision. Well, the trick is the distinction between a pollutant and a pollutant that is a danger. The Supreme Court ruled that CO2 is a pollutant, which like I said is silly, but that’s what they said. But the Supreme Court didn’t rule that this pollutant was a danger. That was 100% the decision of the EPA. And if they made that decision, then they can reverse that decision.

But of course, you know that if they do that, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will be dragged back into court for it by the activists who don’t want the money gravy train to come to an end. And this is where it gets interesting because the complexion of the Supreme Court changed radically when President Trump was in for the first time from 2016 to 2020. See, the decision we’re talking about was made back in 2007, and only three of the nine justices who were involved in that decision are still serving. And interestingly, all three of them were on the dissenting side. They were three out of the four justices who did not agree that CO2 was a pollutant. So those are three of the justices that are still on the Supreme Court. And since then, of course, six new justices have been appointed, replacing the other six. Now, three of them were appointed by Trump.

Now, that’s not a guarantee that they’ll agree with him that CO2 is not a pollutant, but he only needs two out of those three that he appointed to join with the three remaining since 2007, and that decision will be overturned.

So any activists thinking that they might want to tie up the EPA in lawsuits might want to be careful what they wish for. Because if that case finds its way back to the Supreme Court for any reason, there is absolutely no guarantee that the activists will get what they want. The Supreme Court could very well rule that CO2 isn’t even a pollutant in the first place. And then these activists, well, they’ll have absolutely nothing left to stand on.

But you know, they’re going to try something. They’re already screaming blue murder from the rooftops about this proposed deregulation. According to the Guardian, David Doniger, a climate expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Group, said it was virtually impossible to think that the EPA could develop a contradictory finding to the 2009 standard that would stand up in court. Doniger and other critics accused Trump’s Republican administration of using potential repeal of the endangerment finding as a kill shot that would allow him to make all the climate regulations invalid. If finalized, repeal of the endangerment finding would erase current limits on greenhouse gas pollution from cars, factories, power plants, and other sources, and could prevent future administrations from proposing rules to tackle climate change.

Yes. Yes, indeed. In fact, that’s the point. This move, announced casually in a chat on a podcast, is truly the biggest single deregulation in history. But that doesn’t mean that it will be easy or fast. You can bet your bottom dollar that the activists, the carpetbaggers, and the doom mongers will be out in force trying to stop or delay this for as long as they possibly can. Remember, these career bureaucrats aren’t up for reelection in 3 years the way that politicians are. And Trump, of course, can’t run again. So if they can stall things for long enough, then Trump will be gone and they can hope for a friendlier EPA administrator or a friendlier president who will help them to get their gravy train back on the rails.

Well, this last week has certainly been an exciting one with this announcement coming on the back of the energy department’s report that I covered in a previous video, and it truly looks as though President Trump is serious about completely derailing the climate change gravy train. But watch this space because there is a lot of rich and powerful and well-connected people inside and outside of the US government and the EPA who have a vested financial interest in keeping the gravy train going.

My name’s Topher Field. This is the Topher project and I help busy people like you to keep up with the world as it changes around you. There’s some big moves and changes coming out of the US on the climate front right now and I’m making it my business to help you stay up-to-date with these stories as they change. I am 100% viewer supported. So, if you value this kind of independent media, then please buy me a coffee via the button at topherfield.net. And if you like my videos, then you’ll love my best-selling books. So, head over to goodpeoplebreakbadlaws.com where you’ll find both of my books, plus my DVD documentary, Battleground Melbourne, plus my t-shirts, hoodies, and more.

Thank you for watching all the way to the end. The algorithm loves you and so do I.

Please like, comment what you think about this story, subscribe to help me reach 100,000,

And as always, think free.