By Vijay Jayaraj
Imagine irony to identify a substance as “dangerous” just to determine that the true danger is not in the substance, but in the plot of its defamation. This is the case with carbon dioxide (CO₂) and how it was incorrectly characterized in order to establish suicide policy worldwide.
In 2009, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emphasized its risk finding, which was declared as a pollutant CO – two pounds, each of which we exhale every day. It laid the bureaucratic basis for far -reaching regulations for the elimination of the use of fossil fuels, a goal that contradicts the social goods of reliable energy supply and prosperity.
The hazard finds have been considered the dominant factor for a “dangerous” increase in global temperatures in recent decades.
This regulatory corruption marked the beginning of what can only be referred to as weapons of environmental administration against energy systems based on coal, oil and natural gas that have lived out of poverty since the 19th century.
However, a study by the US Ministry (DOE) in July entitled “A critical review of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on the US climate” corresponded to this nonsense. The document was written by a team of independent scientists with a different background and states that “CO2-induced warming could be economically less harmful than generally assumed, and an excessive aggressive reduction guidelines could prove more useful than beneficial.”
According to this comprehensive analysis, EPA secretary Lee Zeldin proposed that his agency cancel the risk. For everyone who follows the messages, it is already obvious that the current US administration has changed the course of energy policy by stirring the destructive anti-fossil fuel position of the previous bid regime. The abolition of the hazard could be the death blow for a “green” mania that did not cost the world billions of dollars to an advantage.
The question for developing countries is whether their governments continue to tolerate CO₂ hysteria that suffocates domestic economies such as a Boa Constrictor. How long do poorer countries suffer from climate policy that are produced in UN offices and villages imposed without electricity?
Green Energy Vehicles -such as the Paris Agreement and Netto -Null destinations -were encouraged on behalf of the Climate Work, but sabotaged growth, set industrial progress and punish the poor. From the ruthless shift of projects to the development of fossil fuel supply to puppetry behavior from legislators who recite from guidelines that were written by the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, the fingerprints of the green agenda are everywhere.
The projects that have suffered from anti-water cruisers are a 1,445 kilometer pipeline to transport crude oil from Uganda to Tanzania.
The price of climate regulations is ruinous. As the DOE report says, the exorbitant costs that are associated with guidelines such as electric vehicle data, goals and rules for household appliances exceed the fake “social costs of carbon”, which are promoted as part of its pseudo -oscience from the climate industrial complex. Green programs are an embarrassing failure of a rational cost-benefit analysis.
With regard to the actual pollution in the Third World, the recent climate evaluation of the Doe makes a lengthy distinction that mainstream media and bureaucrats have ignored for years. It rightly points out that CO₂ in the traditional, legally defined sense is not a pollutant: “In many ways, CO₂ differs from the so -called criteria that have air pollutants. It does not affect local air quality and has no toxicological effects on people on ambient levels.”
Now it is time that political decision -makers in the development of economies hire the treatment of plant food as a public enemy number one so that their companies can use energy resources that make economic – and ecological sense.
Your economies can no longer wait to remove CO2 -controlled restrictions on energy generation and use, since they do not have the wealth buffer of wealthier nations. The negative effects of anti-fossil fuel policy are already obvious and changes are required to avoid more damage.
This comment was first published on August 16, 2025 by Townhall.
Vijay Jayaraj is a science and research assistant in the CO₂ CO₂ coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He has an MS in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management at Robert Gordon University in Great Britain and a Bachelor engineering at Anna University, India.
Like this:
Load…
Related
Do you discover more from watts?
Subscribe to the latest posts to your e -mail.
