Michael Barbaro

That's right.

And so by late 2022, 2023, Jeff Clark and Russ Vogt are ensconced in a row house in Capitol Hill that Vogt had complained was infested with pigeons and drafting executive orders for a new president to use to eliminate climate protections.

And then at the same time, Gunasekara and Brightbill are collecting what they have called

an arsenal of information to support the repeal of the endangerment finding.

Sure enough, President Trump wins the presidency.

Three out of four of the people that we're talking about here, Bright, Bill, Clark, and Vote, go back into the administration and are able to hand the president a very clear roadmap for the biggest climate deregulation in American history.

And that's what's being followed right now.

We'll be right back.

So, Lisa, once a bunch of these advocates of repealing the endangerment finding end up inside the White House and in a position to actually repeal it, what's the technical case, what's the legal case that they make to try to do that?

So, remember I told you that the Obama administration wrote the endangerment finding because the Supreme Court—

said, in order to regulate these gases, you need to determine that these are harmful to human health and the environment.

So now this administration, the Trump administration, is looking at that finding, and they're saying the science that you used is something we don't agree with, and they're saying the legal rationale is problematic.

So start with the science.

Why do they dispute the science, and is it compelling?

So they have made the case that the predictions that were made about the impacts of climate change back in 2009 were too pessimistic.

Their evidence to support that claim is

is a report that five hand-picked climate contrarians wrote in secret for the Department of Energy last year.

It was designed to support the repeal of the endangerment finding, and no surprise to anyone, the conclusion was that climate change threats have been overblown.

And what multitudes of scientists have told us are two things.

Yeah, the planet is better off than what was predicted in 2009 because the international community has acted, not enough, not fast enough, but has done work towards reducing emissions.