1991-2020 vs 1971-2000 30-yr averages:
Albany’s heating degrees days have declined by 503, reducing the energy needed to heat homes by 7.3%.
Mass Turnpike at Interstate 95
Complicated interchange on the outskirts of Boston, made extra complicated by the historical toll booths.
The interesting discussion I got into the other day about climate change 🌎
The other day I was in an interesting discussion about climate change. It was kind of interesting in the sense that it came with a fundamental misunderstanding of how I see the problem and how it relate to the solutions towards it. Often people who are concerned about climate change, mostly see the problem in a collective sense, or one of personal guilt, rather then a personal risk — something to be prepared for and take steps to prevent oneself from becoming a victim of it in the future.
There is a popular trend in the liberal ideology to feel a lot of guilt about the world today. To be concerned about the hungry starving children in India, the poor people loosing their homes and all their belongings to wildlife or floods. People who have a lot less then they do, who ultimately fell into their misfortune by no fault of their own. Some people truly do have bad luck, but also some people bring upon their bad luck by making bad decisions and not being prepared for likely scenarios of the future.
Every other day when I open up Facebook and the Youtube, I see another one of these so-called sustainable investment opportunities and technologies. Endless advertisements for heat pumps, solar panels, renewable energy schemes (SHOUTING GIRL IN YOUTUBE AD: get solar power, now without panels on your roof !!!), electric cars, recycling, organic and vegan food, and endless investment opportunities in sustainable funds. Because if you have money, you can buy your way out of your guilt. Or so we are told by the advertisers, pushing endless amounts of plastic, aluminum, not-so-green chemicals, and electronics upon us. No need to give up the suburbanite way of living, as long as you pay for your sins. I often see these sustainable ads, and have to wonder what Martin Luther would have said about them?
All the evidence suggests that climate change is a big problem that is going to be solved by government action, not individual choices. Buying the right kind of car or properly cleaning out your salad dressing bottle and recycling it isn’t going to stop the planet from getting warmer. Investing in the latest green energy scheme might feel good, but there is no guarantee it will be profitable or even have much of an effect on the warming planet. Feel good actions are nice, but they aren’t really significant if they don’t lead to political change. There is an important place for political activism, and it’s wonderful that some people step up to do it — but political activism shouldn’t cover for personal failings.
My view on climate change is pretty darn simple — it’s going to happen and going to be real bad, especially if politicians fail to enact policies that are dramatic enough to arrest it. There is a lot of denial, especially in “greenie” circles that climate change won’t happen, especially if you buy the right products. Not the big jacked up truck I have, or the fact that I don’t clean out plastic bottles before chucking them in the fire. In this discussion I was having, it was pointed that if I move out to country, with my hobby farm, driving my big jacked-up truck back and forth to the city, my carbon footprint will increase, as will the impacts on the land by farming and living on it compared to my small apartment in city, where I can ride the bus to work, walk to a lot of destinations, and it’s a short drive to the store.
But if you believe that climate change is going to bad, and is almost inevitable as politicians don’t want to enact unpopular policies to slow it, then you have to take a different tack at the problem — namely, taking action to protect oneself from the worse impacts of climate change.
That means first and foremost saving and investing, so you have a liquid asset that can be a means to purchase necessities to survive when shit hits the fan, which is almost inevitable. It also means having land where I can produce a lot of my own food, and an off-grid system that isn’t dependent on a power grid that is likely to have a lot of problems in the future as storms become more severe, more areas flood and trees come down. Where power plants struggle with extreme heat and a wildly fluxing gulf stream. Where civil disorder becomes more common in cities, as people bake and traditional institutions fall. When driveway and roads washouts become more common, and need to be fixed by the farm tractor regularly.
It’s a scary world ahead, and I don’t think I can change it, but I can be prepared for what is going to happen. I can live with less, live simply, and reduce my impacts without buying into all these greenie crap that the marketers are constantly bombarding us with advertising on.
Turn Off from Old Hunter Road
What legal justification was used for repeal of the Endangerment Finding 🌎
Often I find news reporting to be confusing and failing to explain the legal justification used for repeal of the Endangerment Finding. Too often news reports explain the politics and the practical effects without considering the rationale behind the policy for good or bad.
On February 12, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the repeal of the 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding, marking the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.
The repeal was executed through a formal regulatory process that focused on legal reinterpretation rather than scientific disputes.
Key Mechanisms of the Repeal
- Final Rule Rescission: Administrator Lee Zeldin finalized a rule that rescinded the 2009 finding, which had previously determined that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.
- Legal Rationale Over Science: While the initial 2025 proposal included scientific critiques, the final rule relied almost exclusively on legal arguments. The EPA concluded it lacked clear congressional authorization to issue the finding under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
- Statutory Reinterpretation: The EPA argued that “air pollution” in Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA is best read as referring to pollutants with regional effects, not global climate effects.
- Reliance on Judicial Precedent: The agency cited recent Supreme Court decisions, including West Virginia v. EPA (major questions doctrine) and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (overruling Chevron deference), to argue that its previous interpretation of the law was flawed.
Immediate Consequences
- Vehicle Standard Rollbacks: Simultaneously, the EPA repealed all GHG emission standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles.
- Removal of Regulatory Trigger: Since the Endangerment Finding was the legal “trigger” that required the EPA to regulate climate pollution, its removal eliminates the agency’s obligation to maintain GHG limits across multiple sectors.
- Cost Savings Claims: The administration projects the move will save $1.3 trillion in compliance and regulatory costs.
Environmental groups and several states have already pledged to challenge the repeal in court, arguing that the scientific consensus on climate danger remains settled law.
The EPA’s February 2026 repeal of the Endangerment Finding was a surgical legal maneuver that leveraged several high-profile Supreme Court decisions to dismantle the foundation of federal climate regulation.
While the landmark 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA originally forced the agency to consider greenhouse gases, the current EPA argued that more recent rulings have fundamentally changed how the Clean Air Act (CAA) must be interpreted.
The Three Pillars of the EPA’s Legal Justification
- Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)
- The Ruling: Overturned “Chevron deference,” meaning courts no longer defer to an agency’s “reasonable” interpretation of an ambiguous law.
- EPA’s Use: The agency argued it is now required to follow the “fixed, best meaning” of the CAA as it was understood in 1970. It claimed the “best reading” of the term “air pollution” in Section 202(a)(1) refers only to pollutants with local or regional health impacts (like smog), not global atmospheric effects like climate change.
- West Virginia v. EPA (2022)
- The Ruling: Established the “Major Questions Doctrine,” which states that for issues of “vast economic and political significance,” an agency must have “clear congressional authorization” to act.
- EPA’s Use: Administrator Lee Zeldin argued that the 2009 Endangerment Finding launched a “unprecedented course of regulation” that Congress never explicitly authorized in the 1970 Clean Air Act. The EPA concluded it lacked the “clear statement” from Congress required to address global climate change under this doctrine.
- Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA (2014)
- The Ruling: Stated that the EPA cannot use its authority over one type of pollutant (like vehicle emissions) to automatically trigger massive, “unreasonable” regulations across other sectors of the economy.
- EPA’s Use: The agency cited UARG as evidence that the original Massachusetts v. EPA ruling was narrower than previously thought. It argued the finding was an “overreach” because it was used as a “Holy Grail” to justify a wide web of regulations beyond the agency’s statutory limits.
A “Frontal Assault” on Precedent
By relying on these cases, the EPA successfully “sidestepped” the scientific consensus on climate change. Instead of arguing that greenhouse gases are safe, the agency argued that it simply does not have the legal permission to care about them—effectively inviting the Supreme Court to overturn its own 2007 precedent in Massachusetts v. EPA.
Keene NH Land Use
One thing I've always remarked upon about heading out in Southern New Hampshiere is how little farming goes on there these days and how wooded the area really is.
Following Snowshoe Trail Up Blueberry Hill
