We started our discussion with our last guest taking a look at this recent EPA decision on the rollback.
What did you think of the decision overall and what do you think are the impacts from it?
unidentified
Well, thanks very much.
Yeah, on the endangerment finding itself, the EPA's 2009 endangerment finding found that six greenhouse gases were important for public health.
But when you actually look at them and we strip CO2 away, we're talking about nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocardines, hydrogen hexafluoride, things that affect public health on a day-to-day basis.
The endangerment finding itself means it endangers public health and welfare.
And, you know, while the previous guest is correct, the Supreme Court decision didn't say the EPA couldn't consider them.
You probably heard the previous guests talking about the U.S., how the U.S. should take leadership, say, when it comes to China, but he also said China's making its own strides on clean energy.
unidentified
Yeah, well, China's building a new coal-powered plant every other week.
Here's the deal with China.
The previous administration said, well, we agree on climate policy and we can work with them.
I think that was naive at best.
China is concerned about global energy dominance.
China is concerned about traditional notions of energy security.
China wants every molecule of energy they can get and they don't care where it comes from.
China isn't serious about Paris Climate Change Accords, or they wouldn't have an unlimited pass to pollute as much as they want through the end of the decade.
That's just not realistic.
And I think we have to understand that we're in a great power competition with China.
Yes, we want energy security.
That means we have to have affordable, available, and resilient forms of energy that we can use on a day-to-day basis.
And yeah, that energy mix is going to change over time.