Профиль

I've now wrapped up my first ever class teaching global climate change at Howard University. It was a lot of work doing it for the first time but very fulfilling. The students are great, am proud of the work they did, and am wishing them all the success in the world for the road ahead.

Yes, your EPA which has the mission of protecting your health now assigns zero to the value of protecting your life from environmental harm. fortune.com/2026/04/01/e...

I want to thank my panelists, participants, and student volunteers, again for an insightful #DCClimateWeek event at Howard University. After setting the stage on the urgency of investing in a more resilient future, our panelists shared their expertise about the emerging investability of resilience.

DC Climate Week! *Tomorrow (Tues) I'll be participating in a panel, Climate Careers, Past, Present, and Future, at 10:30am at UofMD lnkd.in/eRDRZsZh *Friday (April 24) 4pm will be moderating a panel at Howard U on Investable Resilience: Turning Climate Metrics into Capital, luma.com/kojy9eaa

Ok! That sounds like a good one over beers.

Every lecture for my climate class @Howard I get to cover an interesting topic (ok, in my very humble opinion) but today is one of my favorites: telling the story of the hugely successful Montreal Protocol and how it provided the template -- and unrealistic expectations - for climate negotiations.

Check out Climatific. New bloggers on climate and the environment. I interviewed with them on the basics of EPA's greenhouse gas endangerment finding and its recent repeal climatific.beehiiv.com/p/understand...

Calling all climate resilience people attending DC Climate Week. Save the date for April 24, 4-6pm. Am putting together an event hosted at Howard University, "Investable Resilience: Turning Climate Metrics into Capital." #DCClimateWeek luma.com/kojy9eaa

Great additional analysis on the EPA repeal of the greenhouse gas endangerment finding from someone who I know knows

EPA's previous analyses showed large net benefits. For the medium/light-duty rule alone, monetized benefits using SCC were on the order of $72B. Yes, now those benefits are assumed to be zero. Couple of us ex-feds who worked on 2009 finding have our commentary here substack.com/home/post/p-...

I love how it sounds like electronica but it's all old school humans playing instruments live

John Hannon and I share our own commentaries about EPA's move to repeal the 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding. Both John and I were members of the EPA team that developed the 2009 finding. bendeangelo.substack.com/p/american-t...

The Supreme Court, not the Obama EPA, ruled that GHGs are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The first draft tech support doc with all supporting science that eventually supported 2009 finding was released for public comment under the Bush Admin.

Today's EPA statement says that the endangerment finding was overreach by the Obama Admin. Actually, this process dates back to 1999 when EPA was petitioned to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act. That led to 2007 Mass v EPA Supreme Court decision which directed EPA to make a science-based finding

Of course EPA has now decided that it will assign the benefits of GHG or other pollution reductions, including lives saved, a value of zero.

EPN pointed out in their comments that the rules EPA is rescinding have positive net benefits. The Clean Car Rule avoids over 3,000 deaths and has annual net benefits of $96 billion. The Clean Truck Rule (phase 3) will save over 100 lives and has annual net benefits of over $10 billion.

Other arguments from last year's proposal seem to be at odds with the 2007 Mass v EPA Supreme Court decision, which held that GHGs meet the Clean Air Act's definition of an air pollutant and directed EPA to make a science-based decision whether GHGs cause endangerment

I'm quoted in this Politico article about the pending repeal of EPA's 2009 GHG endangerment finding which I had a large hand in. We shall see to what extent EPA makes scientific arguments in the repeal. EPA's proposal didn't have compelling scientific justification www.politico.com/news/2026/02...

This EPA decided not to count benefits of pollution controls. No quantified accounting for avoided morbidity and mortality. This abandons decades of cost-benefit practice, economics and science. Claims that $ benefits estimates are too uncertain don't hold water theconversation.com/epas-new-way...

I just posted the second in my Endangerment substack series: thesaraphreport.substack.com/p/did-epa-ge...