Podcasts about Clean Air Act

As the Trump administration rolls back environmental regulations, we revisit a 2022 episode that explored the hidden cost of an invisible threat: air pollution.   SOURCES: Angela Duckworth, psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania. Michael Greenstone, economist at the University of Chicago, director of the Energy Policy Institute, co-director of the Climate Impact Lab. Stephan Heblich, economist at the University of Toronto. Andrea La Nauze, economist at Deakin University. Steve Levitt, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Chicago. Edson Severnini, economist at Boston College.   RESOURCES: "Most Polluted Cities," (American Lung Association, 2026). "Air Pollution and Adult Cognition: Evidence from Brain Training," by Andrea La Nauze and Edson Severnini (Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 2025). "Air Pollution and Student Performance in the U.S.," by Michael Gilraine and Angela Zheng (NBER Working Papers, 2022). "Billions of people still breathe unhealthy air: new WHO data," (World Health Organization, 2022). "Evolution of the Clean Air Act," by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (2020). "The Death of U.K. Coal in Five Charts," by Hannah Ritchie (Our World in Data, 2019). "The Colour of Pollution," (The Economist, 2014). Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Share your Field Stories!We're LIVE from NAEP 2026 in Anchorage! Nic leads a special on-stage episode featuring Anna Kohl, Carolyn Nelson, and Fred Wagner as they dive into Alaska's unique environmental landscape, NEPA challenges, and the realities of project delivery. With candid insights, legal perspectives, and memorable field stories, this live recording captures the humor, complexity, and energy of environmental work in action.Welcome back to Environmental Professionals Radio, Connecting the Environmental Professionals Community Through Conversation, with your hosts Laura Thorne and Nic Frederick! Help us continue to create great content! If you'd like to sponsor a future episode hit the support podcast button or visit www.environmentalprofessionalsradio.com/sponsor-form Please be sure to ✔️subscribe, ⭐rate and ✍review. This podcast is produced by the National Association of Environmental Professions (NAEP). Check out all the NAEP has to offer at NAEP.org.Connect with Anna Kohl at https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-kohl-cep-8184159/Guest Bio:Anna Kohl was born and raised in Anchorage and left for college before realizing there was much to explore back home. She obtained a BA in Geology from Mount Holyoke College and worked in coffee shops and remediation before landing at HDR Engineering in 2004, where she has been ever since. Anna's technical background is in the NEPA and impact analysis/environmental science fields, though she currently is the Operations Manager for 150 engineers, planners, scientists, GIS professionals, and other smart folks who make up HDR in Alaska. An active member of NAEP and a Trustee of ABCEP, she obtained a certificate in NEPA from the Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment in 2012 and her CEP in 2017.Connect with Carolyn Nelson at https://www.linkedin.com/in/carolyn-nelson-p-e-02768977/Guest Bio:Carolyn Nelson is responsible for providing technical assistance for NEPA compliance and other related environmental laws and Executive Orders as Director of Environmental Analysis & Compliance Division of PHMSA.  Carolyn has over 30 years' experience as a geometric design engineer and NEPA practitioner.  She was Co-Chair of the White House Interagency Council (IAC), NEPA Committee and is recognized as a national expert for NEPA compliance. Carolyn has worked at Headquarters of the FHWA and also in the FHWA Michigan Division Office. Prior to FHWA, she worked for the Michigan DOT and CH2M Hill (now Jacobs).Connect with Fred Wagner at https://linkedin.com/in/fred-wagner-59043019Guest Bio:Fred Wagner focuses on environmental and natural resources issues concerning major infrastructure, including surface transportation, energy, mining, and commercial project development. Fred advises clients on environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act or equivalent state statutes. He also helps secure permits and approvals from regulators under a variety of federal programs, including Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. Fred provides strategic counseling regarding implementation of the full spectrum of federal environmental programs, as well as U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) surface transportation grant management and safety regulations. Prior to joining Jacobs, Fred represented a wide variety of developers, public entities, and businesses in environmental, land use, and natural resources litigation in federal trial and appellate courts across the country, from citizen suits to government enforcement actions and Administration Procedure Act (APA) challenges. Most recently, Fred was counsel of record in the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition NEPA case before the U.S. Supreme Court.Music CreditsIntro: Givin Me Eyes by Grace MesaOutro: Never Ending Soul Groove by Mattijs MullerSupport the showThanks for listening! A new episode drops every Friday. Like, share, subscribe, and/or sponsor to help support the continuation of the show. You can find us on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and all your favorite podcast players. 

How did Arizona lock in billion-dollar investments from TSMC, Intel, and LG Energy? Ian O'Grady, Senior Policy Advisor to Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs, joins ChinaTalk to share war stories from the state that's successfully reshoring semiconductor and battery production. Our conversation covers: Labor Disputes and Crisis Management — How the Governor's Office mediates disagreements between stakeholders and keeps workers happy. Clean Air Act vs. chips — Why Arizona's fabs struggled to get building permits despite the state's low per-capita emissions. Arizona's Abundance Playbook — Including a consolidated commerce authority, a culture of engineering > litigation, and institutional factors that help Arizona outbuild Ohio and Texas. Taiwanifying the Desert — How Phoenix welcomed TSMC engineers with Mandarin programs in schools, Din Tai Fung, and a new Costco. Industrial Policy Resource Wars — How Arizona avoids backlash based on power and water use concerns. Co-hosting is ChinaTalk researcher Aqib Zakaria. Cadillac Desert by Marc Reisner Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

With the growth of the administrative state over the last half-century, an equal expansion has occurred in the number of actions committable by individual citizens that can be prosecuted as crimes. At President Trump’s direction, the U.S. Department of Justice has initiated a new round of reforms aimed at ending “over-criminalization” of the Nation’s complex web of regulatory laws and standards. Most recently, DOJ announced that it was exercising enforcement discretion to dismiss several Biden-era prosecutions of individuals charged with violating the Clean Air Act who were alleged to have tampered with emissions-related diagnostic systems on cars and trucks. Supporters of the Biden-era policies and critics of this new policy argue that such emissions control deliver considerable benefits to the owner in the form of better fuel efficiency, and to society, in the form of cleaner air, and that this is a step backwards in environmental enforcement. This panel will discuss DOJ’s traditional approaches to criminal enforcement of administrative laws and regulations and offer viewpoints on recent reforms and changes to criminal enforcement in the current administration. Discussion will focus, in particular, on the DOJ’s decision to end criminal prosecutions of individuals for vehicle tampering cases under the Clean Air Act.Featuring:Granta Nakayama, Partner, King & Spalding LLPJustin Savage, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP(Moderator) John Irving, Partner, Secil Law

Right now, the state of California has a very litigious relationship with the federal government. Currently our state is actively working on 67 separate lawsuits against Trump's administration. The legal disputes range from tariffs, public housing funding, sanctuary city policies, ICE agents wearing masks and even birth right citizenship.And, something notable is that almost a quarter of all the lawsuits are related to protecting our environment. Staying on top of all the litigation is the job of our state's Attorney General Rob Bonta. A few weeks ago he visited our live event space in downtown San Francisco to talk with Ethan Elkind, the host of KALW's show Climate Break.Bonta spoke about one of the most crucial climate lawsuits that is in the court system right now, the fight for our state's Clean Air Act. Nearly half of our carbon emissions come from transportation, but last year the US Senate voted to block California's mandate to phase out gas-powered cars by 2035.  In this excerpt, Bonta gives an update on how the lawsuit to protect the Clean Air Act is progressing…

California is suing the federal government to save our Clean Air Act. Today, a conversation with our Attorney General Rob Bonta. Then, the lead singer of the band Electric Ex explains the process behind their new album Analog Therapy. Plus, authors read from their books about nature, and humanity.

In 2025, New Hampshire lawmakers passed a measure to eliminate their annual motor vehicle inspection requirement, effective Jan. 31, 2026. The vendor that had overseen the state’s vehicle inspections, Gordon-Darby Holdings Inc., challenged that measure, filing a lawsuit. The state was made aware by federal and state officials that repealing the inspection program without first obtaining the EPA’s approval regarding federal environmental law would violate the Clean Air Act. The program was repealed without approval first, leading to further legal proceedings and public confusion. What are your thoughts on eliminating annual motor vehicle inspections? NH House Majority Leader Rep. Jason Osborne checked in to bring clarity to the topic!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In 2025, New Hampshire lawmakers passed a measure to eliminate their annual motor vehicle inspection requirement, effective Jan. 31, 2026. The vendor that had overseen the state’s vehicle inspections, Gordon-Darby Holdings Inc., challenged that measure, filing a lawsuit. The state was made aware by federal and state officials that repealing the inspection program without first obtaining the EPA’s approval regarding federal environmental law would violate the Clean Air Act. The program was repealed without approval first, leading to further legal proceedings and public confusion. What are your thoughts on eliminating annual motor vehicle inspections?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mike Hoeflich, Mike Lomas, and Russ Gaiser open with the latest assassination attempt targeting President Trump and members of his administration, calling out what they see as repeated, inexcusable failures in Secret Service security protocols. The conversation moves to the ongoing U.S./Iran standoff around the Strait of Hormuz, where the guys reflect on Trump's strategic approach to the region and what a lasting resolution could mean for the Middle East. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin gets a moment in the spotlight after a viral congressional exchange with purple-haired Rep. Rosa DeLauro over climate policy and the Clean Air Act, with the hosts breaking down Zeldin's composed response and their frustrations with climate alarmism more broadly. The back half of the show covers AI's growing role in financial advising, with Russ sharing takeaways from a recent conference and Mike Lomas drawing parallels between today's AI adoption curve and earlier technology waves he lived through. The episode wraps with Mike Lomas recapping his first NHRA national event, a conversation on winner's mindset, and Sabers playoff predictions ahead of Game 5.(00:00:52) Enhancing Security Measures for Presidential Protection(00:11:21) Ineffective Communication in National Security Agencies(00:12:32) Intellectual Dynamics in Political Interviews(00:17:14) Urban Tree Planting for Environmental Sustainability(00:21:03) AI Tools Enhancing Financial Advisors' Efficiency(00:30:22) Believing in Success: Power of Positive Thinking

Sarah Light, Wharton Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics, examines how efforts to repeal the EPA's endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act could limit federal regulatory authority while opening the door to expanded state-level nuisance lawsuits against power plants and fossil fuel companies. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The EPA's 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding has been the legal foundation for U.S. climate regulation under the Clean Air Act for over a decade. In February, the Trump administration repealed it. That move puts the future of federal climate policy in question. Professor Alejandro Camacho explains what the endangerment finding did and why it mattered for policies ranging from vehicle emissions to power plant rules. Drawing on his new book, he also puts this moment in context: showing how earlier waves of environmental policymaking took shape in the 1960s and '70s, and why today's approach is marked by polarization, legal battles, and uncertainty. For more on this topic: Check out the book Camacho coauthored, Lessons for a Warming Planet: A Vital History of US Environmental Law Read his commentary in Legal Planet, The Trump Administration is Squandering Our Natural Heritage Read his op-ed in The Hill, Donald Trump's record-breaking race to wreck the planet   

I'm excited to welcome my friend, Ross Pifer, from Penn State University Dickinson School of Law to the show.  Ross and I are chatting about the right to repair.  What is controversial about the right to repair?  Why is this such a concern for agriculture?  What should we know about the recent John Deere settlement?  Ross helps answer these questions and more!   Contact Info for Ross Pifer - Website   Topics Mentioned in the Show -Center for Ag and Shale Law website -Penn State Ag Law Newsletter -Penn State Shale Law Newsletter -Penn State Agricultural Law Podcast -Prior Right to Repair podcast episode with Todd Janzen -EPA statement that Clean Air Act supports farmer right to repair  -Article on John Deere settlement -Article on FTC v. John Deere case Ag Law Resources -AgriPulse -Texas Agriculture Law Blog -National Agriculutral Law Center -Ohio State Ag Law Blog -Iowa State Center for Ag Law and Taxation Ag Docket Sponsors  

Fifty-six years ago, the first Earth Day helped spark a generation of landmark environmental legislation — and the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) was born from that same moment. On this Earth Day 2026, host Sebastian Duque Rios sits down with ELI President Jordan Diamond and Senior Attorney Jay Austin to trace the arc of environmental law from that founding era to the compounding crises of today.Together, they reflect on how statutes like NEPA and the Clean Air Act were designed with more foresight than we often credit them for, why adaptive management is baked into the DNA of environmental law, and how ELI is responding to an era of rapid institutional change — from regulatory rollbacks and executive action to the governance challenges posed by emerging industries like deep sea mining, geothermal energy, and data centers. They also dig into ELI's new collaboration with the Federation of American Scientists' (FAS) Center for Regulatory Ingenuity and their joint white paper laying out a framework for rebuilding and reimagining environmental governance fit for the 21st century.This episode is a candid, long-view conversation about what it takes to protect people, places, and the planet. For more information on other emerging topics in environmental law, see our recent episode, "What's Next for Environmental Law in 2026." ★ Support this podcast ★

Back on this day in 1970, the first ever Earth Day was celebrated. The reason it came about in the first place was because there was no Environmental Protection Agency, no Clean Water Act, no Clean Air Act.

For the second week in a row, the 3WHH gang (minus one) were on the road, this time recording live in the corner of a hotel lobby before the annual meeting of the Philadelphia Society. The sound quality of this episode is . . . authentic. Yes, I'll go with that. John Yoo couldn't make the meeting, so we have a special guest, our old pal Glenn Ellmers. With John absent, we get our freak on about the Clean Air Act . . . actually we didn't do that. We did worse: We get down in the weeds of metaphysics, radical historicism, the theological-political problem (especially in the context of this week's feud between the President and the Pope), dishing on Laura Field's terrible book Furious Minds, contrasting Justice Sotomayor's jurisprudence of "feels" versus Justice Thomas's jurisprudence of principle—the principle of the Declaration of Independence. And finally, we take up the perennial question, what's the matter with kids today. And as such the exit music this week is "Kids," from moe:Kids will try to run you overKids will try to bring you downKids will never say they're sorryKids back then are older now

What happens when lawsuits quietly shape public policy—without a full trial, public scrutiny, or legislative debate? In this episode of Sanity Check, David R. Legates unpacks the controversial practice known as “sue-and-settle.”What begins as a seemingly straightforward legal mechanism—citizens holding agencies accountable—can, in practice, become something far more complex. Through negotiated settlements between advocacy groups and federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, binding regulations can emerge behind closed doors, often bypassing the traditional rulemaking process and limiting public input.This episode walks through how sue-and-settle works, why it's been used under laws like the Clean Air Act, and where the real controversy lies: accountability, transparency, and the balance of power in a democratic system. With millions in taxpayer-funded legal fees and far-reaching regulatory consequences at stake, critics argue this approach amounts to “regulation through litigation.”Is sue-and-settle an efficient tool for enforcing the law—or a loophole that sidelines the public and reshapes policy without consent?Tune in for a clear-eyed breakdown of one of the most debated—and least understood—mechanisms in modern environmental governance.https://openthebooks.substack.com/p/trump-epa-ends-exorbitant-pay-outshttps://www.uschamber.com/regulations/sue-and-settle-regulating-behind-closed-doorshttps://virginialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Tyson_Book.pdfhttps://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/environmentalists-sue-settle-and-apologize-laterVisit our podcast resource page: https://cornwallalliance.org/listen%20to%20our%20podcast%20created%20to%20reign/Our work is entirely supported by donations from people like you. If you benefit from our work and would like to partner with us, please visit www.cornwallalliance.org/donate. 

This Day in Legal History: McDonald's Franchise OpeningOn this day in 1955, Ray Kroc opened his first franchise location for McDonald's in Des Plaines, Illinois, marking a turning point in American business and legal history. Although franchising existed before this moment, Kroc's model introduced a new level of uniformity and control that reshaped how franchise systems operate. He required strict adherence to standardized procedures, branding, and product quality, which became central features of modern franchise agreements. These agreements are legally binding contracts that define the relationship between franchisors and franchisees, including fees, territorial rights, and operational obligations. As McDonald's expanded rapidly, it exposed gaps in existing business laws governing franchising practices. This growth led to increased scrutiny over issues such as disclosure requirements and fairness in contract terms.By the 1970s, concerns about deceptive practices and unequal bargaining power prompted regulatory responses, including the Federal Trade Commission's Franchise Rule. This rule requires franchisors to provide detailed disclosures to prospective franchisees, improving transparency and reducing fraud. Kroc's model also raised legal questions about liability, particularly whether franchisors could be held responsible for the actions of independently owned franchise locations. Courts have since developed tests to determine the level of control necessary to establish such liability. Additionally, franchise law has evolved to address disputes over termination rights and non-compete clauses. The McDonald's system became a case study in how private contracts can shape an entire industry's legal framework. Today, franchising remains a major part of the global economy, with legal standards that can be traced back to the system Kroc helped popularize.The NAACP filed a lawsuit against xAI in federal court in Mississippi, alleging that the company violated environmental laws while operating a gas-powered plant tied to its data center near Memphis. The complaint claims xAI built and ran the plant without obtaining required permits under the Clean Air Act. According to the NAACP, the plant emits harmful pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and formaldehyde, which are linked to serious health risks including asthma, heart conditions, and cancer. The organization argues that these emissions disproportionately affect nearby communities with large Black populations.The lawsuit also alleges that xAI deliberately avoided regulatory oversight by skipping the permitting process, which would have required pollution controls and environmental review. The plant is described as a major regional source of smog-forming emissions, potentially releasing large quantities of pollutants into the air. The NAACP is seeking court orders to halt operations until proper permits are obtained, require emission controls, and impose financial penalties for violations. The case reflects broader concerns about environmental justice, corporate compliance, and the rapid expansion of infrastructure supporting artificial intelligence technologies.NAACP Sues Musk's XAI Over Data Center Pollution In Miss. - Law360Albertsons has agreed in principle to pay $773 million to resolve claims brought by several states, local governments, and Native American tribes over its alleged role in the opioid crisis. The agreement involves attorneys general from states including California, Colorado, Illinois, and Oregon, though some terms—such as requirements for future conduct—are still being negotiated. The states claim the company contributed to the public health crisis through its pharmacy operations, while Albertsons maintains the settlement does not admit wrongdoing.This deal is part of a broader wave of opioid-related litigation targeting companies across the pharmaceutical supply chain. Governments have accused pharmacies, distributors, and manufacturers of contributing to widespread addiction through improper practices. Other major settlements, including those involving Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family, have pushed total payouts in opioid cases beyond $50 billion nationwide.Funds from the Albertsons settlement are expected to support addiction treatment, prevention, and recovery programs, with allocation plans already in place in some states. Officials emphasized that these settlements aim to both address past harm and fund ongoing efforts to combat the opioid epidemic.State AGs, Albertsons Chain Reach $773M Opioid Deal - Law360Amazon has agreed to acquire Globalstar for about $11.6 billion as part of its push into satellite-based internet services. The deal will give Amazon access to Globalstar's satellite network, spectrum rights, and infrastructure, helping expand its low Earth orbit (LEO) system aimed at providing global connectivity without relying on traditional cell towers.Under the agreement, Globalstar shareholders can receive either cash or Amazon stock, with the total deal value capped at $90 per share. A majority of Globalstar shareholders have already approved the transaction, but it still requires regulatory clearance and fulfillment of certain operational conditions before closing, which is slotted for 2027.The acquisition positions Amazon to compete more directly in the growing satellite internet market, where companies like SpaceX's Starlink currently dominate. Globalstar's existing technology and planned satellite upgrades are expected to strengthen Amazon's ability to deliver direct-to-device connectivity worldwide. The deal also ties into Amazon's partnership with Apple, supporting satellite features on devices like iPhones and Apple Watches.Paul Weiss, Skadden Lead Amazon's $11.6B Globalstar Deal - Law360A law student at Texas Tech University has filed a federal lawsuit claiming the school violated her First Amendment rights by disciplining her over comments about the killing of Charlie Kirk. The student, Ellen Fisher, alleges she was unfairly singled out for punishment while other students who discussed the same topic were not disciplined. She received a written reprimand, which she argues could negatively affect her ability to become a licensed attorney.Fisher maintains that her statements were part of normal academic discussion and did not celebrate Kirk's death, despite claims from at least one witness. She also argues the university's investigation was flawed because it ignored testimony supporting her version of events. The university concluded her remarks could have been perceived as celebratory and violated professional conduct standards.The lawsuit seeks to block the disciplinary action, obtain damages, and secure a ruling that the university infringed on her constitutional free speech rights. The case comes amid broader national debates over campus speech and how universities respond to controversial or sensitive political discussions.Texas law student sues to stop sanctions over Charlie Kirk comments | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

I sit down with Evan Raskin, National Campaign Manager for Earthday.org, to explore the powerful relationship between art and environmental activism. Evan shares how artists have been central to the Earth Day movement since its very first gathering in 1970 and how creative expression continues to drive climate action today.Evan shares his own life as an artist and how art helps him find harmony in a world full of dissonance. We discuss why collective action — starting at the local level — matters more than ever.

Linn Bumpers speaks with former EPA attorneys Matt Morrison and Matt Trawick about how the second Trump administration is reshaping federal environmental enforcement. They break down the shift toward deregulation, reduced civil and criminal actions, and increasing reliance on states and NGOs, while noting which core programs—like PFAS, RMP, and Clean Air Act cases—remain active. The discussion highlights the Compliance First memo, implications of staffing cuts, and what a more fragmented enforcement landscape means for companies navigating federal and state requirements.  

A flood can wipe out a classic car in minutes, but it can also set up a comeback you never saw coming. From the Lupe' Tortilla Tailpipes and Tacos cruise-in in Beaumont, we sit down with Charlie Domain and his white 1968 Chevelle SS convertible, a numbers-matching 396 big block that looks as clean underneath as it does in the sun. Charlie walks us through how he found it, how he cares for it, and why a black-and-white muscle car still stops people mid-conversation at a car show. The best part is the origin story. Charlie lost a Buick Skylark GS to Hurricane Harvey, then took a friend's advice to get out of the house and head to the Mecum auction. He targeted a no-reserve Chevelle, landed it for $42,000 plus fees, and realized the final paperwork was being signed with a check that matched what he'd just been paid for the flooded car. We also dig into the details that spark real debate in the classic car world: Baldwin decals that hint at dealer-era performance culture, an automatic column-shift setup, optic lighting, and a bench seat mystery that points across the street to Buick. Then we zoom out to everything else car people care about. We run through the racing calendar with NHRA, NASCAR at Darlington, IndyCar, and Formula 1 schedule updates. “This Week in Auto History” connects Ford's moving assembly line to the explosion of car culture, then tracks big-block milestones and the Clean Air Act's impact on muscle cars before efficient icons like the Honda Civic took off. We finish with straight automotive news: Honda's shifting EV plans around the Prologue and a Hyundai engine recall lawsuit that shows how costly recall decisions can get. Subscribe, share this with a fellow car nerd, and leave a review so more people can find the show. What's the best classic car comeback story you've ever seen?Be sure to subscribe for more In Wheel Time Car Talk!The Lupe' Tortilla RestaurantsLupe Tortilla in Katy, Texas Gulf Coast Auto ShieldPaint protection, tint, and more!Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.----  ----- Want more In Wheel Time car talk any time?     In Wheel Time is now available on Audacy!  Just go to Audacy.com/InWheelTime where ever you are.-----   -----Be sure to subscribe on your favorite podcast provider for the next episode of In Wheel Time Podcast and check out our live multiplatform broadcast every Saturday, 10a - 12nCT simulcasting on Audacy, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Twitch and InWheelTime.com.In Wheel Time Podcast can be heard on you mobile device from providers such as:Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music Podcast, Spotify, SiriusXM Podcast, iHeartRadio podcast, TuneIn + Alexa, Podcast Addict, Castro, Castbox, YouTube Podcast and more on your mobile device.Follow InWheelTime.com for the latest updates!Twitter: https://twitter.com/InWheelTimeInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/inwheeltime/https://www.youtube.com/inwheeltimehttps://www.Facebook.com/InWheelTimeFor more information about In Wheel Time Podcast, email us at info@inwheeltime.com

Biodiversity is collapsing under the pressures of human overpopulation, overconsumption, and animal agriculture. Tierra Curry and Stephanie Feldstein of the Center for Biological Diversity explain how science, law, and advocacy can protect wildlife and wild places. They also share strategies for combating extinction and staying motivated to act in an age of ecological crisis. Highlights include: Why human population pressure, industrial animal agriculture, and growth economies are key issues that the Center addresses, even though they are often ignored or treated as taboo by most environmental organizations; How rapid, human-driven extinctions are mutilating the tree of life, and why biodiversity is essential not just for wellbeing and thriving of all the species, but also for human survival; How water and other ecosystems in the U.S. are threatened by lax regulation, industrial agriculture, and political attacks on protections like the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and Clean Air Act; Why industrial agriculture's promotion of pasture grazing and regenerative agriculture is based on myths, and what the facts show about meat reduction as the most effective strategy to preserve habitats and wild animals; How positive change requires both individual action, such as plant-based diets, and collective political action to protect ecosystems and biodiversity; Why love of the natural world spurs both Stephanie and Tierra to action, despite immense ecological grief. See episode website for show notes, links, and transcript:  https://www.populationbalance.org/podcast/stephanie-feldstein-tierra-curry   OVERSHOOT | Shrink Toward Abundance OVERSHOOT tackles today's interlocked social and ecological crises driven by humanity's excessive population and consumption. The podcast explores needed narrative, behavioral, and system shifts for recreating human life in balance with all life on Earth. With expert guests from wide-ranging disciplines, we examine the forces underlying overshoot: from patriarchal pronatalism that is fueling overpopulation, to growth-biased economic systems that lead to consumerism and social injustice, to the dominant worldview of human supremacy that subjugates animals and nature. Our vision of shrinking toward abundance inspires us to seek pathways of transformation that go beyond technological fixes toward a new humanity that honors our interconnectedness with all beings.  Hosted by Nandita Bajaj and Alan Ware. Brought to you by Population Balance. Subscribe to our newsletter here: https://www.populationbalance.org/subscribe Support our work with a one-time or monthly donation: https://www.populationbalance.org/donate Learn more at https://www.populationbalance.org Copyright 2016-2026 Population Balance

In this episode, host Kristin Hayes sits down with Resources for the Future (RFF) Senior Fellow Bryan Hubbell to look back at Hubbell's public-service career at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As an environmental economist, Hubbell led efforts to integrate the social sciences into EPA's environmental policy research and establish methods to calculate the benefits of clean air. Under his leadership, EPA developed the Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program, which has provided an accessible and rigorous way to evaluate the impacts of air-pollution regulations. The quantification and monetization of air-quality benefits are foundational to benefit-cost analyses, which Hubbell stresses are crucial to well-informed policy decisionmaking. Hubbell maintains that recent efforts to remove benefit calculations from federal benefit-cost analysis practices do not stack up against the years of stringent testing and research invested into creating these measures. References and recommendations: “If/Then: Ignoring the Benefits of Air Pollution Regulations Will Lead to Worse Policy Decisions” by Bryan Hubbell and Alan Krupnick; https://www.resources.org/common-resources/ifthen-ignoring-the-benefits-of-air-pollution-regulations-will-lead-to-worse-policy-decisions/ “How the US Environmental Protection Agency Got It Wrong About Monetizing Benefits of Air Pollution Regulations” by Bryan Hubbell and Alan Krupnick; https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/how-the-us-environmental-protection-agency-got-it-wrong-about-monetizing-benefits-of-air-pollution-regulations/ “Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990–2020” from the US Environmental Protection Agency; https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/benefits-and-costs-clean-air-act-1990-2020-report-documents-and-graphics “Estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air Pollution Regulations” from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; https://www.nationalacademies.org/publications/10511 “Particles of Truth: A Story of Discovery, Controversy, and the Fight for Healthy Air” by C. Arden Pope III and Douglas W. Dockery; https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/771621/particles-of-truth-by-c-arden-pope-iii-and-douglas-w-dockery-foreword-by-gina-mccarthy/ “The Heat Will Kill You First: Life and Death on a Scorched Planet” by Jeff Goodell; https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/jeff-goodell/the-heat-will-kill-you-first/9780316497558/ Subscribe to stay up to date on podcast episodes, news, and research from Resources for the Future: https://www.rff.org/subscribe/

This Day in Legal History: Butler ActOn March 13, 1925, the Tennessee General Assembly approved the Butler Act, a statute that made it unlawful for public school teachers to present any theory that denied the biblical account of human creation. The law specifically prohibited teaching that humans evolved from lower forms of life, reflecting growing tensions between scientific ideas and religious beliefs in early twentieth-century America. Tennessee lawmakers framed the statute as a way to protect traditional moral values in public education. Critics, however, immediately argued that the law restricted academic freedom and undermined the teaching of modern science.The controversy quickly escalated when a young teacher, John T. Scopes, agreed to challenge the statute. Scopes was charged with violating the Butler Act after he allowed evolution to be discussed in his classroom. His prosecution led to the famous 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial in Dayton, Tennessee. The trial drew national attention and featured two of the era's most prominent legal figures: Clarence Darrow for the defense and William Jennings Bryan for the prosecution. Their courtroom clash turned the case into a dramatic public debate over science, religion, and the role of government in shaping school curricula.Although Scopes was ultimately convicted and fined $100, the trial exposed deep cultural divisions within the United States. Media coverage portrayed the proceedings as a symbolic struggle between modern scientific thinking and religious fundamentalism. Over time, the Butler Act came to be seen by many as an example of government overreach into education and intellectual inquiry. Tennessee formally repealed the statute in 1967, decades after the trial had become a lasting symbol of the conflict between science and law.Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review her ongoing challenge to a suspension imposed by her fellow judges. In a petition filed Thursday, the 98-year-old judge argues that the D.C. Circuit wrongly ruled that courts cannot review many challenges to judicial suspension orders under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. Newman contends that the statute should allow review when suspension decisions violate the law or the Constitution. Her petition claims the lower court misinterpreted the law by blocking challenges to actions that exceed the authority granted under the statute. Newman argues that her suspension effectively removes her from the bench without impeachment, which she says undermines constitutional protections for judicial independence and lifetime tenure.The Federal Circuit's judicial council first suspended Newman in 2023 after concerns that potential mental or physical health issues made her unable to perform judicial duties. The suspension followed her refusal to undergo medical evaluations requested by her colleagues and was characterized as serious misconduct. Although the suspension was initially set for one year, it has been renewed twice. Newman appealed through the internal judicial review process, but a national committee of judges upheld the suspension in 2024. She also challenged the suspension in federal court, arguing that parts of the judicial discipline law are unconstitutional. Both a district court and the D.C. Circuit dismissed the case, relying on a statutory provision stating that disciplinary orders under the act are final and not subject to judicial review. Newman now asks the Supreme Court to clarify whether courts may still review suspension orders that allegedly exceed legal or constitutional limits.Judge Newman Takes Suspension Battle To Supreme Court - Law36098-year-old judge asks US Supreme Court to hear case over her suspension | ReutersThe U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has begun the process of developing regulations for prediction markets, issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and asking the public for input on how the industry should be governed. The agency said the move is intended to support innovation while ensuring prediction markets operate within the framework of the Commodity Exchange Act. Interest in regulation has grown as more companies apply to register as designated contract markets, with many applications coming from prediction market platforms. These platforms allow users to trade on the outcomes of events such as sports games, elections, and entertainment awards.The CFTC is seeking feedback on several issues, including whether margin trading should be allowed, what types of event contracts might be harmful to the public interest, and whether individuals with insider knowledge should be restricted from trading on certain outcomes. At the same time, the agency released staff guidance reminding platforms to avoid contracts that could be easily manipulated, such as those tied to specific player injuries or actions by a single referee. The guidance also explains that platforms can list new contracts through a self-certification process, although the CFTC can intervene if it believes a contract violates the law.The regulatory effort comes amid ongoing legal disputes about who has authority over prediction markets. The CFTC maintains that it has exclusive jurisdiction, while several states have attempted to regulate or restrict these platforms under gambling laws. Meanwhile, members of Congress have introduced legislation that would ban certain types of event contracts, including those related to violence or death, and strengthen rules against insider trading on prediction markets.CFTC Proposes Prediction Markets Rule - Law360CFTC Seeks Public Comment on Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Relating to Prediction MarketsThe Trump administration has filed a lawsuit against California seeking to block the state's Advanced Clean Cars I (ACC I) regulations, arguing that the rules unlawfully interfere with federal authority over vehicle fuel economy standards. The lawsuit, brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation, targets California rules adopted in 2012 that require automakers to sell increasing numbers of low-emission and zero-emission vehicles. Federal officials claim the regulations effectively force manufacturers to meet stricter nationwide standards and function as a quota system for electric vehicles.According to the complaint, California cannot impose its own limits on vehicle emissions because the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act gives the federal government authority to set fuel-economy standards through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The administration argues that California's requirements could increase vehicle prices, reduce consumer choice, and disrupt the national auto market. Federal officials also say Congress revoked certain Clean Air Act waivers in 2025 that previously allowed California to enforce some emissions rules.California leaders strongly dispute the lawsuit and say the state is defending policies designed to reduce pollution and expand access to cleaner vehicles. State officials argue the federal government is attempting to undermine California's environmental regulations and its efforts to lead the transition to cleaner transportation. The lawsuit is part of a broader series of legal disputes between the federal government and California over vehicle emissions standards and electric-vehicle mandates.Feds Sue To Stop California's ‘Illegal' EV Regulations - Law360U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) told a federal court that it is making progress on a system to refund about $166 billion in tariffs that were ruled unlawful. According to a court filing, the agency's four-part refund system is between 40% and 80% complete, with the review portion the most developed and the mass-processing component the least finished. The system will include an online portal where importers and brokers can submit claims for reimbursement.The filing was submitted to the U.S. Court of International Trade in response to an order from a judge directing the government to begin refunding tariffs after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down most of the tariffs in February. The Court's decision invalidated tariffs collected since February 2024 but did not explain how refunds should be handled. CBP previously suggested building a new system to process claims rather than using its existing process, and officials say the new portal could begin accepting applications as soon as mid-April.More than 330,000 importers paid the tariffs on roughly 53 million shipments, though only about 21,000 importers are currently registered to receive refunds. Refunds will go only to the companies that originally paid the tariffs, and there is no legal requirement that businesses pass the money on to consumers. Some companies, including FedEx, have said they will reimburse customers, while Costco indicated it may lower prices using the refunded funds. Meanwhile, new legal disputes are emerging as businesses and states challenge additional tariffs imposed after the Supreme Court ruling.US customs agency says building system for tariff refunds is 40% to 80% complete | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Share your Field Stories!Welcome back to Environmental Professionals Radio, Connecting the Environmental Professionals Community Through Conversation, with your hosts Laura Thorne and Nic Frederick! On today's episode, we talk with Fred Wager, Principal Environmental Regulatory Advisor with Jacobs about The Endangerments Clause, Updates to ESA, and the Future of WOTUS.   Read his full bio below.Help us continue to create great content! If you'd like to sponsor a future episode hit the support podcast button or visit www.environmentalprofessionalsradio.com/sponsor-form Showtimes: 0:29 - Cute animal facts!1:28 - Navigating travel chaos10:39 - Interview with Fred Wagner starts16:15 - Unpacking the Endangerment Clause and Major Questions Doctrine 27:47 - The future of WOTUS and endangered species act interpretations37:44 - Examining Section 106 and historic preservation challenges40:53 - Optimism, regulatory resilience, and concluding thoughtsPlease be sure to ✔️subscribe, ⭐rate and ✍review. This podcast is produced by the National Association of Environmental Professions (NAEP). Check out all the NAEP has to offer at NAEP.org.Connect with Fred Wagner at linkedin.com/in/fred-wagner-59043019Guest Bio:Fred Wagner focuses on environmental and natural resources issues concerning major infrastructure, including surface transportation, energy, mining, and commercial project development. Fred advises clients on environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act or equivalent state statutes. He also helps secure permits and approvals from regulators under a variety of federal programs, including Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. Fred provides strategic counseling regarding implementation of the full spectrum of federal environmental programs, as well as U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) surface transportation grant management and safety regulations. Prior to joining Jacobs, Fred represented a wide variety of developers, public entities, and businesses in environmental, land use, and natural resources litigation in federal trial and appellate courts across the country, from citizen suits to government enforcement actions and Administration Procedure Act (APA) challenges. Most recently, Fred was counsel of record in the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition NEPA case before the U.S. Supreme Court.Music CreditsIntro: Givin Me Eyes by Grace MesaOutro: Never Ending Soul Groove by Mattijs MullerSupport the showThanks for listening! A new episode drops every Friday. Like, share, subscribe, and/or sponsor to help support the continuation of the show. You can find us on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and all your favorite podcast players.

Two Penn legal experts discuss the strategy behind EPA’s rescission of the Endangerment Finding and the court challenges ahead. --- On February 12, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formally rescinded the endangerment finding, the 2009 determination that established the legal basis for federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. For 16 years, that finding has underpinned EPA climate policy, reflecting the agency’s conclusion that greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health and that, under the law, it was required to regulate them. The move represents a major shift in federal climate policy. But agencies cannot simply reverse themselves without making a legal case that can withstand court review. Cary Coglianese of the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and Shelley Welton of the Kleinman Center and Penn Carey Law examine the legal rationale behind the rescission and how it draws on recent Supreme Court decisions that have narrowed federal agency authority. Rather than disputing climate science, the EPA’s argument rests on a more limited reading of its powers under the Clean Air Act. Welton and Coglianese explain how that argument fits within the Court’s evolving approach to administrative power, and what it could mean for the future of federal climate regulation. Cary Coglianese is Director of the Penn Program on Regulation at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. Shelley Welton is Presidential Distinguished Professor of Law and Energy Policy with the Kleinman Center and Penn Carey Law. Related Content Policy Design Issues for Border Carbon Adjustments https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/research/publications/policy-design-issues-for-border-carbon-adjustments/ Boomtowns in the Battery Belt: Risks and Opportunities of Clean Energy Investments in Small Towns of America https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/research/publications/boomtowns-in-the-battery-belt-risks-and-opportunities-of-clean-energy-investments-in-small-towns-of-america/ Energy Policy Now is produced by The Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania. For all things energy policy, visit kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Scott Novak and Allison Watkins Mallick offer a breakdown of EPA's decision to rescind its 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding and how the agency is interpreting the Clean Air Act. The discussion covers implications for vehicle and power plant standards, expected litigation, and what long-term uncertainty means for companies navigating federal and state climate rules.

In episode 248 of America Adapts, host Doug Parsons is joined by Professor Mark Nevitt of Emory University School of Law to unpack the repeal of the Clean Air Act's Endangerment Finding and what it means for climate governance in the United States. Long considered the legal backbone of federal climate regulation, its rescission raises fundamental questions about agency authority, the role of the courts, and the durability of federal climate policy. Mark explains the legal theory behind the repeal, how it intersects with Supreme Court precedent, and what likely comes next in federal court. The conversation also explores the practical implications of regulatory instability — from increased climate litigation to the shifting balance between federal, state, and local responsibility. For listeners working in adaptation, public policy, infrastructure, law, or risk management, this episode offers a clear look at how legal shifts at the federal level can reshape the broader climate landscape — and why adaptation efforts must continue regardless of political volatility. Transcript for this episode here.  Key Themes Covered in This Episode What the Endangerment Finding actually did under the Clean Air Act Why Massachusetts v. EPA mattered The legal basis for the repeal How the repeal affects federal climate regulation The role of the Supreme Court and administrative law What happens next in federal court More emissions and rising adaptation costs States and cities filling the federal vacuum The growing role of climate litigation Adaptation continuing — but in a more fragmented system Previous appearances by Mark Nevitt on America Adapts Destroy, Rebuild, Repeat: How to Break the Climate Disaster Cycle with Mark Nevitt Climate Change and the Legal System: Why the U.S. Constitution Needs to Adapt with Law Professor Mark Nevitt Climate Adaptation Predictions for 2025: What the Experts Say For Educators & Students The structure and limits of federal agency authority The interaction between executive action and judicial review How Supreme Court doctrine reshapes environmental governance Federalism and the division of climate authority between states and Washington Legal uncertainty and its impact on infrastructure and long-term planning Climate governance in periods of institutional instability The evolving role of courts in climate policy disputes Risk management when regulatory frameworks shift abruptly Professors are welcome to assign this episode or excerpts in syllabi. Who Should Listen to This Episode Climate adaptation and resilience professionals navigating shifting federal policy State and local government officials responsible for long-term planning Urban and regional planners integrating climate risk into infrastructure decisions Insurance, reinsurance, and financial sector professionals assessing regulatory volatility Corporate risk, legal, and strategy teams tracking climate governance shifts Environmental law and public policy scholars following administrative law developments Funders and foundations evaluating the durability of climate investments Climate communicators explaining governance instability to broader audiences   ClimateTech Connect Conference Mentioned in the Episode! ClimateTech Connect Registration Use code: AAVIP for 25% discount off ticket prices   Support for America Adapts helps make episodes like this possible, including more international conversations on how adaptation is unfolding globally. All donations are now tax deductible! Check out the America Adapts Media Kit here! Subscribe to the America Adapts newsletter here. Listen to America Adapts on your favorite app here!   Facebook, Linkedin and Bluesky: https://www.facebook.com/americaadapts/ https://bsky.app/profile/americaadapts.bsky.social https://www.linkedin.com/in/doug-parsons-america-adapts/ Doug Parsons and Speaking Opportunities: If you are interested in having Doug speak at corporate and conference events, sharing his unique, expert perspective on adaptation in an entertaining and informative way, Now on Spotify! List of Previous Guests on America Adapts Follow/listen to podcast on Apple Podcasts. The 10 Best Sustainability Podcasts for Environmental Business Leadershttps://us.anteagroup.com/news-events/blog/10-best-sustainability-podcasts-environmental-business-leaders For more information on this podcast, visit the website at http://www.americaadapts.org and don't forget to subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts.   Podcast Music produce by Richard Haitz Productions Write a review on Apple Podcasts ! America Adapts on Facebook!   Join the America Adapts Facebook Community Group. Check us out, we're also on YouTube! Subscribe to America Adapts on Apple Podcasts Doug can be contacted at americaadapts @ g mail . com

On February 12, the Environmental Protection Agency dealt a major blow to the government's power to fight climate change by rescinding a key piece of research called the endangerment finding. The finding, issued in 2009, basically says: Greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare—and because they're harmful, they must be regulated. It's the legal basis for the federal government's regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. So what does it mean that this finding has been thrown out? Host Flora Lichtman digs into this question with Andy Miller, an original author on the endangerment finding who spent more than 30 years working for the EPA. Guest: Dr. Andy Miller worked on air pollution and climate change at the EPA for more than 30 years. He was an original author on Endangerment Finding. Transcripts for each episode are available within 1-3 days at sciencefriday.com. Subscribe to this podcast. Plus, to stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters.

The Environmental Protection Agency recently announced it was rescinding the 2009 endangerment finding, the legal foundation for federal regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The administration has called the move the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history. What does it actually do? And what happens next? On this episode of Stanford Legal, Professor Deborah Sivas, an expert in environmental law, joins co-host Pam Karlan to unpack the legal strategy behind the repeal, the role of recent Supreme Court decisions, and what's likely to unfold in the courts. Among other ramifications, they also explore California's authority to adopt its own, more aggressive emissions standards and what this latest move by the Trump administration signals for the future of federal climate regulation. Links: Deborah Sivas >>> Stanford Law page Environmental Law Clinic >>> Stanford Law page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Diego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00): The EPA's rescission of the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding (00:06:43): Climate science consensus and legal strategy (00:16:01): The litigation roadmap: process vs. substance (00:29:53): Wind power on the cusp (00:30:10): Solar economics and federal land authority Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

On February 12th, the Trump Administration rescinded the Obama-era "endangerment finding," a legal recognition by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that greenhouse gas emissions were harming and would further harm health and human safety. This endangerment finding allowed the EPA to issue regulations under the Clean Air Act on six climate pollutants, including carbon dioxide. Now, the Trump Administration says that it lacks the legal capacity to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and have tossed the endangerment finding and clean car regulations that aimed to reduce emissions by improving efficiency. To break down what this means, Matt Simmons, Climate Attorney at EPIC, and Scott Grecean, Conservation Director at Friends of the Eel River, join the program. Support the show

This Day in Legal History: Edison Receives Patent on PhonographOn February 19, 1878, Thomas Edison received a patent for one of his most transformative inventions: the phonograph. The device could record and reproduce sound, a breakthrough that stunned the public and reshaped the relationship between technology and creativity. Until that point, copyright law primarily protected written works such as books, maps, and sheet music. The phonograph introduced an entirely new category of expression—recorded sound—that did not fit neatly into existing statutes. Lawmakers and courts were soon confronted with a difficult question: who owns a performance once it is captured on a machine?Early copyright frameworks did not clearly account for performers' rights in recorded works. As the recording industry grew, pressure mounted to recognize both composers and performers as legal stakeholders. Congress responded incrementally, expanding federal copyright protections to cover sound recordings in the twentieth century. These changes reflected a broader shift toward adapting intellectual property law to technological innovation. Courts also played a role by interpreting statutes in ways that acknowledged the economic realities of recorded music. The phonograph's legacy thus extends far beyond its mechanical design. It forced the legal system to confront how creative labor should be valued in an age of reproduction. In doing so, Edison's invention helped lay the foundation for modern intellectual property law governing sound recording and broadcasting.A coalition of environmental and public health organizations has filed suit against the Trump administration over its decision to revoke the scientific “endangerment finding” that underpins federal climate regulations. The case was brought in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and also challenges the Environmental Protection Agency's move to repeal vehicle tailpipe emissions limits. The administration recently announced it would eliminate the 17-year-old finding and end greenhouse gas standards for model years 2012 through 2027.The endangerment finding, first adopted in 2009, concluded that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare, triggering regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act. Its repeal would remove requirements for measuring and complying with federal vehicle emissions standards, though immediate effects on stationary sources like power plants remain uncertain. The administration characterized the rollback as a major cost-saving measure, estimating $1.3 trillion in taxpayer savings.By contrast, the Biden administration had previously argued the vehicle standards would produce net consumer benefits, including lower fuel and maintenance costs averaging thousands of dollars over a vehicle's lifetime. The lawsuit marks one of the most significant legal challenges yet to President Trump's broader effort to scale back climate policy, promote fossil fuel development, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and dismantle clean energy incentives. Transportation and power generation each account for roughly a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, underscoring the stakes of the regulatory reversal.Environmental groups challenge Trump decision to revoke basis of US climate regulations | ReutersMeta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is scheduled to testify in a Los Angeles jury trial examining whether Instagram harms young users' mental health. The case centers on allegations that Meta designed its platform to keep children engaged despite knowing about potential psychological risks. A California woman who began using Instagram and YouTube as a child claims the platforms contributed to her depression and suicidal thoughts. She is seeking damages, arguing the companies prioritized profit over user well-being.Meta and Google deny the accusations and point to safety features they have implemented. Meta has also cited research suggesting that evidence does not conclusively show social media directly changes children's mental health. Defense attorneys argue the plaintiff's struggles stem from personal and family issues rather than her social media use.The lawsuit is part of a broader wave of litigation in the United States, where families, schools, and states have filed thousands of similar claims against major tech companies. Internationally, governments such as Australia have imposed age-based restrictions, and other countries are considering similar measures. The trial could test the tech industry's longstanding legal protections against liability for user harm. If the plaintiff prevails, the verdict may weaken those defenses and open the door to additional claims. Zuckerberg is expected to face questions about internal company research concerning Instagram's effects on teens.Meta's Zuckerberg faces questioning at youth addiction trial | ReutersA federal judge in San Francisco has ordered a lawyer representing passengers in sexual assault litigation against Uber to pay sanctions for violating a protective order. The ruling requires attorney Bret Stanley to pay $30,000 in legal fees to Uber after he disclosed confidential company information obtained during discovery. The case is part of consolidated litigation accusing Uber of failing to implement adequate safety measures and background checks for drivers, claims the company denies.U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Cisneros found that Stanley improperly shared the names of internal Uber policies in unrelated lawsuits and with other plaintiffs' attorneys. Uber argued that he used the confidential material as a roadmap to pursue evidence in other cases. The judge concluded that Stanley acted unreasonably by unilaterally deciding to disclose protected information. However, she rejected Uber's request for more than $168,000 in fees, finding that the company had not demonstrated significant harm from the disclosures.Stanley defended his actions, stating he intended to streamline discovery in related cases and accused Uber of delaying document production nationwide. The judge also indicated Stanley will owe additional fees tied to a separate sanctions request, after finding he searched case documents to assist another lawsuit. The decision comes shortly after a federal jury awarded $8.5 million to a woman who alleged she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver.Uber wins sanctions against lawyer for sexual assault plaintiffs | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Elizabeth Warren tried to convince everyone that letting Amazon keep more of its own money is a "tax handout", and Nate and Charlie absolutely torch the logic. They break down how "tax break = government gave you money" is a framing trick, why Warren suddenly loves billionaires when they are Taylor Swift, Kim Kardashian, or LeBron James, and how this whole mindset treats your income like it belongs to "the kingdom" first. Then it's a rare white pill: Trump's EPA, led by Lee Zeldin, moves to repeal the 2009 "endangerment finding" that became the legal foundation for a huge chunk of modern emissions regulation. They talk Clean Air Act language, the Massachusetts v. EPA backdrop, why people are literally suing to force regulators to regulate, and what this means for car costs, annoying start-stop tech, and energy bills. Bonus reminder: any power you give the government will be used by someone you hate. 00:00 Welcome Back   02:55 Elizabeth Warren vs. Taylor Swift: The "Amazon Tax Handout" Claim   04:33 Why a Tax Cut Isn't a Government "Gift" (and what Amazon actually did)   11:27 Bonus Depreciation & R&D Expensing: Incentivizing Investment Over Taxes   15:46 Warren's Tesla $0 Tax Post: Loss Carryforwards Explained   20:53 Main Topic: EPA's Biggest Deregulatory Move & Ending the "Endangerment Finding"   21:53 How EPA Rules Make Cars Worse (turbochargers, start/stop, and repair costs)   24:43 Modern cars: better MPG, pricier repairs (and the hidden maintenance bill)   26:45 Obama reacts to EPA rollback + the coming court fights   28:30 The $1.3T "savings" claim vs EV costs (especially insurance)   31:16 What the 2009 Endangerment Finding is—and why it matters legally   32:08 Clean Air Act language, Chevron deference, and who should decide   36:12 Charts & incentives: fuel economy trends, gas prices, and regulation credit   38:56 Cost-benefit reality check: tiny climate impact vs real economic costs   40:30 Environmental groups' lawsuits & the "apocalyptic" messaging debate   43:38 Emissions still fall + bigger looming issues (economy, Social Security)   47:05 What regular people can do: push consistent small-government principles   48:08 Dow watch & the core takeaway: power you grant will be used by opponents   51:16 Final wrap: liberty message + subscribe/share call to action  

The Environmental Protection Agency rescinds its 2009 assertion that it can regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, because they "endanger" public health. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin says this means cheaper cars and no more EV mandates, but is it going next to the courts, and maybe the Supreme Court? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

President Donald Trump last week announced the repeal of a major Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation on greenhouse gasses — the 2009 "Endangerment Finding."For the past 16 years, the scientific conclusions that: greenhouse gases in the atmosphere threaten public health and greenhouse gases from motor vehicles contribute to pollution threatening public health, have guided EPA emission standards under the Clean Air Act. Now, scientists and environmental groups warn that removing the finding could have grave implications for public health.One of the scientific foundations of that policy is rooted in San Diego research dating back to 1958. We outline the connection and why local scientists are concerned.Guest:Tammy Murga, environment reporter, KPBS

The Other Side of the Story with Tom Harris and Todd Royal – This is only the opening shot. By knocking out the automobile portion first, the administration launched a strategic, step-by-step rollback of a regulatory machine that ballooned far beyond anything Congress ever intended. This is a long-awaited turning point—proof that the tide is finally shifting toward freedom, innovation, and economic sanity...

We're back with a new Insanity Check episode with Ro. This is administration finds new lows to hit Rolling back the Clean Air Act regulations isn't about cars, it's about data centers Elon and xAI are still poisoning a town Ring's Super Bowl ad was clearly not about finding lost pets; They cancel their Flock partnership but still work with law enforcement Even if Ring stops working with law enforcement, the Supreme Court case on geofence warrants may make it so it doesn't matter Sam Altman says ads were the last resort for OpenAI's business model...they're bringing ads to OpenAI At what point do people wake up and just stop using these terrible products that provide no real value? Guest: Ro @bookblerd.bsky.social‬   Like what you hear? Subscribe so you don't miss an episode!   Follow us on BlueSky: @InsanityReport  

Rob is joined by Jody Freeman, the director of the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard Law School, to discuss the Trump administration's war on the endangerment finding. They chat about how the Trump administration has already changed its argument since last summer, whether the Supreme Court will buy what it's selling, and what it all means for the future of climate law.They also talk about whether the Clean Air Act has ever been an effective tool to fight greenhouse gas pollution — and whether the repeal could bring any upside for states and cities.Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.You can find a full transcript of the episode here.Mentioned:From Heatmap: The 3 Arguments Trump Used to Gut Greenhouse Gas RegulationsPreviously on Shift Key: Trump's Move to Kill the Clean Air Act's Climate Authority ForeverRob on the Loper Bright case and other Supreme Court attacks on the EPAThis episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...--This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...Accelerate your clean energy career with Yale's online certificate programs. Explore the 10-month Financing and Deploying Clean Energy program or the 5-month Clean and Equitable Energy Development program. Use referral code HeatMap26 and get your application in by the priority deadline for $500 off tuition to one of Yale's online certificate programs in clean energy. Learn more at cbey.yale.edu/online-learning-opportunities.Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

 In this episode of the MeidasTouch Podcast, we break down the latest news, including the fallout from Pam Bondi's disastrous congressional hearing, where she erupted when pressed on her role in the Epstein cover-up. We also examine Donald Trump's latest assault on climate policy after repealing the critical endangerment finding that determined greenhouse gases are dangerous to public health under the Clean Air Act, setting up a massive legal fight with global implications. We discuss a federal judge's decision to block Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from punishing Senator Mark Kelly as Trump allies push alarming efforts to target lawmakers who simply told service members to follow lawful orders. Plus, we dive into Trump's ICE pulling back its aggressive operation in Minnesota following months of terror, and more. Ben, Brett, and Jordy break it all down. Subscribe to Meidas+ at https://meidasplus.com Get Meidas Merch: https://store.meidastouch.com Deals from our sponsors!  Zip Recruiter: Try ZipRecruiter for FREE at https://ZipRecruiter.com/MEIDAS Leaf Filter: Schedule your free inspection and get up to 30% off your entire purchase at https://leaffilter.com/meidas Hims: To get simple, online access to personalized, affordable care for ED, Hair Loss, Weight Loss, and more, visit https://Hims.com/meidas Cash App: Download Cash App Today: https://capl.onelink.me/vFut/2ukx7bii #CashAppPod. Cash App is a financial services platform, not a bank. Banking services provided by Cash App's bank partner(s). Prepaid debit cards issued by Sutton Bank, Member FDIC. See terms and conditions at https://cash.app/legal/us/en-us/card-agreement. Cash App Green, overdraft coverage, borrow, cash back offers and promotions provided by Cash App, a Block, Inc. brand. Visit http://cash.app/legal/podcast for full disclosures. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The climate crisis is no longer a distant warning — it's happening right now. Wildfires are destroying entire communities. Record-breaking heatwaves are overwhelming hospitals. Floods are swallowing neighborhoods that have stood for generations. Scientists warn we are approaching dangerous tipping points that could trigger irreversible warming. Yet Donald Trump continues to dismiss climate change as a “hoax.” In this video, we break down the real consequences of rolling back climate protections — including the effort to rescind the EPA's 2009 endangerment finding. That landmark decision established that greenhouse gases endanger public health and gave the federal government authority to regulate climate pollution under the Clean Air Act. Eliminating it could weaken limits on emissions from vehicles, power plants, and major industries. #ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #EnvironmentalPolicy #CleanAirAct Independent media has never been more important. Please support this channel by subscribing here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkbwLFZhawBqK2b9gW08z3g?sub_confirmation=1 Join this channel with a membership for exclusive early access and bonus content: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkbwLFZhawBqK2b9gW08z3g/join Five Minute News is an Evergreen Podcast, covering politics, inequality, health and climate - delivering independent, unbiased and essential news for the US and across the world. Visit us online at http://www.fiveminute.news Follow us on Bluesky https://bsky.app/profile/fiveminutenews.bsky.social Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/fiveminnews Support us on Patreon http://www.patreon.com/fiveminutenews You can subscribe to Five Minute News with your preferred podcast app, ask your smart speaker, or enable Five Minute News as your Amazon Alexa Flash Briefing skill. CONTENT DISCLAIMER The views and opinions expressed on this channel are those of the guests and authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Anthony Davis or Five Minute News LLC. Any content provided by our hosts, guests or authors are of their opinion and are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything, in line with the First Amendment right to free and protected speech. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Federal environmental regulators Thursday repealed the bedrock finding that climate change endangers human health. It authorized the EPA to regulate planet-warming emissions as part of the Clean Air Act and to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. Experts say the repeal will worsen climate change and have a negative impact on industries across the state.

Tell us what you think of the show! This Week in Cleantech is a weekly podcast covering the most impactful stories in clean energy and climate featuring Paul Gerke of Factor This and Tigercomm's Mike Casey.This week's episode features special guest Matthew Daly from The Associated Press, who wrote about how the EPA has rescinded the 2009 “endangerment finding,” the scientific and legal basis under the Clean Air Act that allowed the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions to address climate change.This week's "Cleantecher of the Week" is Brian Hurley, executive director of Friends of Deckers Creek. He and his team are turning toxic, rust-orange acid coal mine drainage into clean water again with low-tech pond systems that bring back fish, salamanders, and frogs. And the cleanup is now helping recover rare earth minerals too, turning pollution into a resource that can fund even more restoration. Congratulations, Brian!This Week in Cleantech — February 13, 2026 Are faked public comments about to tank an Ohio solar farm? — Canary MediaTrump Administration Is Delaying Hundreds of Wind and Solar Projects — The New York TimesWind and solar beat fossil fuels in EU power mix in 2025, energy think tank says — ReutersGeothermal could replace almost half of the EU's fossil fuel power — GristTrump's EPA revokes scientific finding that underpinned US fight against climate change — The Associated PressWant to make a suggestion for This Week in Cleantech? Nominate the stories that caught your eye each week by emailing Paul.Gerke@clarionevents.com

Thursday, February 12, 2026 In this episode: The Senate failed to advance a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security through Sept. 30, leaving the agency headed for a partial shutdown when funding expires Friday night; the Trump administration said it will end “Operation Metro Surge” in Minnesota, drawing down thousands of federal immigration agents after a 2-month crackdown that produced mass protests, more than 4,000 arrests, and two fatal shootings of U.S. citizens in Minneapolis; the Justice Department tracked the search histories of lawmakers who reviewed the files from the Jeffrey Epstein investigation; the whistleblower complaint against Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard centers on an intelligence intercept that captured two foreign nationals discussing Jared Kushner; the House passed the SAVE America Act; a federal judge blocked the Pentagon from demoting Sen. Mark Kelly's retired Navy rank and cutting his retirement pay over a video advising troops not to follow illegal orders; Trump rescinded the EPA's 2009 “endangerment finding,” removing the legal basis the agency has used to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act for nearly two decades; and 62% of Americans say Trump's “gone too far” by deploying federal immigration agents into major U.S. cities, and 61% say he's gone too far using federal law enforcement at protests. Read more: Day 1850: "Status quo." Newsletter: Get the daily edition of WTFJHT in your inbox Feedback? Let me know what you think AI Policy: My AI policy

Tuesday, February 10, 2026 In this episode: The Trump administration will rescind the EPA's 2009 “endangerment finding,” stripping the core legal basis for federal limits on greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act; a newly unsealed FBI search warrant affidavit showed that the seizure of Fulton County, Georgia's 2020 election ballots and records began with a referral from a Trump-appointed “director of election security and integrity”; acting ICE Director Todd Lyons defended ICE and told the House Homeland Security Committee that he would press ahead with Trump's “mass deportation” campaign; Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna disclosed the “hidden” names of six wealthy men they say are “likely incriminated” by their inclusion in the Jeffrey Epstein files; Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told senators he had lunch with Jeffrey Epstein on Epstein's private Caribbean island in 2012; Trump reportedly told the Palm Beach police chief in 2006 that “everyone has known” what Jeffrey Epstein “has been doing”; 59% of Americans said they're optimistic about the future – a record low since Gallup started asking the question two decades ago. Read more: Day 1848: "Now I see what the big deal is." Newsletter: Get the daily edition of WTFJHT in your inbox Feedback? Let me know what you think AI Policy: My AI policy

This Day in Legal History: Nelson Mandela ReleasedOn February 11, 1990, Nelson Mandela was released from Victor Verster Prison in South Africa after 27 years of incarceration, marking a seismic shift in the country's legal and political landscape. Mandela's release followed a period of secret negotiations between the apartheid government and the African National Congress (ANC), and it signaled the beginning of the end of apartheid—a system of institutionalized racial segregation and oppression upheld by law. His imprisonment had become a global symbol of the fight against racial injustice and was frequently challenged by international human rights organizations and legal scholars as a violation of fundamental human rights.Mandela had been convicted in 1964 of sabotage and other charges under South Africa's Suppression of Communism Act, following the infamous Rivonia Trial. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, spending much of his sentence on Robben Island under harsh conditions. Over the decades, growing international sanctions and internal unrest made apartheid increasingly untenable.Then-President F.W. de Klerk's government began rolling back apartheid legislation in the late 1980s, and on February 2, 1990, de Klerk announced the unbanning of the ANC and his intention to release Mandela. Just nine days later, Mandela walked free, delivering a speech in Cape Town that emphasized reconciliation, peace, and the continuation of the struggle for full democratic rights.Mandela's release was not just a political milestone—it was a legal one, too. It reflected a move away from laws based on racial supremacy and toward a constitutional order grounded in human rights. This transformation would culminate in South Africa's 1996 Constitution, often lauded for its rights-based framework and independent judiciary.The Trump administration's plan to repeal the EPA's 2009 endangerment finding—the scientific basis for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act—could reignite legal efforts to hold polluters accountable through public nuisance lawsuits. That finding enabled the EPA to regulate emissions from vehicles and power plants, but its reversal removes the legal framework that had previously shielded companies from such claims under a 2011 Supreme Court ruling. In that decision, the Court held that the EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act displaced common-law nuisance suits against emitters. Without that EPA oversight, legal scholars believe plaintiffs may now argue that the courts are once again an appropriate venue for these claims.Public nuisance lawsuits, typically filed by states or municipalities, seek to hold companies accountable for harms caused to community health and safety. These cases have been historically difficult to win due to challenges in proving direct causation, but experts say the new regulatory gap could encourage a wave of litigation. Industry groups like the Edison Electric Institute have warned that repealing the endangerment finding could expose utilities to costly legal battles. While federal courts had largely blocked such claims, state courts have shown more openness, and the shift in federal policy may strengthen these legal efforts. Environmental advocates may now have renewed leverage to push power companies and other emitters into court.Trump's repeal of climate rule opens a ‘new front' for litigation | ReutersAttorney General Pam Bondi is scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee this week amid intensifying legal scrutiny over the Justice Department's management of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Lawmakers are expected to question Bondi about what they view as excessive redactions and the DOJ's withholding of key documents, actions that may conflict with a bipartisan federal law passed in 2025 mandating the broad release of Epstein-related materials. Legal analysts suggest the DOJ's reliance on legal privileges—such as investigatory and deliberative process exemptions—to justify redactions could face stiff challenges in court or through congressional oversight powers.The situation raises constitutional tensions between legislative oversight and executive privilege, particularly as the House panel, now under Republican control, examines whether the DOJ is shielding politically sensitive information. Some members of Congress have accused the Department of undermining transparency and potentially violating the statutory intent of the Epstein Disclosure Act, which narrowed the DOJ's discretion in withholding records tied to convicted sex offenders or deceased suspects like Epstein.Bondi's DOJ has been accused of prioritizing partisan enforcement over institutional neutrality, illustrated by failed prosecutions of Trump critics and an aggressive posture on immigration and protest-related cases. The sidelining of the DOJ's civil rights division and the refusal to investigate federal shootings has further fueled concerns over selective enforcement and erosion of prosecutorial independence. Bondi's testimony will serve as a key moment to defend the Department's use of legal redactions and its broader approach to politically charged prosecutions.Bondi to face questions on Epstein files in House testimony | ReutersInstagram chief Adam Mosseri is set to testify in a Los Angeles courtroom this week in a groundbreaking lawsuit that could reshape how U.S. law approaches the intersection of product design and youth mental health. The case centers on a 20-year-old plaintiff who alleges she became addicted to Instagram as a child due to its deliberately addictive interface—particularly the “endless scroll” feature that loads content continuously to hold user attention. Her lawyers argue that Instagram's design choices amount to a form of negligent product engineering that failed to account for known risks to children.This case raises novel legal questions: Can user interface (UI) design be treated as a defective product under tort law? Can tech companies be held liable not just for content but for the architecture of the platforms themselves? If the court accepts these arguments, it could establish precedent for treating addictive design as a public health harm similar to tobacco or opioid marketing practices.Mosseri is expected to face questioning over internal documents that, according to the plaintiff, show Meta was aware of the app's mental health impact on vulnerable teens. Meta counters that these documents reflect efforts to mitigate harm, not evidence of negligence. Still, the case may test the limits of Section 230 immunity, as it focuses not on third-party content, but the platform's own design—potentially sidestepping the traditional legal shield for tech companies.Hundreds of similar cases are pending, and this trial may serve as a bellwether for litigation nationwide. International developments, including Australia's ban on social media for children under 16, suggest this is a growing legal frontier.Instagram's leader to testify in court on app design, youth mental health | ReutersNovo Nordisk's recent patent infringement lawsuit against Hims & Hers marks a pivotal legal development in the pharmaceutical industry's battle with telehealth providers distributing compounded drugs. The suit, filed in Delaware federal court, targets Hims' sales of compounded semaglutide—the active ingredient in Wegovy and Ozempic—claiming these formulations infringe Novo's patents. While compounding is allowed under certain FDA exemptions, those exemptions do not shield pharmacies or telehealth platforms from patent liability. This case challenges the assumption that FDA compliance protects against infringement claims, exposing a gray area where regulatory and intellectual property regimes collide.Historically, brand-name drugmakers focused on trademark challenges over how compounded drugs were marketed. Novo's move into patent litigation signals a strategic escalation: it's not about branding anymore—it's about the act of making and selling the compound itself. Experts highlight that this is likely the first time a brand drug company has pursued patent claims directly against a compounding pharmacy or telehealth distributor, suggesting the industry now sees these entities as substantial commercial threats.The case also underscores a novel enforcement strategy: suing the telehealth platform facilitating sales rather than the dispersed network of compounding pharmacies, streamlining legal action and potentially setting precedent for centralized liability. Hims, already under regulatory scrutiny, had just halted plans to sell compounded semaglutide pills but remains a target due to its involvement in injectable forms.The outcome of this case may clarify how FDA-sanctioned compounding intersects with patent protections and could define the boundaries for how far telehealth companies can go in offering customized versions of patented drugs.Novo's GLP-1 Patent Suit Against Hims Takes Aim at Compounding This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

All right, we're back with April on the Jeep Talk Show! Tony kicks things off with a funny brain fog moment from last time (Amber? April?

Vets Salute VA Nurse Hero. VA Sec Collins' Shameful Statement. Kennedy, Oz & Measles. Flu Season Health Tips. America's ICE Breakers. Allies Furious Worldwide. After the Storm. In this urgent all–new episode of Independent Americans, host Paul Rieckhoff is joined by returning champion Dr. Vin Gupta — Harvard–trained pulmonologist, Air Force Reserve officer, VA ICU doctor and one of America's most trusted medical voices — to break down Trump's escalating war on public health, the VA, and even gun owners themselves. They dig into the murder of Minneapolis VA ICU nurse and veteran caregiver Alex Pretti, what his life and final act of courage mean for nurses, veterans and families nationwide, and how the White House's propaganda machine tried to smear him as a “domestic terrorist” before the truth came out.​ From the flu and measles outbreaks slamming hospitals, to RFK Jr. at HHS, Dr. Oz at CMS, and an EPA that's gutting the Clean Air Act while pretending to “make America healthy again,” Dr. Gupta lays out how this administration is quietly making you and your family less safe — and what you can actually do right now if you're insured, under–insured or have no insurance at all. He explains why VA ICU work is “double service,” why VA nurses like Pretti are unsung heroes of our democracy, and why the VA hospital where Alex worked should bear his name.​ Rieckhoff also rips into VA Secretary Doug Collins' disgraceful response, Trump's new war on gun owners, ICE's spreading abuses, and the chilling implications of a president eager to invoke the Insurrection Act while deploying ICE even to the Winter Olympics. They connect it all to the global fallout from Trump's insults of US allies, the latest from Ukraine and Gaza, Holocaust Remembrance Day, and why California is now working directly with the WHO as a counterweight to DC. And, issue a call to the ⅓ of ICE agents that are veterans.  Because every episode of Independent Americans with Paul Rieckhoff breaks down the most important news stories--and offers light to contrast the heat of other politics and news shows. It's independent content for independent Americans. In these trying times especially, Independent Americans is your trusted place for independent news, politics, inspiration and hope. The podcast that helps you stay ahead of the curve--and stay vigilant. -WATCH video of this episode on YouTube now. -Learn more about Paul's work to elect a new generation of independent leaders with Independent Veterans of America. -Join the movement. Hook into our exclusive Patreon community of Independent Americans. Get extra content, connect with guests, meet other Independent Americans, attend events, get merch discounts, and support this show that speaks truth to power.  -Check the hashtag #LookForTheHelpers. And share yours.  -Find us on social media or www.IndependentAmericans.us.  -And get cool IA and Righteous hats, t-shirts and other merch now in time for the new year.  -Check out other Righteous podcasts like The Firefighters Podcast with Rob Serra, Uncle Montel - The OG of Weed and B Dorm.  Independent Americans is powered by veteran-owned and led Righteous Media.  And now part of the BLEAV network!  Ways to listen: Spotify • Apple Podcasts • Amazon Podcasts  Ways to watch: YouTube • Instagram  Social channels: X/Twitter • BlueSky • Facebook  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Over the past few weeks the Trump administration has significantly upped its game to eliminate greenhouse gas regulations that protect human and global health. The Sabin Center on Climate Change Law's “Climate Backtracker” database presently identifies over 320-related administrative and regulatory actions that in sum undermine the EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment. Most recently, the US has withdrawn from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and 65 other related international organizations, rescinded National Environmental Protection Act's (NEPA) implementing regulations and moved to roll back automotive fuel efficiency standards by nearly 33%. Concerning the Clean Air Act, initially passed in 1963, the EPA is expected to soon finalize a 2025 proposed rule to rescind its Endangerment Finding that provides the legal basis for the agency to regulate six greenhouse gasses and recently announced the agency is no longer estimating the monetary value of lives saved in establishing the limits of two major air pollutants: ozone; and, fine particulate matter frequently noted as PM 2.5. The Columbia University Sabin Center “Climate Backtracker” database is at: https://climate.law.columbia.edu/content/climate-backtracker. Information on Resources for the Future is at: .https://www.rff.org/.Dr. Hubbell's bio is at: https://www.rff.org/people/bryan-hubbell/. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thehealthcarepolicypodcast.com

For the first time, when the EPA is considering new limits on air pollution, it will no longer estimate the monetary cost of lives saved from regulations. Instead it will only calculate the cost of the rules for companies. The Trump administration says this will rectify “misleading” data about the benefit of regulations, but experts warn this could make it easier to roll back gains made from the Clean Air Act of 1970. In the Loop discusses how this move could impact our health with Brian Urbaszewski, Director of Environmental Health Programs at the Respiratory Health Association, Karen Weigert, director of Loyola University Chicago's Baumhart Center for Social Enterprise and Responsibility and Anthony Moser, board president Neighbors 4 Environmental Justice. For a full archive of In the Loop interviews, head over to wbez.org/intheloop.

Our first guest today is Alessandra Hay, reporting from Kyiv, Ukraine. Alessandra discusses a growing humanitarian crisis: the lack of space to bury the dead. Severe shortages of cemetery plots have forced burials outside designated cemeteries, raising concerns about contamination of local water supplies. Ukraine is now in the final stages of constructing a crematorium in Kyiv to address the issue. Hay also explains that announcements of peace talks have little impact on daily life for Ukrainians, as Russia shows no genuine interest in ending the war. Many Ukrainians believe there is no option but to continue fighting. While the war will not last forever, people are living in uncertainty, waiting to see what comes next—because anything can happen.   Our second guest, Josh Cook, former Regional Administrator for the EPA's Pacific Southwest Region, addresses the Tijuana River sewage crisis and its wide-ranging impacts on the military, schools, and tourism. He explains how criminal gangs from Mexico transported and dumped sewage into the Tijuana River, allowing fecal contamination to flow into the United States and pollute American beaches. Within 100 days, more than 10,000 gallons of sewage were removed and prevented from reaching coastal areas—ending a problem that had persisted for over 20 years. Cook also discusses how Arizona is being penalized due to its geography and how the Clean Air Act has increasingly been used as a tool to stifle prosperity and economic growth.   Joel Pollak is an opinion editor at the California Post, a newly launched, seven-days-a-week digital print newspaper in California. The absence of right-leaning media outlets in the state has allowed Governor Gavin Newsom to shape national narratives without meaningful state-level media scrutiny. Our hosts discuss Pollak's latest piece examining why Newsom has effectively disqualified himself from a presidential run. They also address how the taxpayer-funded press office has been transformed into a political trolling operation targeting President Trump. The conversation further explores the South African Constitution—long admired by the American left and even supported by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg—which guarantees a wide range of socio-economic rights such as healthcare and a clean environment.

Just how are you going to pass the time on Christmas Day after you've got the roast in the oven (at low temp, of course) and you've finished your obligatory annual screening of Die Hard? How about a special Christmas Day edition of the Three Whisky Happy Hour! Lucretia took time out from the kitchen to host this ad-free episode which features a discussion of the law governing religious symbols on public property, and why they are NOT violations of the Estasblishment Clause of the First Amendment (the phrase "separation of church and state" is not even hiding in any of the emanantions an punumbras of the Constitution, so don't even look). Discussion also turned to wondering why liberals are increasingly hostile to religion—especially Christianity—and Steve offers his theory that the decline of patriotism among liberals, which also shows up in opinion survey data, is connected to the decline of religion among liberals, too. (He gave the full analysis of the matter in this Substack post a few months ago. One sentence summary: politics, the substitute diety for the left, isn't going well for them right now, which makes them angry.) And did you know that Christmas itself is now a"far right" plot? That's what Politico thinks. (Yes, we know: "Politico thinks" is an oxymoron.)We manage to get in some good holiday cheer, such as mocking John's total ignorance of "throuples" *the latest thing for the "Modern Love" section of the NY Times) and we manage to get in our obligatory reference to—wait for it!—the Clean Air Act, and Sydney Sweeney. Because it's Christmas!We'll be back sometime over the weekend with a regular episode in which we review the most significqnt events of 2025, and offer predictions for 2026.