So, so what do you make of this with the Bank of America? They s- uh, were they just so focused on conservatives they ignored the Chinese, or were they-- w- did it seem more deliberate that they would, uh, [chuckles] you know, maybe they were profiting from the Chinese or something? Not to accuse-- impugn the Bank of America's already, uh, impugned, uh, reputation there.

Yeah.

Well, so it's really interesting.

This week, the Treasury Department fined Bank of America one point two billion dollars, um, for basically allowing Chinese and even Mexican drug cartels, [chuckles] uh, to launder money, uh, through the bank.

Uh, Bank of America was found to have violated, uh, all sorts of, uh, anti-money laundering laws and regulations, and so they got, you know, one point two billion dollars.

I mean, [chuckles] that's a lot of money.

Uh, but, you know, possibly more important is that, uh, as you point out, uh, the hypocrisy here, uh, conservatives were being debanked just for their, uh, you know, political views.

Mm-hmm.

It, the whole thing just ticks me off a little.

Yeah, I mean, I, I've gotta say this really reflects poorly on lawyers and our legal system because this is clearly climate is a ridiculous issue.

Uh, number one, our society depends 100% on fossil fuels.

There's nothing that happens in our world without fossil fuels.

Um, you know, you can't, you can't, uh, build a, a wind turbine or a solar panel, or much less install them without fossil fuels.

Everything depends on, on fossil fuels, number one.

Um, even, even if the climate hoax was true and that emissions were everything that the other side said, um, the US is only a small part.

Is that document gonna play any part in this decision? I was wondering if it would come up during the arguments on Monday, and I didn't hear it mentioned.

It, the whole thing just ticks me off a little.

Yeah, I mean, I, I've gotta say this really reflects poorly on lawyers and our legal system because this is clearly climate is a ridiculous issue.

Uh, number one, our society depends 100% on fossil fuels.

There's nothing that happens in our world without fossil fuels.

Um, you know, you can't, you can't, uh, build a, a wind turbine or a solar panel, much less install them without fossil fuels.

Everything depends on, on fossil fuels, number one.

Um, even, even if the climate hoax was true and that emissions were everything that the other side said, um, the US is only a small part.

Is that gonna play, is that document gonna play any part in this decision? I was wondering if it would come up during the arguments on Monday, and I didn't hear it mentioned.

Well, that's true

...

yet Europe, [laughs] Europe is in the mess it's in, the world is in the mess it's in, uh, because of the climate agenda.

You know, Europe adopted the Kyoto Protocol in 1998 and started reducing fossil fuel use and fossil fuel production and, um, outsourced its fossil fuel needs because, you know, the entire world is dependent on fossil fuels.

You cannot, uh, make yourself undependent and, and have a, an industrial economy.

So they outsourced them where? To Russia.

[laughs] And, and they did two things.

... and how we should be directing our energy policy.

Mm-hmm

... because first off, you know, Justice Alito had recused himself.

Um, the Greens have, uh, been riding him for probably 10, at least 10 years now about his investments in oil and gas stocks.

And so he recuses himself from this, even though he did not own any of the companies in the litigation.

So, so we start off at, you know, [laughs] minus one justice, and then, you know, for, for two hours, the arguments went for two hours.

It was really just, it was several lawyers and eight justices arguing about something that they really don't understand.

I mean, they really don't understand the environment or climate.

Big, bingo.

What does this decision mean?

Well, that's a good question.

I think it's more of a process than really a decision.

So the Trump administration has gotten rid of the greenhouse gas emission rules for power plants that were issued by Joe Biden.

But it's not all of them, because there were some issued under Obama that for some reason were not torpedoed by West Virginia versus EPA and are still around.

So this week, they also proposed to get rid of those.

Why they didn't do it last year when they proposed to get rid of the Biden rules, I'm not quite sure.

So can you kind of connect those dots, if they can be connected for me?

Do you, uh, have any feedback on this?

Yeah, so, so the National Academy of Sciences, as you know and, and, and our viewers know, um, they have, uh, been pushing the climate hoax since 1979.

And since President Trump has, um, you know, been in office for a second term, the National Academy of Sciences has now three times tried to thwart his agenda.

The first time was, uh, last, uh, at the end of last summer when President Trump announced, when the EPA announced that they were gonna roll back the endangerment finding.

Um, the National Academy of Sciences announced on their own that they were gonna conduct their own review of the proposed rollback of the greenhouse gases.

That is not their role.

They're supposed to be a sort of a consultant to the federal government, not a fact-checker, um, you know, acting on its own.

... breathe a lot of this stuff, and they couldn't make them sick, right?

I want you to elaborate on why it is a federal government issue and only the federal government should do it rather than states.

So only the federal government can regulate climate because it's obviously a national issue.

It's called global warming or global climate.

It is not Colorado warming.

climate, Colorado warming, or in some cases, Baltimore City or New York City warming or climate.

It's global warming.

So on global issues, you know, that involves dealing with foreign countries.

I'm so glad I get to talk to another geek.

What's this all about?

Right.

Well, good morning, Larry.

So, uh, what you're talking about is the, uh, Obama-era, uh, endangerment finding issued by the Obama EPA.

So the Trump, uh, EPA rolled that back, rescinded it in February, and there's ongoing litigation.

And the reason the Trump administration rescinded the endangerment finding was that, uh, Trump administration determined that EPA never had, uh, congressional authorization to regulate, um, and, uh, regulate greenhouse gases.

And e- you know, regulatory agencies can only do things when they've been authorized by Congress, especially major regulatory programs.

Um, quickly, uh, Steve, while I've got you, the president had an event, uh, last week in the Oval Office signing executive orders supporting, as he puts it, "clean, beautiful coal." Uh, what exactly is behind this, and, and will the coal industry rebound from years of neglect and outright murder from the EPA under Obama and under Biden?

It- they, they became political activists for the whole climate change Green New Deal front.

Uh, yeah.

I mean, if the weather wasn't exactly average [laughs] for that day, it was global warming.

Even if it was colder, it was global warming.

Too much rain, not enough rain, everything was global warming all the time.

And, you know, they're, as, as weather people, they were fine.

You know, uh, half the time the weather people were wrong.

Uh, what is the current political climate, if I can use that word, for the green energy agenda and all of the over-the-top sort of hysterics that you- we've been hearing for the last couple of decades from that group?

They're ridiculous.

Yeah, there's no question about it.

It's a great move.

It's long overdue.

For the past 20 years, we've been destroying our grid with the climate hoax and green new energy scam, wind, solar, batteries.

That has crapped up our grid.

We are no longer prepared to support the burgeoning AI industry and the reindustrialization of America.

I mean, this is gonna be pretty significant to not rebuild, but to build up better infrastructure and almost like their own little power plants.

I think it's a happy day for you.

Yeah, this is, as you said, is the biggest deregulatory move in history.

Getting rid of the Obama EPA endangerment finding will provide trillions and trillions of dollars worth of benefits to consumers.

And when they also repeal the endangerment finding for power plants, that will lower energy costs.

Beautiful.

provide for the energy boom.

This endangerment finding is the most expensive hoax of all time.

What about like our farmers and our small and medium business owners that got hit with so much climate crap regulation for their factories and their businesses and their big farms over the last 15, 16 years? It put many out of business.

That's un-American in my book.

Yeah, no, so the Trump administration has been going in the right direction since the beginning.

You know, the one big beautiful bill stopped penalizing car makers for not meeting corporate average fuel economy standards.

This is rolling back the Biden EPA rule that basically mandate electric cars.

So we're heading in the right direction.

We've got a long way to go, though, to save consumers more than just $1,000.

We've had these ridiculous fuel economy standards since the 1970s.

Is that like the little ones they build over in Italy and Europe so it can fit in the dinky like one lane streets and park in a bicycle spot? Is that what he's approving? Mini

Okay, all right, so, uh, uh, Steve Malloy found that, and he put that out and he said, "See if you can guess what the problem is." What is the problem there, Steve? Tell our audience.

Well, the problem is that, you know, these four very conservative people on Fox News point out, rightly, how wrong it is what, you know, these climate terrorists have been doing in England and, and have now brought to America.

And it's all indefensible, but then of course, you know, the leftist panel member that they have on the show just starts talking climate crisis, climate crisis, and she keeps saying climate crisis, and how then she justifies what, you know, these climate terrorists are doing by saying climate crisis.

And, uh, so she tries to outflank them that way, and what, what was disturbing to me is that none of the four conservative panelists on that show went after her for claiming climate crisis.

They should, there's no climate crisis.

What's the climate crisis? Describe it.

Uh, it's summertime, it's hot in some places, like it always is.

Tell people about that.

Oh yeah, but when you start pointing

at Sheldon Whitehouse like that, I mean, that's really unusual.

And I'm loving it.

The interesting thing is that Zelda doesn't really have any experience in the environment or EPA.

This is completely new to him.

But he is just so shocked and outraged by what he's seeing.

and Sheldon Whitehouse and Adam Schiff, and he also went toe-to-toe with Ed Markey.

Is this feasible? Can they get this done in the next three and a half years?

Did they think people would never uncover this stuff, Steve? That's why they just do it so blatantly or what?

Well, Dan, thanks for having me.

So while I appreciate the efforts of Doge and Project Veritas and Lee Zeldin, I've been squawking about this since the Inflation Reduction Act passed in 2020, in August of 2022.

I remember.

You know, I've got a clip on my XV today of the Biden EPA administrator laughing about how EPA and his buddies got $100 billion as walking around money, which is slang for money for buying votes.

Last year, this Inflation Reduction Act money, $64 billion of it was poured into battleground states by the Biden administration to buy votes, including red states.

So this has been going on for a long time.

Yes.