Oh, I agree entirely—the road to rescinding the endangerment finding will not be paved with ease. Too many livelihoods, too many fragile egos depend on keeping that fiction alive. And in a nation as intricate, as unwieldy, as the United States, nothing of consequence is ever quick, never simple.
I’ve often suggested a more elegant, if Herculean, solution: a constitutional amendment mandating that every such act be anchored in science rather than assumption. Imagine it—a legal architecture that defines what facts are, and just as crucially, what they are not. Impossible, you say? Perhaps. From where I stand it looks damn near insurmountable. And yet, it has merit.The process alone would force daylight onto the rot, provided it was accompanied by a relentless public campaign exposing the consequences of our cherished assumptions—those same phantoms that still haunt policy today. Brutal? Certainly. But worthwhile? Without question. After all, some fights are not undertaken because they are easy, but because they are the only ones worth having.