The Trump administration is working to revoke California's authority to set auto emissions rules that are stricter than federal standards, and Andrew Wheeler, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency has said that the administration will move forward with a single national vehicle pollution standard. Currently, about a third of the national auto market must follow tighter emissions rules under standards that are similar to California's, so revoking the California waiver would have a huge effect on the nation.
Recently the federal government has been working to weaken climate change regulations due to Trump's skepticism about the cause of climate change. His administration has made plans to weaken auto emissions standards nationwide, loosen restrictions on coal-burning power plants and decrease regulations on energy companies emitting greenhouse gases like methane. If the Supreme Court upholds Trump’s decision, it could permanently block states from regulating vehicle greenhouse gas pollution, but if it is not upheld, then states will have the right to make pollution standards stricter than the federal government. The Supreme Court's decision could be the precedent that determines whether the state or national government has the authority to regulate environmental rules.
Public opinion seems to oppose Trump’s measures to roll back environmental rules, and four automakers have even signed a deal with California to comply with tighter emissions standards if the Trump’s plan goes through.
Questions:
1. Do you think that the federal government has the authority to overrule states' environmental rules?
2. Do you think climate change will play a big role in the 2020 presidential election?
3. What do you think the government can do to regulate climate change?
Technically the federal government does have the authority to overrule California's auto emissions rules, since it can be considered under the Commerce clause. Auto emissions restrictions could affect interstate economy for car manufacturers, so Congress has the power to regulate these restrictions. However, this seems like a bad idea for the Trump administration if he is looking for reelection. Climate change will only become a greater issue as time goes on, so it is in a politician's best interests to at least address it.
ReplyDeleteThe federal government does have the authority to overrule the environmental rules of states when they interact with interstate commerce, which most of them do, thanks to the commerce clause. However, this kind of deregulation by the Trump administration may result in devolution, much like many other presidential actions by this administration. Hopefully climate will be a big issue in 2020 since it really is a huge problem, but the main issue so far appears to be healthcare.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned above, yes, the federal government most certainly has the authority to overrule auto emissions rules under the commerce clause, especially given the conservative lean of the supreme court right now. Climate change will definitely play a big role in the 2020 elections, at least on the democratic side. I'm not sure how much other hard-liner republicans value science and the environment (at least Trump doesn't care for either), but most democratic voters are looking for someone who will attempt to address the issue of climate change to a greater extent than the federal government has in the past. The government could honestly do a lot to address climate change, but "can" and "will" are two very, very different things.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone else that the commerce clause gives the government the right to regulate emissions, since California having different standards from other states would force automobile companies to invest a lot of money in making cleaner models to be competitive in California. However, this does not make it right for the government to turn a blind eye to climate change because sooner or later it will catch up to our ignorance. I personally think climate change may not come to the forefront of the race as much as foreign policy or immigration once the democratic nominee is selected, but I'm hopeful that the election of pretty much anyone other than Trump, including moderate Republicans, would lead the US to a cleaner and more sustainable future.
ReplyDeleteExcellent connection to the class with federalism. I agree with the above comments that unless there is some other pertinent clause or Supreme Court ruling, the Commerce Clause would grant the federal government the right to regulate California's emission standards; more stringent ones here could force other companies to pay more money. Still, Victor, Philip, and Kevin make the good point that climate change may still make maintaining these restrictions advantageous; then again, given our current administration's environmental consideration this is unlikely to be a concern. In one of Trump's recent tweets regarding the topic, he said:
ReplyDelete"The Trump Administration is revoking California’s Federal Waiver on emissions in order to produce far less expensive cars for the consumer, while at the same time making the cars substantially SAFER. This will lead to more production because of this pricing and safety advantage, and also due to the fact that older, highly polluting cars, will be replaced by new, extremely environmentally friendly cars. There will be very little difference in emissions between the California Standard and the new U.S. Standard, but the cars will be far safer and much less expensive. Many more cars will be produced under the new and uniform standard, meaning significantly more JOBS, JOBS, JOBS! Automakers should seize this opportunity because without this alternative to California, you will be out of business."
I doubt our illustrious president's reasoning that making cars cheaper will somehow motivate companies as a whole to maintain their current standards, but especially in a state like California they may continue to do so. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds, but there will definitely be backlash to this decision.
The federal government should not have the power to overrule individual state’s environmental policies. I understand that we currently have a president who is telling everyone that climate change is a hoax, but the reality is that climate change is a real problem that will affect all of humanity. California’s environmental policy trying to reduce emissions should not be revoked. Climate change will obviously play a huge role in the 2020 election, all of the democrats are somewhat on the same side, wanting to reduce emissions and become a global leader for renewable energy. I think a few things the government can do to help slow down climate change is to invest heavily in renewable energy like wind and solar, and offer generous tax subsidies for electric vehicles.
ReplyDeleteI do think that the federal government has the authority to overrule the states' environment rules due to the commerce clause. However, I don't think it is right that the government revoked a rule that sets a stricter law than the federal law. I do think that the commerce clause is used to prevent bad decisions being made by the states. In this case, for the federal government to revoke a rule that may help with the increased concern about climate change. I think that democrats will definitely bring the issue of climate change into their campaign. It is an issue that needs to be addressed in the near future for the next generations to come. Even though it is an important topic as of now, I don't think it will be the main argument between the presidential candidates and their own campaign. I do believe that Trump's administration is doing to wrong thing in weakening the auto emissions standards nationwide, loosening restrictions on coal-burning power plants and decrease regulations on energy companies emitting greenhouse gases like methane. The government should do the exact opposite so that climate change won't increase at the rate it is now. It is a problem that Trump is a republican and he does not believe in the effects of climate change. At the moment, nothing can be done to regulate climate change, if the president is unwilling to do something about it.
ReplyDeleteI think that the federal government should not have the power to completely overrule state environmental rules, but they should be able to regulate in general under the Commerce clause. Because the every state is at a different condition with their environmental laws; they know what is best for their states. The federal government needs to considered the population, social status, etc when making decisions. I think climate change will be a big issue brought up in the 2020 election since Trump stepped out of the Paris agreement, but many people do think climate change is a problem. The 2020 election will bring more attention as to how to deal with climate change. The government could encourage other more environment-friendly energy.
ReplyDeleteTechnically yes, the federal government does have the authority to regulate states’ environmental policies because the commerce clause gives them the power to do so, but the government’s current plan should not be the one to take precedent. With climate change becoming one of the biggest issues facing the world, not just the nation, America has a duty to set an example for the rest of the world. Back in 2017 when the US backed out of the Paris Climate Agreement, it was a huge moment for the rest of the countries entered in it to see the US withdraw. As the second largest emitter of CO2 in the world, the US should be doing more to support climate change issues than oppose it. It would not be good if other nations follow the trend of the US and decide that it the US can do it, so can they. Instead of dismantling California’s emission policy, they should encourage it and use it as an example to strengthen the current US federal emission policy. I do believe this is not a power that should be devolved to the states, because doing so would make the problem a more loose issue. Having a strict federal standard would put pressure on states to reduce emissions down significantly. This could have a hugely positive impact on current deterioration of the planet.
ReplyDeleteTechnically, the federal government does have the power to overrule state's environmental rules, but only if they're weaker. If state's rules are stronger, meaning there are less emissions, why limit that restriction and allow more emissions despite four automobile companies and the majority of the public agreeing stronger emission regulations are needed? This backwards thinking has prevailed throughout Trump's campaign,especially when appointing people to his administration. He appointed Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education, despite neither her nor her children having ever attended public school. She also is not qualified to hold office because she didn't know the difference between simple, well-known terms widely used among education professionals, and was even unsure about the state of public schools within her own state. Furthermore, the previous head of the EPA (from February 17, 2017 to July 6, 2018), Scott Pruit, actually had tried to sue the EPA while he was a senator, and has even questioned whether climate change was created/amplified by mankind. It is entirely backwards to appoint a corrupt, fossil fuel lobbyist, and strong opponent of the EPA to become the head of the EPA. Its entire job is to protect the environment, as per the acronym states. I believe that while the federal government technically has the power to change states environmental regulations, Trump's stance on just about everything surrounding climate change is entirely and utterly backwards.
ReplyDeleteBecause the U.N. stated there are only 11 years left until we have cause irreparable damage to the Earth, I think it will be a monumental issue in the 2020 campaign, especially for Democrats. Many are becoming increasingly aware about the effects of climate change, and some moderates are becoming more liberal towards policies surrounding climate change, and the majority of the public sees it as an incredibly important issue to address.
Based on the fact that the Constitution holds the Supremacy clause, the federal government does indeed hold power over the states' legislation and is able to overrule them with their own, no matter the area of interest. In terms of the upcoming presidential election, the topic of climate change will most certainly appear in the debates as it is even a focal point of many candidates. Moreover, the Trump administration has failed miserably in addressing the environmental concerns of the American public, and the Democratic candidates will focus on rebuilding 4 years worth of lost progress. More specifically, the Democrats will highlight the need to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement in which the Trump administration had withdrawn from in 2016. Action plans such as these must require active incorporation, and the candidates will definitely take advantage of Trump's failure to fix these urgent problems. Supposedly a Democratic candidate becomes elected as president in the year of 2020, I would assume that the first course of action would be to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement so as to have the U.S. reenter the global effort in eliminating climate change as a major leader. Moreover, limiting the usage of nonrenewable resources would be a step in the right direction, as well as investing in renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, etc... in order to promote a sustainable environment for future generations.
ReplyDeleteUnder the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution, the federal government does indeed have the power to overrule the environmental rules of the states. More and more people are talking about this issue, especially in this past week due to the climate strike. This will inevitably cause climate change to become an issue that is at least talked about a bit in the upcoming 2020 election. A possible way the government may try to regulate climate change can start with the EPA, they may need to follow in what California had and enforce a stricter standard for auto emissions.
ReplyDeleteThere are all kinds of ways you could justify the Federal government interfering with California's emissions standard. First is the Commerce Clause, as effecting which cars and factories can be sold and built in your state will impact commerce on a nationwide scale. Second, the necessary and proper clause, because there are so many ways you stretch that little bugger of a clause. As for the second question, climate change is already a major topic in the 2020 presidential election. If you've been following the Democratic Primaries, you'll see that there has already been a climate change town hall and a climate change forum. Along with that, every serious Democratic Presidential Nominee has a detailed climate change, with a list of actions that can be taken. These range on a large spectrum, with the large stances being a carbon tax, emission regulations, a move towards sustainable energy, large scale elimination of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030/50, carbon capture and sequestration, geoengineering, and even (hopefully) nuclear energy. Oh, and indirectly we should look to disrupt corruption of American politics. Plenty of stuff to do, none of which our government is doing. In fact, they seem to actively be seeking to make it worse. Good thing our President is over 70, or else he would have to live with the consequences of his own actions! How terrifying.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteClimate change will be a big topic in the 2020 presidential election. Many runners to the presidency have surrounded their campaign to solving our climate crisis, one of them being Bernie Sanders, who brought up the Green New Deal, a name based on The New Deal by FDR. Besides Sanders, other presidential candidates have also shown their support to bigger and stronger climate change policies, some of them being Elizabeth Warren and Tom Steyer. Now in 2019, American's have noticed on a big scale that our planet is in danger, so by logic, they will vote for the candidate that proposes the better plan to solve their climate problems. I mean, this was to be expected also since this current administration has been very unfair to climate change regulations.
Technically, as Kyle above has said, the Federal Government has the power and ability to interfere with California's own emission standards. Their emission standards are part of interstate commerce which can be regulated by the Federal government. Climate change will definitely be a big issue except for the conservative right candidates, who for some reason just simply do not have any policies on the issue since it is such a large platform for many of the candidates already.
ReplyDeleteMany commenters have remarked that the Commerce clause gives the federal government authority to overrule California's standards on emissions. However, the Commerce clause merely gives the federal government the authority to regular emissions at all. It is the Supremacy clause which allows them to overrule state laws. However, the Supremacy clause says that federal law takes precedence when a state constitution or law interferes or otherwise conflicts with federal law and the federal government's ability to exercise Constitutional powers. In this case, there is no conflict between the laws. The Clean Air Act specifically allows exceptions for states which had pre-existing emissions regulations. California received a waiver from the EPA to set its own regulations, and the Trump administration should not have the ability to revoke it unless he passes a bill changing the Clean Air Act to remove the possibility of waivers. There should not even be a question of authority because there is no conflict between the state and federal laws. The most the Trump administration should be able to do is prevent other states from signing onto California's standards if those states have not obtained their own waivers.
ReplyDeleteI think climate change will be a large, but not the largest issue in the next election. Awareness will be increased by the torrent of hurricanes and other natural disasters battering the United States, but the country is large enough that it's not feeling the effects nearly as much as some island nations are.
The consensus among scientists is that even if fossil fuel emissions were to suddenly drop to zero immediately, catastrophic climate change is already on its way. Temperature does not instantly respond to rising CO2 levels; it will continue rising for decades, and CO2 has such a long lifespan that it will remain that high for centuries. In 2009, the Arctic Ocean was predicted to be free of sea-ice by 2040. Since then, climate change has been accelerating even faster than predicted because predictions assumed that humans would realize they're destroying their own planet and take major action to stop it, rather than helping it along as our administration has. In order to stop climate change, we not only need to reduce the amount of CO2 we produce, but actively take it out of the air using new technologies.
It really doesn't make sense for the federal government to move backwards like this. The rules set in California are in place in order to reduce carbon emissions, an act that is becoming controversial with the Green New Deal something that some are advocating. If anything the government should take the regulations in California and make them federal law so that all states need to abide by them. It's really unfortunate that the president doesn't believe global warming is an issue that needs to be resolved. It doesn't help that the man simply doesn't believe in it. Honestly California should push back and continue implementing laws that regulate the production of greenhouse gases in order to work against global warming.
ReplyDelete