Trump administration sues CA over state climate pact with Quebec

[RainCaster]

Source: Aljazeera

Last month, Trump said he is revoking California's power to set vehicle-emissions standards that are tougher than those demanded by federal regulations, portraying the move as a "win for consumers".

Environmentalists argue that Trump's rules will accelerate climate change, and that emissions rules improve fuel economy, in turn lowering consumer costs.

Also last month, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent a letter to California officials saying the state is not taking adequate steps to fix air quality problems, putting in jeopardy billions of dollars in federal funding for transportation projects.

Hundreds of former EPA employees are calling for a congressional probe into whether the agency's feud with California represents retaliation for the state's failure to support Trump's political agenda.

Read more: https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/trump-administration-sues-ca-state-climate-pact-quebec-191023141029576.html

---

While his administration says that international treaties are the exclusive right of the feds, he sends his personal attorney to Ukraine to bypass the State Department and many decades of consistent diplomacy.

[RainCaster]

1. From another mag: electrek

Not just a list of the pertinent arguments, but an opinion about the validity of those claims.

DOJ’s case contradicts itself
This background of recent actions is important to understand DOJ’s new complaint and its weaknesses. Of particular note, the legal argument that the EPA used to revoke California’s clean air waiver is that, while California can regulate pollutants, it can’t regulate greenhouse gases.

In DOJ’s complaint today, it uses a quote from Massachusetts v. EPA to support its cause of action. The court’s majority opinion stated that Massachusetts “…cannot negotiate an emissions treaty with China or India,” which is an example of “dicta” and not binding precedent.

Not every quote in a Supreme Court opinion has the force of law. The only thing that has the force of law is the actual decision itself, i.e., which position the court takes on the case at hand. And in the case, which was helpfully pointed out by the DOJ, it turns out that precedent shows that the Clean Air Act does allow for the regulation of greenhouse gases alongside other pollutants.

The crux of Massachusetts v. EPA was whether or not carbon emissions were covered under the Clean Air Act. In 2006, while led by a republican, the EPA, in another anti-environment move, wrongly argued that the Clean Air Act did not cover carbon emissions. The Supreme Court’s opinion stated that, yes, carbon emissions are covered under the Clean Air Act, and the EPA must regulate them.

So the DOJ, in using a quote from Massachusetts, shows that their legal reasoning is incorrect. Not only do greenhouse gases count as pollutants and thus can be regulated under the Clean Air Act, but by reminding us that the Clean Air Act covers carbon, they also remind us that the EPA legal reasoning was deficient when they revoked California’s waiver. California has explicit authority in the Clean Air Act to regulate its own clean air, the EPA has no explicit authority to revoke waivers once granted, and greenhouse gases count as pollution per Massachusetts.

[scarletwoman]

2. Thank you! nt

[iluvtennis]

3. So tired of the nonsensical BS from trump. Enough is enough.

[BigmanPigman]

4. Impeach The Mother Fucker Already!!

[roamer65]

5. CA can just ignore the Dump nonsense.

Pass CA state laws and just ignore any federal edicts or rulings against them.