Blog

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hosted four days’ worth of hearings to gather public testimony on its proposal to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding and the suite of existing greenhouse gas (GHG standards for cars and trucks that the finding supplies the legal justification for. The vast majority of the participants testified in strong opposition to the proposal, and included a broad cross-section of our society: faith leaders; a high school student; community organizers; and concerned grandparents.

Not that long ago, conservatives demanded that the government balance costs and benefits. They still do, but with a twist: They demand special limits on consideration of environmental effects. But that makes no sense. Whatever rules we have about costs should apply to all types of costs, and the same with benefits. The result of skewing the analysis is, not surprisingly, that we get conservative results more often.

If a tree falls in the forest but no one hears it, does it still make a sound? If a law hasn’t been formally repealed but can be violated with complete impunity, is it still in effect? I’ll leave the first question to philosophers, but the second one could have major legal implications. Here’s why.

President Donald Trump is on a rampage. He has big plans for a mass repeal of existing regulations, he’s trying to use emergency declarations to short-circuit normal environmental protections, and he’s savaging environmental agencies. He’s also at war with the rule of law, dodging court orders, ignoring statutes, and punishing lawyers and law firms that have dared to challenge him. In area after area, Trump has tried to sweep aside legal constraints. Part of the point of Trump’s “shock and awe” campaign has been to overwhelm the ability of opponents and the courts to keep up with his legally questionable actions. Trump’s attack on the bureaucracy is also an attack on the rule of law because one of the key functions of bureaucrats is to ensure that the government follows the rules.

In one of President Donald Trump’s first executive orders, he eliminated a centralized system that Jimmy Carter initially set up to issue regulations governing environmental impact statements. Instead, he called on each agency to issue its own regulations, which seems to have caused the predictable amount of confusion. I’ve examined the new regulations from three agencies: the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Department of Transportation (DOT), which happened to be the first ones that I saw. There seems to be little rhyme or reason in the variations.

In a recent post, we highlighted how the Trump administration's executive orders (EOs) boosting the coal industry will likely not accomplish their hopes for “revival,” as the basic economics of coal generation cannot be modified by executive order, despite Trump’s or Lee Zeldin’s desires. What these policies will achieve, ultimately, is releasing coal-fired power plant operators from any obligation not to harm the communities where they operate.

However dispiriting the federal pullback of critical climate funding currently feels, it’s essential to play the long game and continue to develop effective strategies for an ongoing clean energy transition.

North Carolinians are facing more threats to our clean energy future at both the state and federal levels.

There are many reasons why Senate Republicans’ recent decision to defy the parliamentarian and repeal California’s Clean Air Act waivers using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) was objectionable. But one objection that hasn’t received enough – any? – attention is how legislative gimmicks like the CRA contribute to the broader problem of congressional dysfunction.