Less than six months after his second term, Donald Trump has started or proposes more than 150 actions that experts say they harm the environment, ranging from canceling climate subsidies programs to loosening regulations. Govern air and water.
Many of these actions have been part of the widest objectives of the president of the conclusion in government spending, increasing the independence of energy and the restructuring of federal agencies. But some also seem to point to a particular state: California.
Known for a long time as a national leader in climate and environmental politics, the Golden State has been in Trump’s sights since its first administration, when confronting Governor Gavin Newsom on issues such as the forest and the management of water supplies. In recent months, Trump has intensified his specific efforts from California, including Promising the block The state’s capacity to establish strict escape tube emission standards, a battle that has ended to the Senate.
Many of the president’s actions in the first 100 days of this administration have not only called California by name, but also have attacked him disproportionately. A filtered list of pending programs of the Energy Department includes 53 projects in California, more than any other state, as well as more projects in the blue states than the reds.
In April, the president appointed California in an executive order that ordered the Department of Justice to seek and “Stop“The state laws that address climate change, in which he described the first limit and trade program in California as an unfair means to punish companies for their use or fossil fuels.
In July 2017, then Governor Jerry Brown raised a climate bill after signing it as former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, third from the left, looks, keeping alive the initiative of the California firm to combat global warming, which puts a limit and a price on the emissions that change the weather.
(Eric Risberg / Associated Press)
Experts say it is not surprising that the president goes for the environmental progress of California. Trump received record donations from oil and gas companies so that their campaign. Meanwhile, California, a democratic strength, has established aggressive climatic objectives that seek to limit industries and the transition from the State to carbon neutrality by 2045.
“One hundred percent, California is the goal,” said Mary Creasman, executive director of the non -profit environmental voters of California. “It is in the same line as everything we have seen of this president: political reprisals in each turner towards anyone who does not agree with him in anything, and California does not agree with him in much.”
But California also has the tools, media and motivation to defend themselves, said Creasman and others, even through litigation and legislet.
The State has already presented or united almost 50 legal actions against the current administration, at least seven of which belong to the environment.
Among them is a claim that challenges the statement of the president of a national energy emergency“ Which requires greater production of fossil fuels, renounced environmental reviews and rapid monitoring of projects in ecosystems and potentially sensitive habitats.
“These procedures misuse the authorities for the response to disasters and avoid important health and environment protections for the benefit of the fossil fuel industry,” California Atty. Gene. Rob Bonta wrote in a statement about that case.
Bonta has also joined a lawsuit against administration’s plans to freeze federal funds for a series of programs that Trump has belittled as “awakened”, including environmental measures. Other costumes challenge attempts to raise funds for the construction of electric vehicle load stations throughout the country; Development of wind energy; And the American program that leaves young people to relief organizations by disaster.
California attorney general has also joined a motion to defend the security rules of the chemical accident of the Environmental Protection Agency for state and federal efforts to awaken or repeal it, and has signed the Federal Mass Laysal Laysal Laysal Laysal Laysal Laysal Laysal Lay, agency.
State legislators, including sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, have also thrown their hats into the ring, writing letters to the chiefs of several agencies as opposed to the cuts of climatic subsidies in the EPA, the closure of the federal system of disaster monitoring and other topics.
Such challenges are a critical defense line for California and other states that work to preserve climate progress, said Pete Maysmith, president of the Conservation Voting League, a non -profit defense group based in DC.
“We have to litigate, we have to organize, we have to win elections,” said Maysmith. “We need our champions in Congress, many of which call California their home, to stand up and fight things like trying to revoke the exemption of clean air that California has for 50 years.”
In fact, the battle on clean air Waatvers is among the fiercest fights of the state so far.
For decades, California has been awarded a special authority to establish its own vehicle issuance standards using exemptions issued by the EPA. The workers of the Clean Air Law have been fundamental for the stress of the State to limit greenhouse gases and the transition to electric vehicles, such as their prohibition of the sale of new cars with gasoline by 2035.
But Trump has moved to block the authority of the State to do so, and the beginning of this month, the United States Representatives Chamber agreed with him. Now the battle is scheduled for a vote in the Senate, which could happen as soon as this week.
Cliff Judications, a member of the California Air Resources Board, believes that the president is pointing to the State partly due to his special authority.
“I think California stands out because we are the leaders of many things, including our clean car and our standard of zero emission vehicles,” Judges said. If California loses the battle of the Senate, the State will challenge it in the judicial system, he said.
California Can Achieve A Similar Outcome Without The Waatvers, Judiciary Said, Such As Raising Fees Or Impossible Taxes On Heavy Polluting Vehicles – A TACTIC DEPLOYED IN NORWAY SM Last they are there injuru Last yearlast leir and last year injurious and last and last and last year to leave Last Year Last Year Last Year Last Years.
California could also consider instituting a rule of “indirect source” throughout the state that would require ports and other facilities to limit pollution in the surrounding area, which could, for example, force transport partners.
While the problem of the clean air act is complicated, other battles may be simpler. That includes Trump’s offer to stop the state capitalization and trade program, which establishes limits in the greenhouse gas emissions of the colleagues and allows them to sell “credits” for United issues to other companies.
Experts say it does not have the authority to put an end to the California program.
“It is not really something that Trump or the attorney general can do. If you want to stop the application of the state law, you have to go to the Court, and that is the jurisdiction of the Court,” Maggie Couter, a high -level lawyer, the climate climate -to the executive order before the executive order.
Judicial, and points out that the State does not need federal authority to accumulate a limit and trade program. Neinder The EPA Nor Congress has created a National Capitalization and Commerce program that advances state programs: “Therefore, it is completely legal according to state law, and I see nothing under the current federal law that came to our program,” Hey said.
Beyond defending themselves in the courtroom, California can also use the legislation to go to the offensive, according to the environmental voters of Creasman or California.
The State is already flexing its legislative force with two 2023 laws scheduled to enter into force next year. Senate bill 253 and 261 will require large corporations that do business in California to publicly measure and disable their carbon emissions. Creasman said the laws take advantage of the size of the California market to help boost national policy, and could be a model for similar efforts in the future.
Another law that dates back through the state legislature, bill 684 of the Senate, known as the “Superfund Law of pollutants to pay weather”, would require that fossil fuel pollutants pay for their part of damages and disasters caused by their emissions. The funds would be towards projects and programs to prepare and respond to climate change.
“As we see that the federal government begins to reduce resources, ‘Pay of pollutions’ is a really importer mechanism,” said Creasman.
In the event that the Federal Government is successful in reversing the protections under the Clean Air Law, the Clean Water Law, the Law of Endangered Species and other rules, California could also cool a concept known as “trigger laws” to restore established descriptions.
The trigger laws become required only by specific events or conditions. A recent prominent example was when several states used laws to trigger immediate abortion prohibitions following the Supreme Court that overloads Roe vs. Wade.
This combination of weapons in the Arsenal of California (litigation, legislation and a great economy) means that California can set up a good defense when it comes to the environment, Creasman added.
“It is dangerous not to approach this moment with the severity and reality of what we are, and what we are is a struggle for our lives,” he said.
The Times staff writer, Kevin Rector, contributed to this report.
