President Trump continued to dismantle the US climate policy this week when he ordered the Ministry of Justice to challenge the laws of states aimed at addressing the crisis – legal scientists said of the campaign called unconstitutional activists and the two sons that they fail.
The president, who described climate change, issued a “trick”, Executive order Restricting the laws of the state that he claimed to be burdened fossil fuel companies and “threatened American energy dominanceHis guidance, which took place on Tuesday night, is the latest in a series of moves that included Under the Federal Climate and Environmental justice programsWithdrawal from the Paris Agreement, and promise Expanding the rent of oil and gas.
Specifically, California, Vermont and New York, three states were particularly firm in pursuing climate work. Public Prosecutor Pam Bondi directs to define and report the laws of the state that focus on climate change or enhance environmental social rule, and stop that “the prosecutor decides to be illegal.”
Certainly, this directive includes almost the laws of the climate New York and Vermont Recently passed. Laws require fossil fuel companies to pay compensation for their emissions, a step that is considered the “extortion”. The President also gives Bondi 60 days to prepare a report that defines state programs such as carbon taxes and fees, as well as those that mention terms such as “environmental justice” and “greenhouse gas emissions”.
“The state laws and its policies cannot be reconciled mainly with the goal of a administration to launch US energy,” says the executive. “They should not stand.”
Legal scientists, environmental preachers, and at least one ruler said that Trump’s efforts to decline state legislation are unconstitutional, and the court’s challenges will certainly follow them. “The federal government cannot strip the independent constitutional power of the states of states unilaterally,” said New York Governor Cathy Hotchol in New York. statement On behalf of the Climate Alliance in the United States, an alliance of 24 states is working to reduce emissions.
Although the critics of this step said that Trump was running Fragile legal landForcing government governments and local governments to litigate an effect of chilling on climate work. In addition to the reference to the administration’s loyalty to the interests of fossil fuels Help in financing his campaignCathy Mulvi, director of the accountability campaign for the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of the relevant scientists, said that Trump’s order is “seeking to intimidate.”
She said: “It seems that the party that claims to revolve around the rights of states to take or seek to prevent states from taking action,” she said.
The American Petroleum Institute praised the order, Saying This will “address the transcendence of the state” and “help restore the rule of law.”
Trump’s order comes several weeks after fossil fuel executives pool In the White House to warn the president against increasing pressure from state lawsuits, including The moves to demand pollutants are guilty of death. Trump The executives told the executives that it would take actionAccording to the news E & E.
“This executive matter requires some of the arguments that we saw from companies such as Exxon Mobil, as they sought to have climate cases It was removed from the Federal CourtAnd then It was rejected in the state courtsMulfi says.
The president announced this step while standing in front of the coal miners, gathered for the White House party, during which it took place separate Executive order Support what he called the “Beautiful and Clean Coal”. This is to remove the boundaries of air pollution and other regulations adopted by the Biden administration. “The ceremony was mainly related to plays and bullying,” says Kate Kennedy, Managing Director of Authority, Climate and Energy at the National Resources Council.
Experts say The economy makes Coal return is unlikely. Over the past two decades, the industry has been sharply sharp Decline Since the facilities embraced gas and renewable energy such as wind and solar energy, all of which are much cheaper. In California, which Processing facilities Of the purchasing power of coal factories in other states in 2007 and established CAP and Trade program Where power stations must buy credits to pay the price of their pollution, emissions decreased during the growth of the economy. Such programs may target the president’s recent executive orders.
“It should be clear now that the only thing that the Trump administration is doing is chaos and uncertainty,” Lian Randolph, who heads the California Air Resources Council, said in a statement.
It is still not clear how the executive order will be implemented. “The executive branch does not actually have the power to get rid of the laws of states,” Mulfi said. Countries have a firm priority for environmental policies within their borders. The executive will turn this on his head. Kennedy said: “It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which the Ministry of Justice, which challenges countries on these policies is successful,” Kennedy said.
This does not mean that the Trump administration cannot take steps to achieve the goals shown in the order. Even if the executive order does not take off the state laws directly, climate advocates worry that the Trump administration will threaten to block federal funding for other programs, such as highways, if they do not comply.
“The same executive has no legal impact, but the procedures that government agencies will take will face, and many of these will be strongly challenged in court,” said Michael Gerard, director of the faculty at the Sabine Center of Colombia.
It was immediately clear that at least some states would not back down. “This is the world in which the Trump administration wants your children to live.” He said in a statement. “California will not come out to reduce harmful pollution through a glorious press release that denies an executive.”
Republican countries More than the law to reduce inflation 2022 benefitedThe strategy that some people can make party legislation more difficult for future departments to cancel. Ironically, Kennedy says, they are not necessarily classified as climate policies, and may be avoiding financing for things such as batteries manufacturing facilities in the south of the executive demand. Kennedy said: “They are simply walking in the field of creating a clean energy economy,” Kennedy said.
Senator Shieldon Whitos said that this progress makes the executive “illegal assault.” “It is not only the latest dream of the big oil fever that violates the sovereignty of the state,” he wrote to Gristand “He is trying to empty decades of policies that are activated to the state, which decreases the energy costs of families, protecting clean air and water, reducing carbon pollution responsible for climate change, and protecting Americans from the shocks of the price dependence on fossil fuels.”
