There are even more secret agendas.
Good piece from Julie Cart of CALMatters on what could happen to California’s clean air laws under a Pruitt EPA. It is pretty depressing, if this comes to pass:
Pruitt was asked by California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris if he would pledge to continue the EPA’s decades-long policy of granting California waivers from the federal Clean Air Act, giving the state the right to set its own more stringent clean air standards. Pruitt—who as Oklahoma’s attorney general sued the EPA more than a dozen times—refused to commit to continuing California’s authority, instead saying he would have to study the issue.
As the article notes, any revocation of the waivers would undermine California’s ability to maintain their cleaner air standards, and thus reduce air pollution throughout the state, and combat climate change. This would cause ripple effects in the environmental community worldwide, because California is a leader in this area, and many of the State’s regulations are imitated and adopted by other cities, states, and countries. Obviously, Pruitt is not the director of the EPA yet, and no action has been proposed. But based on the experience of the last two weeks and Pruitt’s legal history, it would be naïve not to be concerned.
But, I am more concerned/worried by two paragraphs and a quote in the middle of the article:
But some conservatives, who contend that regulations often saddle businesses with unfair burdens, welcome the notion of eliminating the right of states to make their own rules. Former state Assemblyman Tim Donnelly recently wrote a column for the alt-right neo-nazi [ed] Breitbart website supporting dismantling both the state air board (CARB) and the EPA.
“But now, CARB could be on the ropes for a change,” Donnelly wrote. “If President Trump’s pick for EPA picks a serious fight with CARB, this could be the first ray of hope for the long-suffering Americans living behind enemy lines in the Socialist Republic of California.”
What the…?
Breitbart, once again, will most likely be at the forefront of policy for the new Trump administration and Republican congress.
Is this a hole that that will be exploited? Maybe, if the probable revocation of California’s environmental waivers withstands the courts. It could set a precedent on all sorts of issues where the Trump administration could push back on state's abilities to create laws that are not enumerated by federal laws — environmental laws, LGBTQ rights, gun control, marijuana, etc. The goal for conservatives always appears to be that when the federal government can make it worse (e.g. cripple environmental laws, or take away religious/racial/gender protections), then it is good to take away state's rights; but if it the federal government is trying to make things better for everyone, then state’s rights should be defended at all costs.
