Trump Administration and California State Conflict on Emission Standards

Trump Administration and California State Conflict on Emission Standards

      The conflict between Trump’s administration and the state of California is a prolonged rivalry on auto emission standards that would require the use of more efficient fuel-cars. This is contradicting the federal government requirements. The Trump administration argues that this would lower the prices of cars and set national uniform standards. State officials of California denounced the decision claiming that it was an illegal grab of power. They further claim it would result in an increase of tailpipe emissions that would cause health problems to the public (Greenblatt and Saxena, 862). Trump responded by threatening that his administration would withhold federal highway funds from the state, arguing that it did not meet the obligation of the Clean Air Act. The conflict has led to a battle between sides, which is now trying to seek opinions from the public.

The conflict between the State of California and the National government is a distinction of the Express conflict preemption and the field preemption. Express conflict preemption occurs when a state law is interfering with federal law. On the contrary, field preemption occurs when a state law is not necessarily conflicting with federal law, but may involve balancing vital state and national interests. The Field Preemption is a powerful tool that can be used to challenge state and local laws that appear to be less favorable than existing federal laws. Article VI Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, the federal law, is the supreme law of the land and takes precedence over the laws of the states (Reagan, 217). While many would argue the law enacted by South Coast does not conflict with the federal laws on emission standards. The supremacy clause holds grounds for preventing states from establishing more stringent rules.

The public opinion would give California an upper hand by framing the states’ argument with the rights by referring to the tradition of the federal government that allows the states to set the emission standards. Trump administration is now working on replacing the regulations on federal vehicle-emission standard laws that President Obama had granted the California state (Greenblatt and Saxena, 862). However, The Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, Andrew Wheeler, urged the public to embrace federalism and its laws. Although he stated, one state should not be allowed to dictate the environmental standards of the whole nation. According to the Clean Air Act, Title 1 programs and activities part A of air quality and emissions limitations; the Act declares to protect the quality of the national air to promote public health. Trump administration fails to incorporate Obama’s fuel economy standards, emphasizing the mobile sources’ greenhouse gases that limit other sources like power plants and refinery industries. The federal government’s withdrawal policy requires owners of companies producing oil and natural gas industry to provide a report on the emission of gases. This will lead to more pollution since there is no surveillance.

However, the Clean Air Act is a federal law; therefore, every state must comply with this law. The fact that the state of California enacted a more stringent law then the Clean Air Act does preempt the Act. According to the California Environmental Protection Agency, “The Federal Clean Air Act preempts state and local governments from adopting or enforcing standards to control emissions from new motor vehicles or engines. However, once California receives a waiver of preemption from the federal government, then other states can adopt these standards (“Doctrine of Preemption”). This waiver, however, may be denied if any of these factors are met. California’s findings on emissions are arbitrary and capricious. This is so, if California does not need its standards to meet the general conditions, and if the state standards are not consistent with the Clean Air Acts standards.

Under the Trump Administration, there has been a roll-back in many Obama era environmental policies. They undermine clean water, clean air, land perseveration, and protected animals. There has been a push to minimize the roles of both the EPA and the Department of Interior. This includes a lack of enforcement tools, slashing of budgets, and the actual removal of the term Climate Change as a primary talking point. The new administration has moved to a pro-business, pro-coal standpoint, which involves a lack of regulation of companies, especially energy companies, and their impact upon the environment. For instance, relative to this, the Paris climate agreement was an arrangement with the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change made in 2015. This global action plan’s purpose was to prevent world destruction by avoiding dangerous climate change by keeping global warming well below 2°C.

All nations except for the United States have fully implemented this plan. President Trump had decided to withdraw the United States from the Act, which proves a big deal for the global arrangement. This primarily because the United States was essential to Paris due to the funds the nation received to keep the agreement afloat. In the end, the world could crash through the critical 2 degrees threshold, the point that climate scientists consider the most dangerous part of climate change. As a result, ecosystems will increase trouble with being unbalanced with the climate, trouble farming current crops, and growing shortages of food and water.

In conclusion, ever since climate change became a concern for policymakers and laypeople alike, the focus of public debate has primarily been on mitigation. It limits greenhouse gas emissions, capturing carbon, and transitioning to renewable energy. Those efforts must continue if we hope to keep the planet hospitable. However, it is also time to acknowledge that no matter what we do, some measures of climate change is here to stay. The phenomenon has already affected the U.S. economy, U.S. national security, and human health. Such costs will only grow over time. The United States must build resilience and overhaul critical systems, including those governing infrastructure, the use of climate data, and finance.