Jerry Brown vows to sue over Trump’s climate change policy reversals
Brown’s merry band of green justice warriors must brace themselves for a prolonged legal engagement!
It is difficult to keep track of all the #WINNING that I enjoyed this past week, between the implosion of RussiaGate and the IRS apology to Tea Party groups.
Personally, I am savoring President Trump’s efforts to reverse course on Obama’s toxic domestic and foreign policies. Trump’s regulatory rollbacks, as well as his nixing of the Paris Climate Accord and EPA head Scott Pruitt’s ending the “Clean Power Plan”, has already helped fuel the American economic engine.
Yet, California’s politicos cannot embrace the new, political climate. Governor Jerry Brown is now threatening lawfare over the Trump administration’s environmental policies.
Brown, a virulent Trump opponent, told reporters Tuesday that he will sue the president for nixing the Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era regulation Republicans believe hurt the coal industry. He claims the tactic is akin to Republican efforts to hold up climate policies during the Obama-era.
“First of all, we can go to court and block his efforts and we are doing that. Just like the Republicans tried to block [President Barack] Obama’s efforts,” Brown said. Republican attorneys general sued to hold up the Clean Power Plan, but the lawsuit was suspended after Trump rolled back the plan earlier this year.
Democratic attorneys general are now where Republicans were during the Obama administration: working to derail their political opponent’s agenda.
Well, Brown can certainly try. It is interesting to note that the arguments of 18 state attorneys general, led by California Democrat Xavier Becerra,that the monthly payments are required under Obamacare law and cutting them off will harm consumers were just denied by a judge. Brown’s threats may hold even less sway as Americans see the nation enjoy a return to fiscal sanity, and that the EPA’s policy adjustments are not creating the death and destruction touted by eco-activists.
Brown and his merry band of green justice warriors may want to brace themselves for a prolonged legal engagement. The Environmental Protection Agency has formally identified its policy priorities, and climate change is not one of them.
In fact, the phrase “climate change” does not appear in the agency’s draft four-year strategic plan, a 38-page document quietly released for public comment last week.
The three priorities outlined in the plan are consistent with EPA administrator Scott Pruitt’s public comments about how he plans to run the agency: focus on the “core mission” of clean air, land and water; “rebalance” the federal role in environmental regulation, shifting more of the responsibility to states; and enforce laws “as Congress intended.”
What doesn’t appear in the agency’s strategic plan for 2018 through 2022 is any mention of the words climate change or the causes behind it, including carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions.
As a Californian, I might suggest Brown turn his attention to the state’s crumbing infrastructure….including the Oroville Dam, which still is not completely repaired (though the rainy season will be starting soon), and which has seen repair costs almost double to $500 million.
The cost of repairing the crippling damage to Oroville Dam’s spillways caused by last winter’s fierce storms has almost doubled, state water officials said Thursday.
Kiewit, the Nebraska-based construction firm that has the main contract to rebuild the main spillway and emergency spillway at Oroville, the nation’s tallest dam, estimated in its winning bid in April that the work would cost at least $275 million. But the price tag has now grown to at least $500 million, said Erin Mellon, a spokeswoman for the Department of Water Resources.
However, engaging in eco-drama is probably more fun. However, considering the President’s winning streak, the fun probably won’t last.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
We could only hope one of these cases goes to court and the Climate Scientists are deposed so all can see The Emperor’s New Clothes. It is hell waiting on the Mann vs Steyn global-warming hockey-stick court case.
Unfortunately, courts have not proven to be a good mechanism for investigating scientific questions.
The dam(n) repair would “cost at least $275 million”. It looks like the estimate was accurate.
I am waiting for a report on the carbon footprint of the construction work creating that “bullet train”. Those diesel powered earth movers and related stuff are true carbonators.
From what I (non-lawyer with a brother who works construction) understand of such contracts, the company writes the proposal with A, B, and C ‘potential impacts’ with any additional impacts being deferred to the contracting agency at cost plus X%. Then when the State comes out and says “You did not include the cost (D) of mitigating damage to the Hettchee Lesser Yellow-Spotted River Frog, which will cost 15million dollars” they can go back to the contracting agency and say “We’re forced to charge you 15 million more dollars plus, or you will be in breach of contract and we’ll collect on the damages clause.”
After the additional impacts get up into the Q, R and S letters, the contract can become spectacularly profitable for the company just by subcontracting the various impacts to other companies, paying the bills, and adding it (plus markup) to the end contract.
The objective for a company writing a contract with the State is to ensure as long as they do their job, or *try* to do their job regardless of unforeseen obstacles that may prevent it, the state can’t (censor) them out of the money. Because the State will *always* try to (censor) them out of the money.
I wonder what Gov. Brown is going to do if his tax base loses its state and local tax deduction?
One hears a LOT about how CA is a net contributor to the Feds, but it sounds to me like the Feds subsidize the state in multiple ways.
As for Climate Change, people here are good about cleaning up after themselves, but willing to enact any ol’ stupid policy to “protect” the environment.
And so, we have a grocery bag ordinance (no more “single-use” plastic or paper bags for groceries) that has indirectly led to a Hepatitis A epidemic. It seems that homeless people once used these things as an alternative to public toilets, and the sources dried up, once the bag ban went into place. Now the local government hands out this type of bag in kits they give the homeless.
Ecology is hard.
“And so, we have a grocery bag ordinance (no more “single-use” plastic or paper bags for groceries) that has indirectly led to a Hepatitis A epidemic.’
I can’t speak to the epidemic, but I did offer to sign an affidavit that I would re-use the bags at least once after getting the groceries home(dogs), but that offer was rejected. However, I am now in possession of a whole bunch of “single-use” bags with Home Depot, Lowe’s, Ace Hardware, etc logos; not being grocery stores, they are outside the ban… and most will double-bag for you if you have purchased something heavy.
If you are willing to pay the 10-cents per bag fee at the grocery you get bags that will not damage the environment, evidently.
I was re-using my bags for dog and cat stuff. Now I, too, use the ones from the hardware stores!
In my opinion, the heavier plastic bags are worse. I would prefer paper bags because they are biodegradable. Oh, well, enviros never did like to hear from chemists.
Agreed. The only single use bags I have are the ones I buy for my kitchen garbage. The convenience bags are used for kitty litter. There is a group of women in my area that take any bags that people don’t have a use for, cut them up into strips and then crochet them into ground mats that the homeless can use – provides a dry and relatively clean surface for them to lie on.
Here is some good reading on that Elitist Benefiting Tax Deduction.
This Is Rich: Democrats Fight To Protect A $1.8 Trillion Tax Break That Benefits The Top 1%
Tax Reform: What do you call a tax break that delivers 88% of the benefits to upper-income families and subsidizes rich states at the expense of poor ones? If you’re a Democrat, you call it a sacred cow.
One provision of the Republican’s tax-cutting plan that has drawn intense opposition from Democrats is the elimination of state and local tax deductions for those who itemize.
You really view the IRS “apology” as a “win?”
To me it is the final rubbing of salt into the wound. Nobody is being punished. Nobody is going to jail. Nobody is losing their pension. In short, there is NOTHING about the settlement that will discourage similar behavior in the future. In fact, the “settlement” gets paid by you and me.
It is the deep-state pissing on conservative shoes and laughing about it. “You can’t do shit to us” they say.
How is that a “win?”
The win came on election day, 2016. After a long train of abuses and usurpations the big middle of this country swung over to the Conservative side, delivering a stunning series of electoral defeats to the Democrats, culminating in loss of the US Presidency, along with the House and Senate.
Those of us who keep track of things will see to it that there are rule changes, not just for the IRS, but for all of our agencies. It’s boring, but useful. This is how it is usually done in the US. Remember, nobody ever prosecuted J Edgar Hoover, either, but the power of the FBI was circumscribed. There are a few ethics rules that have his name on them. In the future, there will be a few rules attributable to Comey, Lynch, and Lerner, to name a few.
Sorry didn’t mean to down vote you. But, rules? There are already rules in place to prevent the abuses that took place at the IRS. The problem is that nobody is paying a price for breaking them. What good are rules if the left just ignores them?
When Brown and other leftist hacks start trashing Trump, he should shut them down by reminding them that they all took oaths that include supporting the constitution of the US but have passed marijuana laws in conflict and are partaking in criminal conspiracies. He should then go on babbling about how long the criminal sentences are for drug crimes and how many leftists in western state governments could spend the rest of their lives in federal penitentiaries. Then see how zealous they are in poking the bear!
…Still waiting for someone to point out that part of the Constitution which gives Congress authority to regulate narcotics. Recall it took an amendment to regulate alcohol.
This is silly. The drug trade is interstate commerce (and international commerce). The issue has been raised and the courts have had no problem finding the power under the IC clause and Wickard doctrine.
Then why was the 18th Amendment needed to ban alcohol?
Interestingly, a Constitutional amendment was not needed, but Progressives of the day insisted that the ban be ensconced in the Constitution. They won the argument, got the votes, and it was then ratified by Congress.
Let’s not forget that our nation’s worst president was in office at the time. The progressive Woodrow Wilson had all of the characteristics of today’s progressives.
Wilson was a world-class racist who segregated our military and the federal workforce and who supported eugenics quite enthusiastically. He was sure that a perfected humanity could be attained (such a typical progressive fantasy that we see much in evidence today), and he was relentless in his drive to fulfill his destiny as a tyrant. In short, he was your typical progressive.
Progressives then were, as they are now, very happy to use the legal and founding framework of our nation to further their busybody agenda. There was no need for a Constitutional amendment, but the more firmly the progressive can get his legacy writ in stone, the better. Did they need a constitutional amendment to regulate alcohol? Nope. Did Obama need ObamaCare to expand Medicaid? Nope. Progressives want their tentacles to run deep and to cause pain when uprooted (all the better to score political points).
Because it was pre-Wickard.
No one has responded because your question is silly and embarrassing. Your question is premised on the faulty presumption that the 18th Amendment was the only way to ban the making, sale, and distribution of alcohol. It wasn’t, and it still isn’t.
It did not take a Constitutional amendment to regulate alcohol. Progressives wanted an amendment because they thought that would make their nanny-state busybodying permanent.
DirtyOldBarrister is quite correct, so read what he’s written. You may learn something.
As a Californian, I might suggest Brown turn his attention to the state’s crumbing infrastructure
Youse Californians might also note Brown’s panic-driven ’emergency regulation’ mandating that all statewide owners of dams must prepare ’emergency action plans’ – what they must do to warn residents downstream of the inundations which would result if their dams burst.
Not a bad concept, though it’ll cost those owners (many are farmers of limited means) big bucks to hire the engineers to map the downstream terrain and run the software to predict the wave’s extent and depths and velocities as it progresses. A direct result of the Oroville disaster, for which the State had decidedly NOT prepared any such study.
Like other Brown diktats, the ’emergency’ label prevented any influence of legislators on the bill, allowing it to be forged by the engineering activists who’ll profit by all the new work on short deadlines.
Jerry Brown can’t have the other states getting a economic advantage while California flagellates itself.
Cool…. one group of tax payers is going to fund a lawsuit against another group of taxpayers and a bunch of lawyers are going to make a lot of Mercedes dealers happy.
How is any suit in this area not speculative?
i’m waiting for the screams from my neighbors here in #Failifornia when they can no longer deduct their state taxes from their federal ones, and they finally have to pay their fair share…
pass the popcorn please!
Hey Jerry Brown, you forgot to wipe.
That’s majorly bad for the environment.
I would love to see the right questions being answered before we spend another dime on climate change for these questions have yet to adequately researched and answers found. The questions needed to be answered are:
1. How much of the known climate change is due to man’s actions and not Mother Nature’s? Most scientists (real ones that is) put this number somewhere between trivial and less than 50%. Climate change activists demand the number to be 100% or more (sarc).
2. If we were to pursue a policy of trying to “fix” the climate, then what would success look like? Currently, we have no goals or anything remotely close to tell us what we are trying to accomplish other than some vague slow temperature increases and such. In other words, how do we define success in this endeavor?
3. How much is the cost of doing nothing as opposed to how much will “fixing” the climate cost? It should be remembered that costs are not just monetary and can include lives lost, quality of life, and many other kinds of costs. If we do the numbers and assume that climate change is 100% man made that CO2 is the sole culprit of climate change, and that the climate models are accurate despite routinely grossly overestimating the effect of CO2 on the Earth’s temperature, then, according to the Paris Accord, spending over $1 trillion/year for the next 85 years (adjusted for inflation every year) will cease temperature increases by as much as 0.03 C. This is so small that it cannot be measured and is inconsequential. So do we continue to push climate change stuff if we discover that the cost is more than we have while the cost of doing nothing is something we can easily afford?
“Shut up!” they said.