President Donald Trump’s ongoing efforts to dismantle U.S. climate policy took a drastic turn this week as he directed the Justice Department to challenge state laws aimed at addressing the climate crisis. Legal scholars have deemed this move unconstitutional, while climate activists are confident that it will fail.
The executive order signed by President Trump restricts state laws that he claims have burdened fossil fuel companies and threatened American energy dominance. Specifically targeting California, Vermont, and New York, the order directs the Attorney General to identify and report state laws related to climate change or environmental governance and to halt any that are deemed illegal.
One of the laws likely to be affected is the climate superfund laws recently passed in New York and Vermont. These laws require fossil fuel companies to pay damages for their emissions, a move that the executive order labels as “extortion.” Additionally, the order gives the Attorney General 60 days to prepare a report outlining state programs such as carbon taxes, fees, and initiatives promoting environmental justice and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Critics of the executive order argue that it is unconstitutional and infringes on states’ rights to implement their own environmental policies. New York Governor Kathy Hochul, speaking on behalf of the United States Climate Alliance, a coalition of 24 states working towards emissions reductions, stated that the federal government cannot strip states of their independent constitutional authority.
While legal challenges are expected to follow, the executive order has already received praise from the American Petroleum Institute, which believes it will address state overreach and restore the rule of law. However, environmental advocates and legal experts caution that the order could have a chilling effect on climate action, as it seeks to intimidate states from taking meaningful steps to combat climate change.
President Trump’s order comes on the heels of a meeting with fossil fuel executives at the White House, where they expressed concerns about increasing pressure from state lawsuits and climate-related legislation. The president assured the executives that he would take action, leading to the issuance of the executive order.
Despite the administration’s efforts to support the coal industry through regulatory rollbacks and executive orders, experts believe that economics will ultimately drive the energy transition away from coal. The industry has been in decline for the past two decades, with utilities favoring cheaper alternatives like gas and renewable energy sources. Programs like California’s cap and trade system, which have successfully reduced emissions while supporting economic growth, may be targeted by the recent executive orders.
In conclusion, the implementation and enforcement of President Trump’s executive order remain uncertain. While the executive branch does not have the authority to overturn state laws, the order challenges the primacy of states in setting environmental policies within their borders. As legal battles loom, the future of state-led climate action hangs in the balance. Kennedy’s statement about the Department of Justice challenging states on their climate policies raises questions about the effectiveness of such a move. While the Trump administration may not be able to directly overturn state laws through an executive order, there are concerns that federal funding for programs like highways could be used as leverage to force compliance.
Michael Gerrard, from Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, believes that the actions taken by government agencies in pursuit of the executive order’s objectives will likely face legal challenges in court. This sets the stage for a potential showdown between the Trump administration and states unwilling to back down.
California Governor Gavin Newsom wasted no time in criticizing the executive order, accusing the Trump administration of wanting future generations to live in a polluted world. He emphasized that California’s efforts to reduce harmful pollution will not be derailed by what he called a “glorified press release.”
Interestingly, Republican states stand to benefit the most from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, a policy that could make it harder for future administrations to undo. Despite not being explicitly labeled as climate policies, these initiatives are seen as essential for creating a cleaner energy economy.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island condemned the executive order as a “lawless assault” on state sovereignty and decades of progress in reducing carbon pollution. He argued that the order not only undermines efforts to lower energy costs and protect the environment but also threatens Americans’ health and well-being.
In conclusion, the battle over climate policies between the federal government and states is likely to intensify in the coming months. While the Trump administration may face legal challenges in implementing its agenda, the resistance from states like California and the concerns raised by climate advocates suggest that the fight for a cleaner, more sustainable future is far from over.
