Xtra News Community 2
April 27, 2018, 01:42:17 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to Xtra News Community 2 — please also join our XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP.
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links BITEBACK! XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP Staff List Login Register  

California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…

Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
Author Topic: California versus Trump and his mentally-retarded supporters…  (Read 273 times)
Admin Staff
Posts: 28673

Having fun in the hills!

« Reply #25 on: March 20, 2018, 02:27:09 pm »

California needs to cut itself off from the leeches and parasites in Trump country and stop feeding them money.

California is the sixth-largest economy in the entire world....so why do they need the retards who reside in Trump country?
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Admin Staff
Posts: 28673

Having fun in the hills!

« Reply #26 on: March 20, 2018, 02:27:26 pm »

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times....

Meet the mayor who dared to take on the president…
…will resistance help or hurt city?

Libby Schaaf is the left's newest hero. Will Trump punish Oakland for it?

By MARK Z. BARABAK | Monday, March 19, 2018

Mayor  Libby Schaaf drew President Donald J. Trump's ire after she warned Oakland of an impending ICE raid. — Photograph: Francine Orr/Los Angeles Times.
Mayor  Libby Schaaf drew President Donald J. Trump's ire after she warned Oakland of an impending ICE raid. — Photograph: Francine Orr/Los Angeles Times.

OAKLAND — When Mayor Libby Schaaf delivered her most recent State of the City address, she moved the event from Oakland's City Hall to a location rife with symbolism, the Islamic Cultural Center of Northern California.

It was a way of sending a message, about openness and inclusion, that was characteristic of a mayor known more for the quiet details of policy planning than the clenched-fist politics of this urban liberal hotbed.

What followed a few weeks later, tipping off the community to an impending federal immigration raid, was an even more emphatic statement.

The results were swift: condemnation by the nation's attorney general and its chief immigration enforcement officer, a dressing-down from President Trump and Schaaf's overnight transformation — depending how one views it — into a left-wing heroine and brave face of resistance, or the law-breaking, mollycoddling embodiment of left coast lunacy.

Schaaf sees it more simply: “I would describe myself as a mayor.”

“Mayors are connected to their communities,” she said. “They do what they believe is in the best interest of their communities, irregardless of political ideology, and they do what's best in the interest of their communities, sometimes, without regard to what might feel popular.”

Actually, there is zero danger of seeming too anti-Trump in a city where he received less than 5% of the vote, or in much of the rest of the state, for that matter; if anything, Schaaf had been viewed as too passive by the president's more combustible critics.

Now, she has not only cemented her prospects for a second term in November — Schaaf faces just token opposition — but positioned herself for even grander designs, if so inclined.

‘Badge of honor’

“In California, being the mayor that stood up to Donald Trump is as good as it gets,” said Jim Ross, a Democratic campaign consultant who lives in Oakland and has supported Schaaf but also worked in political opposition.

“When you get called out by the president of the United States, that is a badge of honor that every other statewide Democrat would sell their fundraising list to have,” agreed Sonoma State's David McCuan, who has tracked Oakland politics since growing up decades ago in nearby Richmond.

Even so, there are some here who both loathe Trump and his immigration policies and criticize Schaaf for her brazen act, fearing retribution from a president with a lavish history of payback.

“I wish she'd simply made that notification quietly,” said Joe Tuman, one of more than a dozen candidates who ran against Schaaf for mayor. “Because she's in [Trump's] gun sights, rhetorically speaking, Oakland is in his gun sights.”

Noel Gallo, a councilman who represents a large immigrant population in the city's Fruitvale district, fears his constituents — many of whom are in the country illegally — will be the ones who pay a price. “The city of Oakland does need federal support for many services,” Gallo said. “I don't want to get into a fight with Trump at that level.”

Nor, Schaaf responded, does she. She sat at a corner table in her City Hall office, the rainy morning brightened by a cheerful bouquet from a well-wisher, and made her case with lawyerly precision.

The immigration raid, she asserted, was aimed not at hardened criminals but at residents who, save for their undocumented status, were upstanding residents.

Quiet warnings issued through community leaders hadn't worked, Schaaf said — “I had tried going through those informal channels” — so she issued a public alarm to ensure “the information about rights, responsibilities and resources was spread widely.”

Not, as critics have charged, to act as “a gang lookout,” but to avoid panic.

Instead, political bedlam ensued.

Schaaf, 52, is about as thoroughly Oakland as they come; “a scrappy localist,” she calls herself.

Mayor Libby Schaaf says the immigration raid was aimed not at hardened criminals but at upstanding residents. But some fear her public warning may lead to federal payback. Above, protesters in San Francisco. — Photograph: Marcio Jose Sanchez/Associated Press.
Mayor Libby Schaaf says the immigration raid was aimed not at hardened criminals but at upstanding residents. But some fear her public warning may lead to federal payback.
Above, protesters in San Francisco. — Photograph: Marcio Jose Sanchez/Associated Press.

A city of challenges

Schaaf was born here and began her civic engagement at age 5, wearing a sandwich board to help her mother raise money for the Oakland Symphony. She played Cinderella and Raggedy Ann at Children's Fairyland, an amusement park on the shore of downtown Lake Merritt, interned at the zoo and has lived in the city her whole life, save for attending college in Florida and law school in Los Angeles.

As a young attorney, she served on three commissions and the boards of several nonprofits before being hired at City Hall, first as chief of staff to the council president, then as a top aide to then-Mayor Jerry Brown. In 2010, she was elected to the City Council and four years later, with Brown's blessing, emerged from the field of 14 candidates to become mayor.

The job is a tough one, historically more akin to a minefield than a pathway to higher office. Brown used eight years hunkering down to reinvent himself and help shed his flaky image. But for most recent mayors, their time in City Hall ended badly.

That is because for all of its advantages — a vibrant cultural scene, strong sense of community, lovely climate and abundant natural beauty — Oakland has long suffered.

It is a highly segregated city, and has been for generations, with a vast disparity between life in the mostly white, affluent hills and the disadvantaged “flats,” where black and brown residents have faced some of the worst ravages of urban America: drugs, crime, a dearth of jobs and opportunity, and toxic relations between police and minorities.

Recent years have seen a considerably lower crime rate, a building boom and greater prosperity, as a flood of tech wealth has washed over the Bay Area.

But the uneven spread of that abundance has produced its own set of issues. Soaring rents have contributed to a growing homeless problem and complaints that Oakland, historically an affordable alternative to San Francisco, is pricing out its middle class, just as that city has done.

“You have the juxtaposition of Google zillionaires and the hipster-tech types opposite communities that have faced decades of flight, systematic unemployment and a lack of investment,” said McCuan, who heads the political science department at Sonoma State.

On top of those challenges, Schaaf has faced a police sex abuse scandal and the deadliest fire in city history, in which 36 young people crammed into the Ghost Ship, a warehouse-turned-artist-collective and party site, were killed.

Compared with those awful episodes, Schaaf suggested, a verbal lashing from Trump is nothing. “A little surreal,” she said of her newfound celebrity, “but I've tried very hard not to let it distract me.”

‘1,000% focused’

She has avoided social media and its vitriol, left the front office to deal with the public outcry — more than 1,000 phone calls, almost all critical and most from outside the Bay Area — and refused invitations to go on national television and mud-wrestle with the president. (Not that she seems particularly suited to the endeavor.)

She predictably waved aside talk of higher office, saying she was “1,000% focused” on being reelected mayor, and professed not to worry about any personal consequences, even though the White House ominously warned the Justice Department was looking into the matter.

She has, however, retained outside counsel — a pro bono attorney, Schaaf emphasized, at no cost to the city.

And yes, the mayor allowed, she has some concern that Oakland may be made an example and punished by Trump and his administration, so others won't follow her defiant lead.

But she's undeterred. “At the end of the day,” she said, “I believe that I'm speaking for the values of the people that I represent and that we would not be cowed by a bully.”


• Mark Z. Barabak covers state and national politics for the Los Angeles Times, based in San Francisco. A reporter for nearly 40 years, Barabak has covered campaigns and elections in 49 of the 50 states, including all or part of the last 10 presidential campaigns and dozens of mayoral, gubernatorial and U.S. Senate contests. He also reported from the White House and Capitol Hill during the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations.

Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
Posts: 7326

« Reply #27 on: March 20, 2018, 11:46:30 pm »

she is a law breaker they can take her to court and lock her up
if she wants to declare war on the elected american government
they can send in the troops arrest her for treason and try her in a military court

it has happened before
Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to

Admin Staff
Posts: 28673

Having fun in the hills!

« Reply #28 on: March 22, 2018, 01:45:41 pm »

Warning the population about impending fascist raids is neither illegal, nor treasonous.

It is being patriotic and standing up against the stupid fuckwit currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington D.C.
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Admin Staff
Posts: 28673

Having fun in the hills!

« Reply #29 on: March 22, 2018, 01:45:58 pm »

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times....

California's unexceptional resistance

President Trump's war against the Golden State is a war against the nation.

By DAVID L. ULIN | Wednesday, March 21, 2018

THE EVENING BEFORE the 2016 presidential election, Governor Jerry Brown joked at a political dinner in Sacramento: “If Trump were ever elected, we'd have to build a wall around California to defend ourselves from the rest of this country.”

At the time, it seemed a safe-ish bit of humor because, of course, Hillary Clinton would win. When she didn't, I came to imagine Brown's remark as the opening volley establishing California as the state of resistance — unique, independent, distinct from the rest of the United States.

Since the president and his minions descended on Southern California like a late winter storm earlier this month, I've found myself reckoning with a new realization: It's the other way around. California is not the resistance so much as it is the mainstream. We don't need to defend ourselves against the rest of the country, because we represent it.

Don't get me wrong; I realize that California's politics don't prevail in Washington, let alone many state-houses. I understand that resistance is essential. Indeed, I am drawn to the whole idea of it, with its whisper — I won't call it a promise, exactly — of the people rising up.

(I was born in the early 1960s and came of age in the backwash of the counterculture. I went to my first demonstration in 1977 when I was 15; we were protesting Kent State University's plan to build a gym annex on the site where, seven years earlier, the Ohio National Guard had gunned down four students. We lost.)

I am drawn, as well, to the idea of California as a free state. Like the governor, I've done my share of cracking wise about the need for a “big, beautiful wall,” but one that runs north from the Gulf of California, not east from the Pacific Ocean — a barrier to keep “the Americans” out.

We Californians, after all, like to think of ourselves as the vanguard, as special in nearly every sense. We take pride in living at the cutting edge of art and culture, technology and social change. These days, we see in the multicultural landscapes of our cities a vision of what America could, and should, become.

We sometimes call this sensibility California exceptionalism. The phrase derives from Carey McWilliams' book, “California: The Great Exception”, which was published in 1949. It's one of the cliches of the state, a corollary to the myth of West Coast reinvention, the faith that life here lends itself to re-creation, to a smarter, richer, better way of life.

That this is self-serving, smug even, is obvious. We know California has its own complex and less-than-progressive history, (See Proposition 187, the racial divisions that led to the 1992 uprising and the Watts riots a quarter-century earlier, the ongoing disaster of Proposition 13). We're beset with intractable contemporary problems (homelessness, economic inequality). And yet, we cling to a vision of ourselves as exceptional.

The truth is that California is more an exaggeration, an apotheosis, of America than an anomaly. We are less distinct, less separate than we would like to believe. At our best, we share with the rest of the nation a halting, if generally forward, movement toward what the Constitution calls “a more perfect union.”

Californians are, and should be, proud that the rule of law has expanded civil rights. So are the majority of Americans. Like nearly 70% of our fellow citizens, we understand that climate change is real. Most of us want to establish a path to legalization not just for “Dreamers,” but for their parents, as do the vast majority — nearly 90% — of people in the United States.

When the president and U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions came West in early March, they did so with the intent of accelerating what our governor is calling a “war against the state of California.” The main target of their displeasure (and the target of a federal lawsuit) are three immigration statutes, including the California Values Act, all of which limit cooperation by state authorities with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

But “California values” is a misnomer for these laws; it is American values we're talking about.

To wrap our minds around what that means, we can return to McWilliams and his notion of California exceptionalism. In the nearly 70 years since his book appeared, his intentions have been widely misunderstood. California, he wrote, “is the great catch-all, the vortex at the continent's end into which elements of America's diverse population have been drawn, whirled around.” And Californians “are more like the Americans than the Americans themselves.”

During his election eve remarks in 2016, Brown added this: “We don't like walls, we like bridges.” Another volley, and he wasn't speaking only for the Golden State.


• David L. Ulin is a contributing writer to Opinion at the Los Angeles Times.

Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Admin Staff
Posts: 28673

Having fun in the hills!

« Reply #30 on: April 04, 2018, 10:35:26 pm »

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times....

California's air and land protections are targeted.
It's White House versus California.

Trump administration vows to end state’s tough emissions rules and its ability to limit sale of federal acres.

By EVAN HALPER and JOSEPH TANFANI | Tuesday, April 03, 2018

Under the Clean Air Act, California is the only state that can adopt its own emissions rules, but other states can then adopt them. — Photograph: Luis Sinco/Los Angeles Times.
Under the Clean Air Act, California is the only state that can adopt its own emissions rules, but other states can then adopt them.  — Photograph: Luis Sinco/Los Angeles Times.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration openly threatened one of the cornerstones of California's environmental protections Monday, saying that it may revoke the state's ability under the Clean Air Act to impose stricter standards than the federal government sets for vehicle emissions.

The announcement came as the administration confirmed it was tearing up landmark fuel economy rules that formed a key part of the effort by the Obama administration and California officials to combat global warming — and as the Justice Department sued to block a state law that limits the federal government's ability to sell any of the 46 million acres it controls in California.

The double-barreled move marks a sharp assault on the state's efforts to protect its environment as the Trump administration seeks to open more land in the West for mining, drilling and other interests.

California's elected leaders and environmental activists vowed to fight the push, while the administration argued that the state had exceeded its authority under the law.

“Cooperative federalism doesn't mean that one state can dictate standards for the rest of the country,” Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt said in a statement, which added that California's authority to set its own emissions standards was “being re-examined.”

The “EPA will set a national standard for greenhouse gas emissions that allows auto manufacturers to make cars that people both want and can afford — while still expanding environmental and safety benefits of newer cars,” Pruitt said.

“It's in everyone's best interest to have a national standard, and we look forward to working with all states, including California, as we work to finalize that standard.”

Governor Jerry Brown criticized the federal statement on auto emissions rules as a “belated April Fools' Day trick.”

“This cynical and meretricious abuse of power will poison our air and jeopardize the health of all Americans,” the governor said in a statement.

Although the state's authority to set its own clear-air standards has existed for decades, the other measure the administration went after — the law regarding federal land — is newly adopted.

The measure, passed by the Legislature in October, seeks to give California effective veto power over sales of federal land, not just parks or wilderness, in the state.

The law says the state won't recognize any sale, donation or exchange of federal land unless the California State Lands Commission has the right of first refusal over any deal.

The Legislature's own analysis of the bill said it raised “substantial constitutional questions.”

The Justice Department asked a federal court in Sacramento to overturn the law, saying it violated the Constitution's supremacy clause, which gives federal law primacy over state law, and a separate clause that gives Congress power “to dispose of” federal property.

The two moves joined a rapidly lengthening list of battles between California and the Trump administration over a wide range of issues, including the environment, immigration and civil rights. Last month, the Justice Department sued to block three California state laws, saying they were an unconstitutional attempt to thwart enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Pruitt's announcement said that the administration would abandon the federal goal of having vehicles average 55 miles per gallon by 2025. That target will be replaced with a weaker fuel economy standard that the administration will settle on at a later date.

The action sets up the administration for a confrontation with California and a dozen other states that use California's emissions standards.

Under the Clean Air Act, California is the only state that can independently adopt its own emissions standards, but other states can then adopt them. Several of the states that have done so have vowed to defy the administration's effort to weaken mileage standards.

The current national fuel economy targets represent the single biggest action the federal government has taken to curb greenhouse gases. They are crucial for California and other states to meet their goals for climate action and to reduce smog and other air pollution.

The targets are also essential to an effort led by Brown and others to carry the country toward meeting the obligations in the Paris accord on climate change that the Trump administration is refusing to honor.

The administration's action came at the behest of automakers, who say the 55-mile-per-gallon standard will impose too heavy a cost.

But an all-out fight between the federal and state governments over California's power to set emissions standards could backfire on automakers.

Scott Pruitt, EPA chief, says one state can't “dictate standards for the rest of the country”. — Photograph: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press.
Scott Pruitt, EPA chief, says one state can't “dictate standards for the rest of the country”. — Photograph: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press.

Pruitt's legal ability to revoke California's authority is uncertain and any such move could be tied up in court for years. In the meantime, auto companies would be faced with the complicated and costly prospect of building and selling two different sets of cars — one for California and the other states that follow its standards, and one for the rest of the country.

The resisting states account for more than a third of all car sales. Although automakers have been hopeful some deal could be brokered, perhaps with California agreeing to weaken the more immediate targets in exchange for federal buy-in to more aggressive goals through 2030, that is looking increasingly unlikely.

Pruitt says he's not interested in making such concessions, and California officials say they see no reason to go along with his rollback. The tone between state air regulators and the EPA chief has grown increasingly tense.

“California will not weaken its nationally accepted clean-air standards,” said Mary Nichols, the state's chief air quality regulator. “Today's decision changes nothing in California and the 12 other states with clean car rules.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein (Democrat-California) warned that “the years of litigation and investment uncertainty will be far harder on the auto industry than simply living up to the fuel economy standards they once embraced.”

“The EPA is willfully ignoring the fact that these emission standards are working. Cars are becoming more fuel-efficient and consumers are saving money at the pump,” she said. “… There simply is no reason to roll back that progress.”

But automakers complain they are confronting a market in which gas prices are low and consumers are more interested in purchasing SUVs and pickups than the fuel-efficient passenger vehicles the federal mandates favor.

“Manufacturers need to sell vehicles that customers need and want today to fund the technological shifts and electrification and automation expected in the future,” said a statement from John Bozzella, chief executive of the Association of Global Automakers, an industry group representing the U.S. operations of car companies.

The EPA, in its statement announcing that it would propose new, lower fuel economy rules, basically adopted the automakers' analysis, pushing aside opposing views.

Industry officials and analysts note that electric cars and hybrids account for just 3% of vehicle sales in the United States, even as they are taking off in other countries. Environmentalists blame the companies, saying they are putting too much of their marketing and product development energy into SUVs.

If automakers prevail in their bid to relax mileage standards nationwide, said Dan Becker, director of the Washington-based Safe Climate Campaign, they will “grow weaker by making too many gas guzzlers, the very course that led GM and Chrysler to bankruptcy and an $85-billion bailout not even a decade ago.”

“Auto companies have the cost-effective technology — better engines and transmissions, high strength, low-weight materials — to safely meet the 2025 standards,” he said. “This is auto mechanics, not rocket science.”

And Becker warned that California is already in the process of developing its aggressive mileage targets for beyond 2025, targets that a different White House could decide to embrace nationally, leaving car firms that start backtracking now in a bind.

The more immediate dilemma that automakers — and consumers — face is how to contend with different rules applying to different parts of the country. Industry analysts say no good would come of it.

“Different standards in a single market will only cause harm to consumers, the environment, the economy and automakers,” Rebecca Lindland, executive analyst at Kelley Blue Book, said in an email. The fallout, she wrote, could include higher car prices, difficulty selling cars across state lines, and possibly more older, higher-polluting cars being used as consumers get discouraged from buying new models.

“Nobody wins if we can't come to a single standard agreement which promotes the most fuel-efficient versions of vehicles consumers already want to buy,” Lindland said.

The legal battle over federal land raises a different set of issues.

According to federal officials, the state law could block the Army's plan to convey 78 acres to a developer in the East Bay city of Dublin, a separate Navy contract with a developer for a property called Admiral's Cove in Alameda, and the long-running plan by the Veterans Affairs Department to rebuild its 388-acre West Los Angeles campus by leasing land for housing, and to provide an easement for the Purple Line Metro project.

“The Constitution empowers the federal government — not state legislatures — to decide when and how federal lands are sold,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on Monday in a statement announcing the lawsuit.

“California has once again passed an extreme statute found in no other state to obstruct the federal government,” Jesse Panuccio, the acting associate attorney general, told reporters at the Justice Department.


Los Angeles Times staff writer David Lauter in Washington contributed to this report.

• Evan Halper writes about a broad range of policy issues out of Washington D.C. for the Los Angeles Times, with particular emphasis on how Washington regulates, agitates and very often miscalculates in its dealings with California. Before heading east, he was the L.A. Times bureau chief in Sacramento, where he spent a decade untangling California's epic budget mess and political dysfunction.

• Joseph Tanfani covers the Justice Department and Homeland Security in the Washington, D.C., Los Angeles Times bureau. Before joining the L.A. Times in 2012, he worked at the Philadelphia Inquirer, where he was a reporter and investigations editor, and at the Miami Herald, the Press of Atlantic City and the Williamsport Sun-Gazette.

Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Admin Staff
Posts: 28673

Having fun in the hills!

« Reply #31 on: April 04, 2018, 10:39:50 pm »

Good luck winning that fight in the courts, dumbshit Pruitt, before Trump eventually bows out as the 45th Prez of the USA, even if he wins a second term. California's lawsuit against the EPA will be tied up in the many levels of the US court system for at least a decade, possibly more. And that will severely hurt the stupid car companies who have allowed their GREED to cloud their better judgement. Foreign car makers will be laughing all the way to the bank, because even if Trump slaps tariffs on their fuel-efficient cars which DO comply with California's rules, their products will still be cheaper than American car makers who will be forced to either produce two classes of vehicles, or else give up on the third of the USA which has tough fuel economy and emissions rules in place.

Hilarious how stupid & dumb Trump, Pruitt and those American car makers are, eh? That should cost a shitload of American jobs!!

Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Admin Staff
Posts: 28673

Having fun in the hills!

« Reply #32 on: April 04, 2018, 10:46:14 pm »

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times....

EDITORIAL: EPA's reckless step backward

In a giveaway to industry, the Trump administration eases fuel economy standards for new cars.

Tuesday, April 03, 2018

THE WORLD is increasingly speeding toward a future of clean, zero-emissions cars. China, the largest auto market, plans to ban the sale of new vehicles powered by gasoline or diesel in the coming decades. France, Britain, Norway and India have also pledged to phase out fossil fuel vehicles. And automakers have responded. Volvo pledged in 2017 to sell only hybrid or battery models starting next year, while General Motors, Ford, Volkswagen, Daimler and other big carmakers have said they will roll out more and more electric models to serve the growing market demand worldwide.

But here in the United States, President Trump and his anti-environmental protection sidekick, Scott Pruitt, are determined to head recklessly in the opposite direction. It's up to California and other environmentally responsible states to stop them.

On Monday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced it has abandoned  ambitious but much-needed fuel economy rules that required automakers to step up the improvements in their cars' and SUVs' mileage and emissions. Adopted under the Obama administration, the regulations were a crucial piece of the national effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions and slow global climate change.

Indeed, the regulations being heedlessly ditched were slated to improve the average fuel economy of new cars and trucks 50% by 2025, to almost 55 miles per gallon. To meet the new standards, automakers were expected to develop and sell more hybrid and electric models, which, over time, would slash oil consumption, smoggy tailpipe pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions.

But those benefits apparently carried little weight with Pruitt, a stalwart shill for the fossil fuel industry, who claims the Obama administration rushed the analysis of whether the regulations were feasible and set the standards too high. That's mere pretext, given that Pruitt has used his tenure at the EPA to systematically attack responsible, science- and health-based regulations. Nor, apparently, is it enough that he's weakened national environmental protections; Pruitt has suggested he may go after California's essential air quality regulations and climate change program as well.

In order to address the enormous contribution cars and trucks make to California's unusually severe air-quality problems, the federal Clean Air Act gave the state unique power to adopt vehicle emissions rules that are more stringent than the EPA's. The federal government can block the state rules only if the EPA deems them inconsistent with the Clean Air Act's efforts to protect public health or welfare. Thankfully, Governor Jerry Brown and state leaders have made it clear that California is not rolling back its clean-car rules. Other states can follow California's lead on tailpipe standards, and a dozen states, representing about one-third of the U.S. auto market, have said they will continue to do so.

That would leave manufacturers with two options. They could go the costly route of making two versions of each vehicle: A more fuel-efficient model for states with California's standards, and a less fuel-efficient model for the rest of the country. Or they could just comply with California's rules, which would negate the EPA's rollback. Or Pruitt and Trump could try to deny California its longstanding power to enact emissions standards, triggering (another) legal battle with the state.

It sure sounds like Pruitt is readying for a war. “Cooperative federalism doesn't mean that one state can dictate standards for the rest of the country,” he said in a statement. California leaders, already practiced in Trump resistance, are digging in as well.

Pruitt's efforts are a colossal waste of time and money. Every other government in the industrialized world recognizes that climate change is real and that it will take serious action now to minimize the devastating effects of global warming. The leading world economies also recognize that there is a much-needed shift from fossil fuel vehicles underway, and they are choosing to lead the transition to low- and no-carbon transportation systems.

Even automakers know this. That's why most of them are already developing and marketing electric and hybrid models to sell around the world. Instead of making progress toward innovation and a cleaner future, Trump and Pruitt have chosen, irresponsibly and cynically, to keep this country guzzling gas and pumping out carbon.

Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 

Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Open XNC2 Smileys
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum

Buy traffic for your forum/website
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.156 seconds with 10 queries.