ARE CALIFORNIA’S CLEAN DRIVING RULES NEXT ON TRUMP’S HIT LIST?
It appears that, with the loss of the — I can’t believe I’m saying this — steadying influence of now-departed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the United States of America is declaring war on one of its peskiest foes, a recalcitrant nation-state that’s been a thorn in President Donald Trump’s side ever since he took office lo those seemingly interminable 14 months ago.
It’s a war welcomed by his base (who would like nothing more than to see the place nuked), is populated, in large part, by the worst kind of communists and, when push comes to shove, represents everything the alt-right that controls the modern Republican party hates.
Of course, I’m talking about … California.
Yes, California. I know it’s just one state among 50, but it bears reminding that the land of Hollywood and hotties does have a population greater than Canada’s and, more importantly, were it a sovereign nation, California would have a gross domestic product (GDP) that would rank it as the sixth-richest country in the world.
Throw in the fact that Sacramento is the United States’ spiritual home of lefty politics, as well as perhaps the strongest green lobby in the free world, and it’s little wonder the Trump administration looks upon the Golden State as its formidable foe.
Which may be why, in the past couple of weeks, we have seen the president visit the Golden State to sample prototypes of “The Wall,” and much beleaguered Attorney General Jeff Sessions visit Sacramento to lambaste Gov. Jerry Brown regarding the illegality of immigrant “sanctuary” cities.
And, lest you think my implying that Washington might invade Sacramento was a little over the top, USA Today ran a story with the headline “Could Trump and Sessions send federal troops to California over immigration?”, citing the Insurrection Act of 1807 as possible justification for quelling said rebellious lefties with force.
Such was the impact, said author Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor, of the incredibly “strong language” Sessions used in reminding California that federal law is “the supreme law of the land.”
Feeling left out from this Trumpian offensive is Scott Pruitt. You remember him, don’t you? He’s the former attorney general of Oklahoma, now administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and charged with protecting America’s environment, who just happens to think that climate change is a hoax.
In an interview with Bloomberg News, Pruitt read California the riot act over the state’s right to enact its own fuel economy/ emissions standards. He reportedly warned that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) would not dictate the future of automobile fuel economy regulations.
“California is not the arbiter of these issues,” said Pruitt, and won’t “dictate to the rest of the country what these levels are going to be.”
The problem for Pruitt is that it kinda, sorta already does.
Although regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is a federal mandate, California is allowed to regulate tailpipe emissions within its own borders, thanks to a waiver from the EPA.
The problem facing Pruitt is that, not only has California been the spiritual home of the electric car movement for the past 40 years, a number of others states — as well as the District of Columbia, Trump’s new home — have adopted CARB’s rules.
It’s worth noting that California’s influence extends even beyond America’s borders: Quebec’s new ZEV mandate is very much patterned on, or at least influenced by, the Golden State’s dictums.
There are many reasons Pruitt is making a stink about this now. Besides the fact he is, by nature, extremely litigious (as Oklahoma’s AG he sued the EPA, the organization he now runs, I’ll remind you, 14 times), there is an important deadline looming, April 1 being the date by which the Trump administration has to decide whether the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards set for 2022-25 should proceed unchanged or be revised.
And, by revised, Pruitt means reducing the ambitious Obamaera goals to permit more consumption and, as a consequence, emit more greenhouse gases.
According to Bloomberg, California has signalled a willingness to discuss altering the state’s emission rules in the near future if the Trump administration agrees to develop fuel efficiency targets all the way out to 2030.
Pruitt’s retort — and he has a valid point, often lost on CARB’s administrators — is that “the whole purpose of CAFE standards is to make cars more efficient that people are actually buying. If … Detroit just makes cars that people don’t want to purchase, then people are staying in older cars, and the emission levels are worse, which defeats the overall purpose of what we’re trying to achieve.”
Naturally, automakers are rejoicing at the Trump administration’s position, long holding that Obama’s ambitious goal of 54.5 miles per U.S. gallon — equivalent to about 40 mpg in real-world driving — by 2025 was too onerous, citing consumers’ ever-increasing desire for large pickups and SUVs as justification for their reticence.
Blaming the popularity of gas-guzzling trucks, however, is a bit of a red herring. Current rules are actually tailored to accommodate shifting consumer desires as each different automotive “footprint” — i.e., large pickups, small econoboxes and everything in between — is allowed to meet different standards. In other words, automakers are simply using consumers’ seeming antipathy to emissions reductions as an excuse to save a few R & D dollars.
The problem, whether Donald Trump and Scott Pruitt like it or not, is that the entire world is heading to a reduced-tail-pipe-emissions reality. While revising the corporate average fuel economy standards would no doubt save U.S. automakers money in the short run, in the long haul, it will make them less competitive on the world stage.
For Trump and his anti-globalist mandate, that hardly seems a concern. Besides, he really wants to invade California.