The great author and preservationist John Muir once wrote, “the world, we are told, was made especially for man — a presumption not supported by all the facts.”
Unfortunately, Donald Trump pays no mind to all the facts.
The President of the United States has decried climate change as a Chinese-inspired hoax, threatened to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement, and called environmentalism “out of control.” He centered his campaign through the Rust Belt on the promise of reviving the flagging coal industry, and he said he will review (read: reduce) California's regulations on car emissions to promote industrial growth.
California has for decades been a global leader in climate change mitigation, setting some of the world's most stringent environmental regulations to further the preservationist cause to which Muir dedicated his life. But with Trump now wielding the power to slash federal research funding and challenge the state’s strict pollution restrictions, the President now poses the greatest threat to environmentalist progress in decades.
However, in the overall picture of the American economy, some experts believe Trump may ultimately hesitate to roll back clean energy efforts, if only in the name of business.
“I do think [Trump] is a real threat, I just think the economy is demanding investment in clean energy,” Dan Jacobson, the state director of advocacy group Environment California, said.
“There’s just so much business interest in clean energy here in California, that if he wants to keep the economy of the United States ticking along, it’s not smart to cripple your leading player.”
California Governor Jerry Brown has pledged to defend the progress the state has made in its environmental regulations, which are by far the most aggressive set of policies in the nation. Passed last year, SB 32 requires the state to cut emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, a mark Brown has said he is confident California will be able to reach.
Such an ambitious goal requires a portfolio of measures aimed at aiding emissions reductions throughout the state, with the transportation industry playing a large role in ensuring those cutbacks. The 1970 Clean Air Act granted California the authority to set its own environmental regulations, which have exceeded those of federal mandates for nearly 50 years.
The special waiver allowing the state this privilege has become a cornerstone of California’s efforts to curb climate change. President George W. Bush’s administration tried to rescind the waiver, but he got caught in a long court battle with the state that eventually solidified California’s right to surpass federal standards.
The state is thus well prepared for any resistance the Trump administration may attempt in rescinding the waiver. Still, the recently confirmed head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, expressed doubt in California’s ability to decide its own standards, saying in his confirmation hearing that there would be an administrative process to determine the issue, while warning “one would not want to presume the outcome.”
But even with potential federal resistance looming, Jacobson believes in the state’s resilience.
“California has been a leader globally in clean energy, and the federal government has never been able to do much to stop that, so I don’t see why it would [be able to do so] now,” he said.
That seems to be the general sentiment among California legislators, especially with the state hiring former U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder to serve as special counsel for exactly these types of legal battles with the Trump administration. Nevertheless, given the unpredictability of Trump’s administration thus far, it is worth considering what would happen if it were to succeed in rescinding the waiver. Michael McCormick, senior planner for the California Climate Change, Land Use and Infrastructure Working Group, believes the President has much more power over the state than Jacobson lets on.
“We all need to realize that the federal government does play a really significant role in supporting the work that California does through things like the Clean Air Act waiver,” McCormick said.
He stressed the importance of the federal government working alongside California in mitigating climate change, warning of catastrophic economic and environmental consequences if it fails to do so.
“We're seeing the effect of climate change now, and we understand that if we don't get ahead of it we're going to be facing really significant costs that impact our population and the most disadvantaged among us.” he said.
However, Gary Gero, the chief sustainability officer of Los Angeles County, believes California would simply find another way to reduce emissions to reach the SB 32 regulations.
“We’d have to make up those emission reductions somewhere else, but that’s just one plank in the floor, if you will, in our strategy,” he said.
“We’ll have to cross that bridge when we come to it.”
California could soon be approaching that bridge, though, and with it would come a bevy of unanswered questions about how the state would deal with the costs to the environment. Robbie Orvis is a policy design projects manager at environmental firm Energy Innovation, and he warns of the catastrophic effects that would devastate California’s air quality should its waiver be revoked.
“We’re talking about billions of tons of CO2 [released into the atmosphere] over the next thirty years or so,” he said.
Orvis believes that the most important aspect of environmental protection is regulating the transportation sector – one of the primary industries the Clean Air Act aims to control. He expressed cautious optimism about the state’s ability to respond to losing its waiver, offering a few solutions as to how it may adapt.
By putting more money into incentivizing consumers to buy plug-in hybrids or battery electric vehicles – something Orvis believes there is a “pretty strong push for in California” – the state could ease some of the environmental strain it would face with more relaxed federal regulations.
Further, he cited efforts many utilities companies are making to implement the infrastructure necessary to support a vast network of electric vehicles. Orvis believes that having readily available, rapid charging stations would make people more inclined to buy clean energy cars.
He cites electric vehicles as an aspect that would need exponential expansion in the coming years for California to reach its goals should its waiver be withdrawn. However, there is already concern over that industry, as the state’s target of putting 4.2 million clean energy cars on the road by 2030 looks like an unlikely expectation with only 265,000 such vehicles currently registered in California.
“Look, it would be tough to reach any of these goals without the standards [from the waiver] in place,” Orvis said.
“We just have to stay optimistic that the federal government won’t make a concerted effort to weaken our policies. We’re hoping for the best.”