Politics
EPA restores California’s authority to set its own auto pollution rules
California is again within the driver’s seat because it steers the nation towards a way forward for cleaner vehicles and light-weight vans.
The Biden administration on Wednesday reinstated the state’s authority to set motorized vehicle air pollution requirements stricter than the federal authorities’s. That features tighter restrictions on greenhouse fuel emissions.
The choice, introduced by the U.S. Environmental Safety Company, reverses an try by the Trump administration to dam the state from utilizing its huge market energy to push the auto trade in a greener course. The 2019 revocation of its waiver from the federal customary put California and the states that comply with its lead on air pollution limits into regulatory limbo, casting a temper of uncertainty throughout the car trade.
“That is actually essential,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan instructed The Occasions. “Not only for the folks in California however for the nation as an entire. We’re proudly reaffirming California’s longstanding authority to steer on this space.”
Vital, sure, stated Mark Wakefield, who heads the car group at consulting agency AlixPartners, however not surprising. It wasn’t even sure the Trump-era resolution would survive courtroom challenges, he stated, and only a few automakers had assumed California would lose the battle with Trump. “It’s the world as we knew it returning,” stated Wakefield, pointing the U.S. auto trade within the course of “a market extra built-in with world traits.”
Not everyone seems to be pleased. The difficulty has proved partisan with no room for compromise. Final summer time, 16 Republican state attorneys normal referred to as California’s particular remedy unconstitutional and urged the EPA to not reinstate the state’s authority. In an announcement Wednesday, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, Republican chief of the Home Power and Commerce Committee, stated, “President Biden’s strict auto emissions rules are one more instance of this administration placing a radical rush-to-green regulatory regime forward of restoring America’s vitality dominance and management.”
Democrats in California are celebrating. “We’re so thrilled,” stated Lauren Sanchez, senior local weather advisor to Gov. Gavin Newsom. “That is the primary problem the governor raised with the Biden-Harris administration. It’s been a prime precedence for him since Day One.”
“The restoration of our state’s Clear Air Act waiver is a significant victory for the setting, our financial system and the well being of households throughout the nation that comes at a pivotal second underscoring the necessity to finish our reliance on fossil fuels,” Newsom stated in an announcement.
Though the choice can have no instant impact on excessive and rising gasoline costs, the transfer to cleaner gasoline vehicles and electrical automobiles will “defend not solely public well being and handle local weather change, but in addition be certain that we’re much less depending on international oil,” Sanchez stated.
Till Trump moved to deflate it, California held monumental energy to set air pollution and gas financial system requirements. Underneath the federal Clear Air Act, handed in 1970 and later amended, the state was granted the authority to set its personal automobile air pollution guidelines, partly as a result of the air in Southern California was so terrible that it required particular consideration. To obtain a waiver from the federal authorities beneath the Clear Air Act, California needed to present “compelling and extraordinary circumstances.”
California is the nation’s largest automotive market, and automakers tended to go together with the state’s tighter rules on tailpipe emissions. California’s guidelines turned extra influential as extra states adopted the state’s rules. Immediately, 16 different states and Washington, D.C., comply with the California plan. Along with California, they account for greater than 40% of the nation’s marketplace for vehicles, pickups and SUVs.
After the monetary disaster of 2007-08, when Normal Motors and Chrysler had been bailed out of chapter by the federal authorities, President Obama used his clout to power automakers to comply with tighten emissions and gas financial system requirements. The businesses agreed to meld the federal Division of Transportation’s gas financial system necessities and the EPA’s air pollution necessities with California’s rules. Greenhouse gases turned a part of the EPA’s mandate after the U.S. Supreme Court docket in 2007 dominated that the EPA holds the authority to control them as pollution.
However California wanted a separate waiver to exceed federal limits on greenhouse gases spewed by vehicles and light-weight vans. That problem has been ping-ponging from administration to administration, with George W. Bush and Trump rescinding it and Obama and now Biden returning it.
The Trump administration used the regulatory course of and its personal interpretation of the Clear Air Act to knock down each the Division of Transportation’s gas financial system requirements and the federal waiver that enables the state to go its personal method. Stricter gas financial system necessities would result in smaller vehicles, the administration argued, which might be extra harmful in a crash. Stripping California of its EPA waiver led to battles in courtroom.
Amid the forwards and backwards, auto firms took sides. Ford, Honda, BMW, Volvo and Volkswagen went with California. Normal Motors, Toyota, Nissan and the corporate then generally known as Fiat Chrysler sided with Trump.
Final yr, the Biden administration’s Division of Transportation proposed to revise the Trump administration’s plan to strengthen fleetwide gas financial system necessities for automakers from a 1.5% enchancment every year by 2026 to eight% for mannequin years 2024 by 2026. The method is difficult, however automakers are anticipated to realize these objectives by bettering gasoline-powered automobile efficiency and by promoting extra electrical automobiles.
With Wednesday’s EPA motion, California is free to pursue its plan to require that every one new vehicles offered in California in 2035 be electric-powered. The California Air Assets Board has begun to develop milestones and the means to realize them between now and the planned-for all-electric future — dates by which a sure proportion of latest zero-emission automobiles have to be offered, incentives to assist transfer them off seller heaps, and the like.
The EPA’s Regan stated the company will crew with the California Air Assets Board and the opposite states allied with California.
“It’s not solely important to California however to the complete nation,” he stated. “We’ll work very intently with the state of California, with automakers, with the unions, and the environmental stakeholders to verify all of us are rolling collectively towards a clear automobile future.”
Regan stated he hopes the problem received’t land again in courtroom, however the EPA is able to defend itself if it does. “We took our time” justifying the choice, he stated. “It’s legally difficult, and we needed to get it proper. We’re ready for no matter comes our method.”
Identical for California, Sanchez stated. “The authorized crew will do no matter’s essential to defend our place.”
Politics
Carter Never Took to Washington. The Feeling Was Mutual.
Former President Jimmy Carter is set to arrive in Washington on Tuesday to be honored in death as the city never truly honored him in life.
That he will end his long story with a pomp-and-circumstance visit to the nation’s capital is a nod to protocol not partiality, a testament to the rituals of the American presidency rather than a testimonial to the time he presided in the citadel of power.
To put it more bluntly, Mr. Carter and Washington did not exactly get along. More than any president in generations before him, the peanut farmer from Georgia was a genuine outsider when he took occupancy of the white mansion at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue — and determinedly, stubbornly, proudly remained so.
He never cared for the culture of the capital, never catered to its mandarins and doyens, never bowed to its conventions. The city, in turn, never cared for him and his “Georgian mafia,” dismissing them as a bunch of cocky rednecks from the hinterlands who did not know what they were doing. Other outsider presidents eventually acclimated to Washington. Not Mr. Carter. And by his own admission, it would cost him.
“I don’t know which was worse — the Carter crowd’s distrust and dislike of unofficial Washington or Washington’s contempt for the new guys in town from Georgia,” recalled Gregory B. Craig, a longtime lawyer and fixture in Washington who served in two other Democratic administrations. “I do know it was there on Day 1.”
Between the two camps, the blend of piety, pettiness, jealousy and condescension proved toxic. It was not partisan — Mr. Carter’s most profound differences were with fellow Democrats. But the litany of slights and snubs on both sides was long and lingering. Everyone remembered the phone call that went unreturned, the invitation that never came, the project that was not approved, the appointment that was not offered.
Mr. Carter, after all, had run against Washington when he came out of nowhere to win the presidency in 1976 and unlike others who did that, he really meant it. He vaulted to office as the antidote to Watergate, Vietnam and other national setbacks. He had not come to town to become a creature of it.
He saw the demands of the Washington power structure as indulgent and pointless. He had no interest in dinner at the home of Katharine Graham, the publisher of The Washington Post, and aides like Hamilton Jordan, his chief of staff, and Jody Powell, his press secretary, radiated his disregard.
“Carter’s state funeral in Washington is full of ironies,” said Kai Bird, who titled his 2021 biography of Mr. Carter “The Outlier” for a reason. “He really was an outsider running against the Washington establishment. And when he improbably entered the Oval Office, he declined more than one dinner invitation from the Georgetown set.”
In their conversations for the book, Mr. Bird added, “he later told me he thought that was a mistake. But he preferred pizza and beer with Ham Jordan and Jody Powell — or working late into the night.”
As E. Stanly Godbold Jr., the author of a two-volume biography of Mr. Carter and the first lady Rosalynn Carter, put it: “Carter arrived at the White House virtually unbeholden to anyone except Rosalynn, his family and those millions of people who had voted for him. He had a free hand, within the limits of the Constitution and the presidency, to do as he wished.”
Or so he thought. But what Mr. Carter saw as principled, Washington saw as naïve and counterproductive. The framers conceived a system with checks and balances, but historically it has been lubricated by personal relationships, favors, horse trading and socializing.
“When it came to the politics of Washington, D.C., he never really understood how the system worked,” Thomas P. O’Neill Jr., the House speaker, wrote in his memoir. Mrs. Graham wrote in hers that “Jimmy Carter was one of those outsider presidents who found it difficult to find the right modus operandi for Washington.”
This was an era of giants in Washington, the likes of whom do not exist today. It was a time when titans of law, lobbying, politics and journalism like Joseph A. Califano Jr., Edward Bennett Williams, Ben Bradlee and Art Buchwald would meet for lunch every Tuesday at the Sans Souci to hash over the latest events. Mr. Carter was a frequent topic of discourse, and not always lovingly so.
Mr. Carter got off to a rough start with Mr. O’Neill, a necessary ally to pass any agenda. Shortly after the election, Mr. Carter visited the speaker but seemed dismissive of Mr. O’Neill’s advice about working with Congress, saying that if lawmakers did not go along, he could go over their heads to appeal to voters. “Hell, Mr. President, you’re making a big mistake,” Mr. O’Neill recalled replying.
It got worse when Mr. O’Neill asked for tickets for his family to attend an inaugural eve gala at the Kennedy Center only to discover that his relatives were seated far off in the balcony. Mr. O’Neill called Mr. Jordan the next day to yell at him. He nicknamed the chief of staff “Hannibal Jerkin.” In his memoir, Mr. O’Neill complained that Mr. Jordan and other Carter aides were “amateurs” who “came to Washington with a chip on their shoulder and never changed.”
But if they had a chip, it was fueled by plenty of patronizing quips mocking the Carter team’s Southern roots, including cartoons in the paper portraying them as hayseeds. It did not help that Mr. Carter arrived in a city full of politicians who thought they should have been the one to win in 1976, not this nobody from Georgia.
Mr. Carter styled himself as a man of the people from the start by getting out of his limousine during the inaugural parade to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. He initially banned the playing of “Hail to the Chief” when he entered a room and sold Sequoia, the presidential yacht often used in the past to woo key congressional leaders.
He took it as a badge of honor to do things that were not politically expedient, like cutting off water projects important to lawmakers trying to deliver for their districts or forcing them to vote on an unpopular treaty turning over the Panama Canal. It did not go over well either when Washington concluded that he did not fight hard enough for Ted Sorensen, the old John F. Kennedy hand, to become C.I.A. director or when he fought with Mr. Califano, the Washington powerhouse serving as secretary of health, education and welfare.
“I believe President Carter tried to make peace when he came into office,” said Chris Matthews, who was a speechwriter for him before going on to work for Mr. O’Neill and then embarking on a long career in television journalism. But “Carter told me he should have done more work getting control of the Democratic Party.” And Mr. Matthews noted that “his challenge in Washington derived from odd places,” like the squabble over the gala seats.
The spats had consequences, both legislatively and politically. Ultimately, he got a lot of his bills through Congress, but not all and not easily. And eventually, he was challenged for the party nomination in 1980 by Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, a challenge that fell short but damaged him for the fall contest that he would lose to former Gov. Ronald Reagan of California.
“His poor relationships with Democrats in both the House and the Senate hindered his ability to drive his agenda through Congress,” said Tevi Troy, a presidential historian at the Ronald Reagan Institute. “In addition, those poor relations hurt his reputation in Washington, as many Democratic members who would ordinarily advocate for the administration in the press were less willing to do so.”
Mr. Carter did not naturally take to the schmoozing that comes with politics. At one point, an aide persuaded him to invite a couple of important senators to play tennis at the White House. He consented, but as soon as the set was done, he headed back into the mansion without chit-chatting or inviting them in for a drink. “You said to play tennis with them, and I did,” Mr. Carter later explained to the disappointed aide.
“Carter didn’t like politics, period,” said Douglas Brinkley, the author of “The Unfinished Presidency,” about Mr. Carter’s much-lauded humanitarian work after leaving office. “And he didn’t like politicians.”
After an official dinner, Mr. Carter would be quick to take his leave. “He would be curt,” Mr. Brinkley said. “He would just get up because he had work to do. He never developed any Washington friendships.”
Mr. Williams was a prime example of a missed opportunity. A founder of the law firm Williams & Connolly, owner of the team then called the Washington Redskins and later of the Baltimore Orioles, and treasurer of the Democratic Party, Mr. Williams was a quintessential capital insider.
But he felt shunned by Mr. Carter. Mr. Williams recalled meeting the future president at the 1976 convention and all he got was “a wet flounder” of a handshake. He was irked that Mr. Carter never came to the Alfalfa Dinner, one of the most exclusive black-tie events on Washington’s social circuit. “Carter’s a candy-ass,” Mr. Williams groused to the president of Georgetown University, according to “The Man to See,” by Evan Thomas.
Only after a couple of years in Washington did the Carter team finally seek Mr. Williams’s help, in this case to quash negative media reports involving Mr. Jordan. When he succeeded, he was invited to a state dinner and Mr. Carter later came to sit in Mr. Williams’s box for a football game at Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium. But Mr. Williams never warmed to Mr. Carter and joined a futile last-minute effort to thwart his nomination at the convention in 1980.
Mr. Carter never warmed to Washington either, calling it an island “isolated from the mainstream of our nation’s life.” After losing re-election, he grappled with his distant relationship with the capital. In “White House Diary,” he cast it largely as a matter of social butterflies resentful of his diffidence rather than something larger.
Rosalynn Carter, Mr. Powell and others, he wrote, had criticized him because “neither I nor my key staff members participated in Washington’s social life,” much to his detriment. “I am sure this apparently aloof behavior drove something of a wedge between us and numerous influential cocktail party hosts,” he wrote. “But I wasn’t the first president to object to this obligation.”
He wrote that he and Mrs. Carter had resolved to avoid going out regularly when he was governor of Georgia “and for better or worse, I never had any intention of changing this approach when we moved into the White House.”
At this point, of course, all of that is ancient history. Washington’s focus on Tuesday will be on the successes of Mr. Carter’s presidency, the inspiration of his post-presidency and the decency of his character. He will be brought by horse-drawn caisson to the Capitol and lie in state. He will be honored at Washington National Cathedral on Thursday.
No matter how Washington feels, it has a way of putting on a great funeral.
Politics
Laken Riley Act: House poised to pass 1st bill of 119th Congress
The House of Representatives is poised to vote on its first piece of federal legislation on Tuesday afternoon.
Lawmakers will be voting on the Laken Riley Act, a bill named after a nursing student who was killed by an illegal immigrant while jogging on the University of Georgia’s campus.
The bill would require federal immigration authorities to detain illegal immigrants found guilty of theft-related crimes. It also would allow states to sue the Department of Homeland Security for harm caused to their citizens because of illegal immigration.
KAMALA HARRIS MAKES TRUMP’S 2024 PRESIDENTIAL WIN OFFICIAL DURING JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS
Jose Ibarra, who was sentenced to life in prison for Riley’s murder, had previously been arrested but was never detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, the agency previously said.
The bill passed the House along bipartisan lines last year after it was first introduced by Rep. Mike Collins, R-Ga.
All voting Republicans plus 37 Democrats voted for the bill by a margin of 251 to 170. All the “no” votes on the bill were Democrats.
PRO-ISRAEL DEM COULD TIP SCALES IN KEY SENATE COMMITTEE AS MIDDLE EAST WAR CONTINUES
It was not taken up in the Senate, however, which at the time was controlled by then-Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
“[T]he Laken Riley Act, sponsored by Rep. Mike Collins, holds the Biden Administration accountable for their role in these tragedies through their open border policies, requires detention of illegal aliens who commit theft and mandates ICE take them into custody, and allows a state to sue the Federal government on behalf of their citizens for not enforcing the border laws, particularly in the case of parole,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said in his daily House floor lookout.
HOUSE REPUBLICANS REJOICE OVER QUICK SPEAKER VOTE WITH ONLY ONE DEFECTOR
“House Republicans won’t stop fighting to secure the border and protect American communities. When will Democrats finally decide enough is enough?”
The Senate is also poised to vote on the bill this week.
It is one of several border security bills House Republicans have reintroduced this year as they prepare to take over all the levers of power in Washington, D.C.
Republicans held the House and took over the Senate in the November elections. President-elect Donald Trump will take office on Jan. 20.
Politics
Opinion: Trump wants to rekindle his Kim Jong Un bromance, but North Korea has other suitors now
To say that President-elect Donald Trump has a lot of plans for his second term would be a gross understatement. He has vowed to implement the largest deportation operation in American history, secure the U.S.-Mexico border and negotiate a peace settlement between Ukraine and Russia.
Yet for Trump, all of these items may be minor when compared to one other issue: resolving the North Korea nuclear conundrum. Taking Pyongyang’s nuclear program off the board is Trump’s proverbial white whale, a feat that none of his predecessors managed to accomplish. Members of Trump’s inner circle told Reuters in late November that the next president was already talking about restarting the personal diplomacy with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un that had begun during his first term.
Talk is one thing, reality another. If Trump enters office thinking he can easily resurrect his relationship with Kim, then he’s going to set himself up for disappointment. Resolving the North Korean nuclear issue was hard five years ago, but it will be even harder today.
During his first term, Trump was able to push for personal engagement with North Korea’s head of state despite resistance among his national security advisors. This was the right move at the time. After all, bottom-up attempts by the Bush and Obama administrations to negotiate with Pyongyang proved to be both laborious and unsuccessful.
After nearly a year of fire-breathing rhetoric and talk about a “bloody nose” strike that would scare Pyongyang into talks, Trump opted to gamble on direct diplomacy. This was partly because his other options — more economic sanctions or military action — ranged from ineffective to disastrous, and partly because the South Korean president at the time, Moon Jae-in, was able to convince Trump that a direct channel of communication to Kim might be the key to cementing a nuclear deal of historic importance.
Despite three Trump-Kim meetings, face-to-face diplomacy failed to produce anything over the long-term. While Trump managed to get North Korea to suspend missile tests for a year — no small accomplishment given its past activity — the flashy summitry ultimately crashed and burned. In the end, Trump and Kim, their personal chemistry notwithstanding, were unable to come to terms — Trump, pushed by his hawkish advisors, advocated for North Korea’s complete denuclearization; Kim, meanwhile, was only willing to demobilize his main plutonium research facility at Yongbyon.
U.S.-North Korea diplomacy has been dead ever since. The Biden administration’s overtures to Pyongyang over the last four years have been repeatedly slapped down, apparently a consequence of what the North Korean leadership views as a lack of seriousness on the part of Washington as well as U.S. attempts to solidify a trilateral military relationship between the United States, South Korea and Japan.
In other words, on Jan. 20, the perennial North Korean nuclear problem will be as thorny as ever. And probably thornier: Kim is far less desperate for a nuclear agreement and an end to U.S. sanctions now than he was during Trump’s first administration.
First, Kim hasn’t forgotten his previous meetings with Trump. He sees the summitry of 2018 and 2019 as a waste of time at best and a personal humiliation at worst. This shouldn’t be a surprise; the North Korean dictator staked significant capital on negotiating an agreement to lift U.S. sanctions and to normalize Pyongyang-U.S. relations. His entreaties failed on both accounts. Three summits later, U.S. sanctions remained intact and U.S.-North Korea relations remained in their usual acrimony.
Kim will be more cautious this time around. “We have already explored every possible avenue in negotiating with the U.S.,” he said in November, adding that the result had been more U.S. aggression. And in a December speech, he promised to deliver the “toughest … counteractions” against the U.S., an expression of his commitment to resisting what he perceives as a hostile bloc underwritten by Washington.
The geopolitical environment has evolved as well. Back in 2018-2019, North Korea was isolated, and the suspension of U.S. sanctions was seen as a critical to its economic growth.
But now Putin’s war in Ukraine has provided the Kim regime a golden opportunity to diversify its foreign relations away from China by cozying up to Moscow, not least by sending thousands of North Korean troops to the Ukraine-Russia front lines. Russia, which used to be a partner in the United States’ desire to denuclearize North Korean, is now using North Korea as a way to frustrate America’s grand ambitions in East Asia.
For Kim, the advantages of his relationship with Russia are equally clear: Putin needs arms and men; Kim needs cash and military technology. And thanks to Russia’s veto at the U.N. Security Council, additional sanctions are a pipe dream for the foreseeable future, while those on the books already are meekly enforced. As long as the Russia-North Korea relationship continues as its current pace, Trump will be hard pressed to bring the North Koreans back to the negotiating table.
None of this is to suggest that Trump shouldn’t try another diplomatic foray with North Korea. Regardless of the criticism he received at the time, Trump’s decision to shake things up and go straight to the source was an admirable attempt to manage an issue that has defied U.S. presidents for more than three decades.
Yet if Trump wants a second roll of the dice, he needs to keep a healthy dose of skepticism front-of-mind. Given the continued improvement of North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities, any agreement the United States signs with the Kim regime will be less impressive than it could have been in 2019 — assuming we get an agreement at all.
Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a foreign affairs commentator for the Spectator.
-
Health1 week ago
New Year life lessons from country star: 'Never forget where you came from'
-
Technology1 week ago
Meta’s ‘software update issue’ has been breaking Quest headsets for weeks
-
Business6 days ago
These are the top 7 issues facing the struggling restaurant industry in 2025
-
Culture6 days ago
The 25 worst losses in college football history, including Baylor’s 2024 entry at Colorado
-
Sports6 days ago
The top out-of-contract players available as free transfers: Kimmich, De Bruyne, Van Dijk…
-
Politics5 days ago
New Orleans attacker had 'remote detonator' for explosives in French Quarter, Biden says
-
Politics4 days ago
Carter's judicial picks reshaped the federal bench across the country
-
Politics3 days ago
Who Are the Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?