https://www.city-journal.org/article/dismantle-the-environmental-justice-juggernaut Dismantle the “Environmental Justice” Juggernaut Eliminating this pernicious policy should be on the Trump administration’s first week to-do list. Nov 11 2024 James B. Meigs In contrast to President Trump’s chaotic first-term transition, the second Trump administration has the chance to be disciplined when it comes into office on January 20, 2025. Some of the Biden administration’s most pernicious policies were enacted, not through Congress, but via executive orders and other non-legislative maneuvers. That means the Trump team can reverse many of those policies using the same procedures. It should do so immediately upon taking office. Biden’s environmental-justice agenda belongs high on the list. In his first week in office, Biden signed Executive Order 14008, which committed the federal government to an array of climate-related initiatives and directed agencies to “secure environmental justice and spur economic opportunity” for “marginalized” communities. The incoming administration should issue a new EO rolling back those environmental-justice requirements and dismantling EJ departments and policies within the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies. Such a move will be met with outrage from environmentalists and the media. Like many progressive policies, “environmental justice” sounds superficially appealing to moderates. Who could be against giving minorities and the poor equal protection from pollution? And some EJ programs, such as replacing lead drinking-water pipes, address legitimate concerns. But, as I outlined in a Manhattan Institute report last year, much of Biden’s EJ agenda is a Trojan horse designed to smuggle unpopular progressive social goals into broadly supported environmental programs. Here’s how it works: Biden’s executive order established a guideline, the Justice40 Initiative, which requires that 40 percent of the “overall benefits” of most environmental and infrastructure programs “flow to disadvantaged communities.” Under this vague mandate, a “benefit” might be defined, not as lower emissions, but as forcing contractors to hire expensive unionized labor, requiring solar energy projects to be built in poor neighborhoods, or issuing grants to community activist groups. As I wrote in my report, “Biden’s EJ agenda diverts spending and administrative resources away from traditional environmental priorities—such as reducing air and water pollution and lowering greenhouse gas emissions—and directs them toward amorphous social goals.” While those goals might sound attractive to some, imposing the Justice40 standard on environmental projects yields smaller environmental or social benefits. In many cases, EJ policies make problems worse. By making infrastructure more expensive, EJ rules ensure that each federal dollar spent on a project yields a smaller environmental improvement. And because of their scattershot nature, EJ programs will have a paltry impact, at best, on the economies of poor communities. And yet, Biden’s EJ mandates demand that hundreds of billions in federal spending must be allocated according to these confusing, counterproductive metrics. Moreover, Biden’s executive order and subsequent EJ rules entangle virtually every federal agency in skeins of red tape. Even the Defense Department and other agencies devoted to national security must “embed environmental justice in all aspects of their work.” Instead of focusing on their core missions, in other words, federal officials are now tasked with “stakeholder consultation,” collecting data on how programs benefit disadvantaged communities, and filing lengthy reports to the White House Office of Environmental Justice. All these requirements are sand in the wheels of government; they slow down infrastructure projects and create new opportunities for activists to file lawsuits. Ironically, some of the worst delays are hitting the very clean-energy projects the administration claims are vital to saving the planet. For example, in 2021 Congress allocated $7.5 billion to build electric-vehicle charging stations; Biden promised 500,000 chargers would be built by 2030. But as his administration comes to an end, only a handful of stations have been built. Biden’s cumbersome environmental-justice rules—which require “meaningful public involvement” and can expose builders to lawsuits—are a key obstacle. “These requirements are screwing everything up,” one Department of Transportation staffer told the Washington Free Beacon. “It’s all a mess.” Biden’s EJ program also funnels billions in block grants to loosely supervised activist groups, some of whom dabble in radical politics. The Inflation Reduction Act, passed in 2022, tasks the EPA with distributing $3 billion in grant money for grassroots organizations. In a blistering 2023 letter to EPA administrator Michael Regan, Representatives James Comer and Pat Fallon (of the House Oversight Committee and Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs, respectively) warned that one typical EJ grant program risked becoming “a slush fund for far-left organizations.” They were right. To help distribute that bounty, the EPA turned to various educational institutions and nonprofits to help select the ultimate grant winners. One of the EPA’s key grant makers in this effort is the Berkeley, California-based Climate Justice Alliance, a consortium of far-left groups that has advised the Biden White House on EJ policy since the administration’s early days. The group espouses a radical ideology, defining its mission as working for “regenerative economic solutions and ecological justice—under a framework that challenges capitalism and both white supremacy and hetero-patriarchy.” Like others in the “climate justice” movement, CJA argues that concern for the environment requires allegiance to the full suite of left-wing causes. “The path to climate justice travels through a free Palestine,” the organization’s website asserts. The Grassroots Global Justice Alliance, one of the groups affiliated with CJA, launched an illegal 2023 anti-Israel protest in the Capitol Rotunda that led to 50 arrests. Some of the EPA grant money filtering through grassroots organizations will be used for local projects—such as weatherizing housing in poor neighborhoods—that have discernible environmental benefits. But money is fungible, and federal funds that support an activist organization’s green activities can free up resources for the group’s political activism. For example, PODER, an Austin, Texas, nonprofit that has received funding under the IRA’s Solar for All program, also sponsors protests against police patrols. Some grants flow to groups primarily dedicated to political action. For example, last year the EPA awarded $13 million to the New Orleans-based Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, and smaller awards to other groups dedicated to fighting against the petrochemical industry in the Gulf region. There’s nothing wrong with private citizens or groups rallying to stop industrial development. But why is the federal government subsidizing organizations devoted to shutting down industrial projects that, in many cases, federal regulators have already approved? more
conclusion Midway through what would turn out to be the Biden’s final year in office, a Politico investigation revealed that the administration had spent less than 17 percent of the $1.1 trillion Congress has allocated for climate, energy, and infrastructure projects. Not for lack of trying, though. “The conveyor belt of big-dollar announcements has cranked up in recent weeks,” Politico writes, including $27 billion for a hastily conceived Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund intended to subsidize carbon-cutting projects. In RealClearInvestigations, James Varney reveals that many of the “green banks” selected for funding—nonprofits including the Justice Climate Fund, Climate United, and others—were launched almost overnight. And yet these groups are being awarded grants of up to nearly $7 billion. All too predictably, the boards and leadership ranks of these organizations are stuffed with former Democratic officials and party activists. For example, Cecilia Martinez, a Biden campaign adviser who became the White House’s top environmental-justice official, sits on the board of the Coalition for Green Capital. That group won a $5 billion grant from the EPA. Unlike Biden’s Justice40 rules, the programs showering tax dollars on NGOs and activist groups were approved by Congress in bills including the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Act. Trump can’t unwind these with the stroke of a pen. But the administration can demand radical transparency and proctologically intrusive audits. The public must know where every dollar has gone. And the EPA administrators doling out the funds should be replaced on Day One. The new administration should also disband the White House Office of Environmental Justice and allow federal agencies to focus again on their core missions. For its part, Congress will need to begin the painful work of trimming back these monstrously bloated programs. Trump and his team should expect intense pushback as it starts dismantling the EJ juggernaut. The media will portray each step as a betrayal of environmental values. The administration should be clear on this point: the environmental-justice paradigm—which buries green initiatives in bureaucracy and diverts money to left-wing activism—is the real enemy of environmental progress.
Trump says Interior pick Burgum will chair new National Energy Council https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tr...chair-new-national-energy-council-2024-11-15/ excerpt: WASHINGTON, Nov 15 (Reuters) - President-elect Donald Trump said on Friday that he was creating a National Energy Council to coordinate policies to boost U.S. energy production that will be led by his pick for interior secretary, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum. The National Energy Council will represent federal departments and agencies involved in permitting and regulating all forms of energy, the statement said. "This Council will oversee the path to U.S. ENERGY DOMINANCE by cutting red tape, enhancing private sector investments across all sectors of the Economy, and by focusing on INNOVATION over longstanding, but totally unnecessary, regulation," Trump said in a statement. more at the link
Trump’s EPA pick says climate change is real https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ion-hearings/#link-J2IQE6J2YJGFPLRBYQWJBZRDIM excerpt: President-elect Donald Trump has called climate change a “hoax.” But Lee Zeldin, Trump’s pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, acknowledged during his confirmation hearing Thursday that climate change is real and having harmful effects. Under questioning from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island), the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Zeldin recognized that “the emissions of greenhouse gases trap heat” in Earth’s atmosphere, fueling climate impacts such as rising sea levels. In response to a question from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), Zeldin added that “I believe that climate change is real” and that Trump has primarily criticized the “economic costs” of climate policies. At other times, however, Zeldin said he was not a climate scientist and referred questions to the scientists at EPA. more at the link
I think Zeldin will be one of Trump's better selections https://nypost.com/2025/01/29/us-ne...nd-a-plan-to-keep-courts-from-overturning-it/ New EPA chief Lee Zeldin has an ambitious agenda — and a plan to keep courts from overturning it By Kelly Jane Torrance Published Jan. 29, 2025, 8:18 p.m. ET Lee Zeldin has an ambitious agenda for the Environmental Protection Agency, even beyond undoing years of damage from President Joe Biden and various states — but he’ll be consulting lawyers to ensure every move is lawsuit-proof, he told The Post in his first interview after being confirmed head of the powerful agency Wednesday. Actions “have to be a result of a process where I am being briefed on the latest research and science and making a decision after the career professionals at EPA have the opportunity to share their thoughts and research with me. Durability is going to be an important priority for me with initiatives that I take,” he said. “If I cut a corner that I’m not allowed to cut or prejudge an outcome that I’m not allowed to prejudge, and a state brings the EPA to court to challenge the action, a judge can overturn the action because EPA did not follow the processes required by law.” It’s a wise if somewhat unsexy approach: President Trump’s first executive orders faced court challenges barely before the ink had dried. But the former Long Island congressman, a lawyer himself, has plans no less bold than those of his boss. “Being able to work with the Trump administration to unleash energy dominance, bring back American auto jobs, pursue permitting reform and make America the AI capital of the world are just some of the very important ways the EPA can help implement an agenda that helps make America prosperous again,” Zeldin said. “Artificial intelligence” aren’t words normally associated with the EPA. But Zeldin, who achieved the lieutenant-colonel rank in the Army, noted “the need for more of an energy supply is going to be important” to lead the sector, which China’s DeepSeek unsettled this week. Those aren’t his only top priorities; he wants to clean up the agency, which boasts 18,742 employees and a nearly $11 billion budget. “Operationally, it’s important to get employees back into the office and working and collaborating. I’ve been told that the EPA building is often at about 20% capacity on any given day. I’ll be able to confirm that firsthand once I’m in the building,” he noted. As if that isn’t going to be hard enough, Zeldin’s also “been greatly concerned with the lack of accountability on tens of billions of dollars that have gone out the door of the EPA during the Biden administration.” A video released post-election showed “a Biden political appointee on camera talking about how the EPA is ‘tossing gold bars off the Titanic.’ The gold bars being tax dollars,” he said. “They were rushing to toss the gold bars off the Titanic before the president’s inauguration” — “giving out these funds to recipient NGOs with the desire of being able to go find jobs with these entities after. Wow.” Zeldin says his first trip as boss will likely include North Carolina and California. “I’ve been told that there are approximately 13,000 properties that are currently going through reviews for hazardous material” in the Golden State, he said. “We need to pursue ways to be able to complete that inspection and removal as quickly as possible, working with local residents and other levels of government.” But the agency has plenty of cleanup to do right at home. “I’ll give you an example. The Climate Justice Alliance received $50 million in grant funding, even though their position is ‘the path to climate justice travels through a free Palestine,’” he said with disbelief. Zeldin aims to make “American prosperity” a big part of his mission. It’s what Americans voted for, he emphasized. “In the name of climate change, there have been decisions made at the state and federal level that caused a very disproportionate amount of economic pain on Americans who can least afford it. Many Democrats this past November voted Republican for the first time — voted for President Trump — because they didn’t feel like these left-wing policies in the name of climate were looking out for their pocketbooks, and they were struggling to make ends meet,” he said. “It’s very important for the EPA to be cognizant of the economic impacts of the policies coming out of the agency.” He’s also hoping to give Gothamites relief from Gov. Hochul’s congestion tax and “the financial toll on New Yorkers who can’t afford it.” The state’s fracking ban could be on the table too. And the born-and-bred New Yorker will be a key figure in implementing his boss’ agenda. “In the course of 2024’s presidential campaign, President Trump was talking about a lot of issues that are part of the jurisdiction and responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency,” he pointed out. Zeldin stumped for Trump throughout the swing states. Three Senate Democrats voted to confirm Zeldin — the most Dem votes a Republican EPA nominee has received in about 20 years. Still, he is certain to face pushback in his new role especially on fossil fuels. Don’t expect him to waver. “Most of the energy supply for Americans come from coal and natural gas, and turning off those two spigots will cause an existential disaster for this country,” he said. “I come into the position greatly informed and passionate about the many ways that places like New York have suffocated the economy irresponsibly under the banner of climate change,” Zeldin added. “I am looking forward to [helping] make life easier for hardworking citizens and business owners all across this country, whether you’re from a red state or a blue state or purple state.” He added, “The mission of providing cleaner, safer and healthier air and water is critical, and we have to pursue that mission with an intense desire to help unleash American prosperity and deliver the greatest four years that any of us can remember our nation having throughout our lifetimes.” His Day One message to employees, going out by email Thursday, ends: “Let’s get to work!”
Doug Burgum Is Confirmed by Senate as Interior Secretary The former governor of North Dakota is promoting President Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda and wants more oil, gas and mining on public lands. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/climate/doug-burgum-interior-secretary.html
Not reading all of that In regards to energy we are the largest oil producing nation. Oil prices right now are a pure consequence of supply and demand. Fracking has allowed us to produce oil very cheaply and abundantly. Oil companies can produce more oil but they don't produce more because anymore would cause prices to fall to a level where they wouldn't make money
Russians and Saudis spitroasted Trump and American fracking when everything shut down. I wonder if he's gonna keep score.
Sadly Trump's campaign and current rhetoric about ending regulations hurting the energy industry aren't, it's just ignorance.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/califor...ee-zeldin-eee7798e?mod=hp_opin_pos_2#cxrecs_s California’s EV Mandate Goes to Congress for Repeal The GOP can rescue the country from onerous rules that are impossible for auto makers to meet. By The Editorial Board Updated Feb. 17, 2025 at 3:14 pm ET President Trump campaigned on eliminating electric-vehicle mandates and bringing down prices. Republicans in Congress now have an opportunity to do both by overturning California’s onerous EV regime. The Biden Administration in December approved a waiver letting California set its own vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions standards. The Clean Air Act lets the Environmental Protection Agency grant such a waiver only to meet “compelling and extraordinary conditions.” This waiver authority was intended to help California reduce pollutants that contribute to smog. But CO2 doesn’t cause smog, and California doesn’t have any more compelling need to regulate vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions than any other state. Nonetheless, the Biden EPA approved the state’s ban on new internal-combustion engine cars by 2035 and progressive “zero-emission vehicle” quotas for auto makers. Zero-emission vehicles would have to account for 43% of an auto maker’s sales in 2027 in California and a dozen or so other states that have adopted its rules. This increases to 68% by 2030. Auto makers called the program an “unaccountable, unachievable regulatory wormhole” in a memo to “interested parties” in December. That is putting it gently. EVs made up only 13% of traditional auto-maker sales in California in 2023 and even less in such states as Massachusetts (8%), New Jersey (7%) and New York (6%) that have adopted the Golden State’s rules. Auto makers say they may have to slash deliveries of gas-powered cars to California and its copy-cat states to meet the quotas. Because auto makers would also need to slash EV prices to meet the quotas, they would probably have to increase prices on gas-powered cars nationwide to offset their steep EV losses. Auto makers’ only alternative would be to buy regulatory credits from Tesla, which would also dent their bottom lines and probably cause them to raise prices. Enter Trump EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, who on Friday submitted the California waiver to Congress for repeal under the Congressional Review Act. Under that law a simple majority of both chambers can overturn a regulation with a President’s signature. Passing a CRA resolution would be quicker than reversing the rule administratively. The CRA also bars judicial review of resolutions and forbids future administrations from reissuing a rule “in substantially the same form.” That means California’s EV mandate couldn’t return, as it did after Mr. Trump tried to kill it during his first term. Congress now has 60 days to introduce a resolution to overturn California’s EV mandate. Better get cracking. Appeared in the February 18, 2025, print edition as 'California’s EV Mandate Goes to Congress'.
I don't support California dragging the rest of the country down. At least with gasoline-powered generators, manufacturers simply mark the box "Not for Sale in California" and go on with life. That's the way it should be. With automobiles I think that is much more difficult to do.
Who here is even qualifed for that conversation that is worth 13 pages? I know I'm no expert in modeling this stuff. It's diffyqs, fluid mechanic equations, thermodynamic equations on steroids. We got a bunch of small business owners, real estate guys, lawyers debating here... Like my mechanical engineering background just gives me a basic idea of the concepts of dynamic system modeling and using computational software to create these massive systems of equations. Just the concepts. No one here should be confidently debating about it outside of just agreeing with the subject matter experts and re-expressing their thoughts and findings.
In general, probably. Thats asking to cut out critical thinking and skepticism on the subject for the general public, when it's also generally asked for the public to have better understanding on the subjects. I don't think you can have both.
We can critically think the motives, incentives etc. of the players involved. There are probably very few posters here that have the background knowledge and math and science technical skills to critically think about the validity of the actual models themselves.
Cal and Republican presidents have been fighting over it this millennium. Ironically Reagan had no problem with it because he set up the California Air Resources Board when he was governor. The 2027 target is not a realistic date. It's been a good decade since EV cars became widely available to mainstream consumers. It's become a glorified 30K+ status symbol and more ewaste than a decade plus utility tool. The main problem with this and past emissions mandate are: Emissions standards and mileage regs in the 70s and 80s were successful enough to reduce pollutants in the 90s, BUT Americans decided to drive larger vehicles. Almost like Jevons something something. About WSJ's pro biz complaint...Those same trucks and SUVs net higher profit margins enough to buy offsets from companies like Tesla or even roll out money losers like the Toyota Mirai. They're not forced to buy from Tesla. They, particularly American car manus, just wrote off the small-midsize sedan markets and atrophied their branding, market share and expertise.. It's technically less polluting from a cradle to grave standpoint to drive a 20MPG beater car than buying brand new anything. Switching every 5 years is still not as Green as driving a 15 yr 300K mile car to the ground. That feeling that you're a wasteful American pig is not because of the beater car...it's you. As long as batteries remain the most expensive item and also the most environmentally ruinous in terms of supply chain procurement and waste disposal, EV shouldn't be the only option for car buyers Batteries with existing tech are not ready for ICE car consumption patterns, whether it's driving in the snow or driving the same engine for 13+ years. Yeah, you can baby the battery by only driving 60% capacity or order replacements on the cheap through Temu, but those sound like lessons learned over how a driver really wants to use it. Americans know this and the resale value vs annual insurance costs (repair!) is pear shaped and a sticker shock Repair costs is now fighting against software subscription fees as the most annoying new thing about your futuristic toy As it's now considered a tech product, the resale price is also dinged by expectations of newer hardware much like an iphone. Cal Dems overreached with the 0-emissions mandate. They called for it around the ESG everything bubble Euphoria, but they should've listened to someone with sense and set higher emissions targets with emphasis on hybrids. Back then people also thought Fuel Cells could be a thing, but converting fossil fuels like methane to hydrogren is like canning your farts and calling it a carbon credit if you bury them. As for the issue, as a Californian, I don't give a ****. More power to us. Every party argues for the unitary executive when they're in control. Why? Because Congress is worthless af and can't pass any laws that vibe with the people. Replace Unitary Executive with States Rights. Same ****ing thing.
