Posted on 12/27/2016 11:38:28 AM PST by ColdOne
As soon as President-elect Donald Trump assumes office Jan. 20, Republican attorneys general who have spent the past eight years battling the Obama administration’s climate change agenda will have a new role: supporting the Republican president’s complex legal effort to roll back that agenda.
By contrast, states with Democratic leadership — such as California, where Gov. Jerry Brown has promised all-out war against Mr. Trump on global warming — will go from being environmental partners with the federal government to legal aggressors on their own.
Republicans have begun exercising their influence over ead.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Elections have consequences. What is “ climate change” specifically?
Our courts are congested as a result of all the regulations from the progressive left. This is a great beginning. Gut all the ‘grievance’ garbage and the lawsuits filed for ‘hurt feelings’.
Time to Grow Up girls and girlee men.
The west coast states will surely bankrupt themselves trying to fight climate change without federal money.
California will be another Greece in 3 years and another Venezuela in 5 years.
.
Is Northern California still pushing for a split? A threeway split may actually make more sense.
I agree...President Trump will have to step in and keep the ports open. If the left wants war let’s give it to them!
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Corrupt, RINO-controlled Congress could have put a stop to lawless Obama’s climate agenda at any time, Obama’s climate agenda based on stolen state powers. So the real problem is Congress imo, not Obama.
The states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend in the name of climate issues.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
There !
In stark contrast to institutionally indoctrinated Republican attorneys being paid for the last eight years to battle unconstitutional climate change policy, I killed it in minutes with the Constitution.
Trump has his work cut out for him with respect to draining the swamp.
Good. Tear it all down.
This would eliminate the mythical 'carbon tax' from being imposed by liberal leaning socialist regimes. It will also save consumers throughout the world from needlessly being taxed trillions of dollars in disposable income. Income they could spend on manufactured goods and services. Income that can grow the real economy, rather propping up pet projects favoured by the liberal elites.
We have *never* seen a real debate on global warming and climate change.
In their usual style, The Left made speaking against climate change politically incorrect. They viciously attacked — including ruining careers — anyone who didn’t go along with the program. On the other side they made sure tremendous amounts of funding went into only studies that supported their claims.
The entire debate — or total lack of — and the tactics that have been used have been completely dishonest.
The climate change issue smells to high heaven. It is a one-sided political initiative. It is phony and rotten to the core.
At the very least, we need to ensure that the debate is honest and that funding is distributed evenly to both sides.
.
I would not impose any carbon tax on anything. And any regime that imposes a “carbon tax” on American good, well, a tax on foreign goods is a tariff. We should simply impose the “mirror tariff” on their goods exported to the United States. This should be done regardless of whether it is in response to some sort of farcical notion of “climate protection” or whether it is part of a deliberate mercantile policy.
Between the climate change savings and the sanctuary city savings, Trump may be starting off with a surplus.
New laws at the expense of repealing 2 others will be an asset as Trump pushes his agenda through.
HOORAY attorneys general
DEFUND totalitarian memes foreign and domestic.
live - free - republic
Ask 3 questions.
1. How much will it cost to fix global warming?
2. Who gets the money?
3. What is the mitigation plan in case they overshoot and wind up causing global cooling?
Since it is settled science, no more money needs to be spent on research. This means any research center, university or scientist that is receiving funding can be cut off. And they should until the 3 questions above can be answered.
Next thing, Trump should form a council with energy companies and “reputed” environmental groups. Any environmental group with an agenda will be omitted from the council and labeled as frauds. Trump should task this council with creating the right energy balance that will maximize our resources and lower costs. Part of this council’s task is to force third world energy producers into producing cleaner energy using American ingenuity and products.
The lack of a debate is valid, and like the immigration issue, the lack of a debate finally led to a change in Washington DC.
Fortunately, Trump put this issue on his political platform with respect to regulations limiting our ability to create jobs and a growing economy. The climate change debate has to be confronted on many different threads, some of them are:
Is man really capable of changing the climate (long term?)
Are regulations concerning CO2 really effective or do we just delay any climate effect
Do climate models hold water (to use a term from My Cousin Vinny)?
If we need some kind of political reaction, what would be the best thing to do, stop our economy or build sea walls?
Is freedom and a free market the best way to handle this, or should we choose central government tyranny?
Etc. This list can be carried on for a long time. The bottom line is that so many things are involved that we need to have this debate, but the good news is that with Trump we have already had an election.
“Between the climate change savings and the sanctuary city savings, Trump may be starting off with a surplus.”
And he could also throw in the UN “dues” and his cuts to support of NATO now that our other “partners” understand that they have to pay their contractually mandated costs for same. Cut back all foreign aid, and you have the makings for the start of the repair of our own infrastructure. And maybe even the defense contractors will realize that continuing the screwing their own country is a bad idea.
Somewhere here, there may finally be some realization that the money our government spends doesn’t come out of thin air.
It’s war with the Warmers! Let slip the dogs...
“We’ve got the scientists, we’ve got the universities, we’ve got the national labs, and we have the political clout for the battle. And we will persevere; have no doubt about that.”
And we’ve got the drills, the rigs, the common sense of the American people, the political power, the guns, mace, fire hoses, and handcuffs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.