forsyth

I'm not throwing anything under a bus, just asking people that call themselves "conservative" to explain how this policy coincides with their ideology.

I can understand how a standardized education system is important... it makes no sense for students in one state to have a good education while the neighboring state is taught that dinosaur bones were planted by Satan to confuse people.

I can understand how a standard for healthcare is important... it makes no sense for someone to be forced to die in one state while someone in the exact same condition in a neighboring state would have no problem.

And it makes no sense for a state to be able to implement racist policies that can put the entire nation at war.

But this policy... trying to force states to abandon laws that protect their own air and water supply... doesn't seem to make any sense.

Do you remember when Duke was caught illegally dumping coal ash into Dan River? The state fined them $3 million to pay for the cleanup, but this EO would have prevented the state from imposing that fine.

Do you think that it's "winning" for the federal government to control the states and local governments in this way?

Can you show in the Constitution where the federal government has the right to dictate State policies on this matter?

You're arguing in favor of removing the rights of local governments and states, and instead give full control to the federal government?

That's the exact opposite of "conservative..."

A new Trump executive order titled "Protecting American Energy from State Overreach" directs U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to "identify all state and local laws ... burdening the identification, development, siting, production, or use of domestic energy resources that are or may be unconstitutional, preempted by federal law, or otherwise unenforceable" within 60 days. [emphasis, links added]

The EO makes special reference to climate "extortion laws" in California, New York, and Vermont, and most particularly to legal barriers to producers of hydrocarbon energy - coal, gas, and oil - directing A.G. Bondi to recommend "Presidential or legislative action" necessary to stop their enforcement.

Such actions already cued up by the White House during the administration's first 100 days include closing climate departments, halting offshore wind leases, cutting green energy funding, and imposing tariffs on renewable equipment imports from China.

Legal regulations and monetary impediments imposed on hydrocarbon energy producers have been costly, in turn passing these economic burdens on to consumers.

In May of last year, Vermont passed a Climate Superfund Act holding "fossil fuel extractors" or "crude oil refiners" responsible for "costs due to climate change" and seeking millions of dollars in damages for greenhouse gas emissions produced from 1995 through 2024.

The law was premised upon assertions that the state's 2023 floods resulted from climate change caused by oil company emissions, conveniently ignoring the fact that the Great Vermont Flood of 1927, the worst in the state's history, happened when global CO2 emissions were only 10% of current levels.

New York followed Vermont's example last December with its Climate Change Superfund Act, which will impose a huge tax on fossil fuel producers, seeking to collectively fine them an estimated $3 billion annually beginning in 2028.

Maryland has joined Vermont and New York in blaming fossil energy companies for climate change in passing a "Responding to Emergency Needs from Extreme Weather Act" this month to "make polluters pay," with like measure efforts to enact "superfund" laws seeking monetary damages for energy that their citizens, industries, and economies depend on underway in California and Massachusetts.

https://climatechangedispat...rgy-order/