THE CLIMATE CRISIS
In 2019, Andrew Wheeler, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) critiqued the federal government’s one-size fits all policy for the reduction of auto emissions in the United States. In what was proclaimed as “the attack on California,” California state law makers and environmentalists united with Wheeler’s critique of the Trump administration’s initiative to revoke the state’s authority to set auto emission rules. Tailpipe pollution is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, threatening air quality, the environment, and public wellbeing. It is inevitable for climate change and prevention policymaking to take center on the national stage but with every new presidency comes a new set of priorities and promises that can jeopardize the continuation of efforts to minimize greenhouse gases.
Climate change is not limited by borders, it is a global concern. It would be in the best interest of time, resources, budget and management for the federal government to operate collaboratively with states to determine pollution control regulations and welcome the benefits of enviro-tech revolution. For example, the state of California represents 12% of the U.S population and thereby the livable conditions for its citizens are unalike to a state with a smaller population. On a state-level, California should be able to set a standard for pollution control with the support of the federal government (i.e market-driven strategies, infrastructure, accountability.) As a constitution-based federal government, challenges against pollution regulation policies will have to be battled and determined at the Supreme Court. This can lengthen the response time and delay immediate action and reactions to ongoing environmental issues. In addition, if the federal government is left alone to be responsible for this, it’s possible it would widen the opportunity for corruption and low standard practices.
Policymaking should be transparent and reflect the concerns of the market and the public. However, it is still not a perfect system and is easily infiltrated by special interests. State and local laws give insight to the region’s culture, commonwealth and economy. Federal policy are laws that are applicable to everyone and distinguish qualifications for things such as ownership, travel, and welfare. The size and diversity of the United States makes it too massive for it be governed single-handedly on a federal level; State and local-based regulations work in partnership with national laws and clarify the expectations of its citizens and government. Exclusive power to either entity would be negligent.
The constitution upholds what is the basic right of its citizens but it has yet to determine at a national scale what those basic rights are to universal healthcare; the freedom to exercise autonomy of their own body without government interference; and the government’s role in providing its citizens with safe, natural resources ( i.e clean water, greenhouse emissions.) Historically, these policies have been foisted onto the State level, in part to enable previous intolerable eras (I.e Jim Crow, Anti-abortion laws). If it is still an ambition for the United States to be considered the greatest nation in the world it needs to act like it and that would be by how it treats its lowest standing citizen and territory. State and local policies have great power in determining the quality of life, but the federal government should be able to intercept policy making that directly harms and/or marginalizes the freedoms of its citizens (I.e Southern voting laws, Florida’s ban on gender-affirming care) Although criticisms to state-based regulations are valid, it is appropriate for a State governance to assess what it is critical to public safety (i.e gun and tail pipe emissions) and react accordingly. In regards to California’s fight to minimize its greenhouse gas emissions, the motivation to improve clean air standards is to also improve to the quality of life. It is in both the state and federal government’s best interest to determine how it can rescue a considerable portion of the U.S market from ecological disaster through proactive policies before it must rely on public welfare and/or disaster relief funds.
