- California Governor Newsom (D) signed an executive order Wednesday aimed at banning sales of new gasoline vehicles by 2035.
- The ban will not prevent anyone from owning or even selling a used gas-powered vehicle.
- While many environmentalist groups praised Newsom for the order, they noted that California will need to be proactive to accomplish the goal in its current time frame. Some even criticized Newsom for not going a step further by also limiting oil and gas production.
- Despite this, Newsom announced a goal to end new fracking permits by 2024, which was later condemned by many energy companies.
- Because California has such a massive influence, many believe other states could follow its lead, causing ripple effects in the car market.
Newsom Announces Gas-Powered Car Ban for 2035
As part of an “ambitious” new goal, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) issued an executive order on Wednesday meant to ban the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035.
“I think it’s self-evident to anybody who’s been paying any attention about [the] state of California that we’ve been suffering and struggling through simultaneous crises,” Newsom when announcing the order.
“Of all the simultaneous crises that we face as a state, and I would argue as a nation — and for that matter, from a global perspective — none is more impactful, none is more forceful than the issue of the climate crisis. And that’s exactly what we’re advancing here today is a strategy to address that crisis head-on, to be as bold as the problem is big.”
In part, Newsom’s order directs regulators to develop a plan that would require automakers to steadily sell more zero-emissions vehicles, with the state completely phasing out the sale of new gas-powered passenger vehicles in just 15 fifteen years. This order will not ban people from owning, driving, or even selling used cars that rely on gas.
Among other measures, the order sets a goal to make all medium and heavy-duty vehicles on the road zero emissions by 2045, “where feasible.”
It also directs state transportation agencies to “identify near-term actions” that would build infrastructure such as “an integrated, statewide rail and transit network” or that would “[support] bicycle, pedestrian, and micro-mobility options, particularly in low-income and disadvantaged communities in the State.”
Is This Goal Feasible?
One of the biggest challenges to this goal is its feasibility.
As experts have pointed out, increasing the production and sale of emissions-free vehicles in the state over a relatively short period of time will be a massive hurdle.
Last year, only about 8% of passenger vehicles in the state were either electric or hybrid. On top of that, California would need to increase financial incentives for electric vehicles since they tend to be pricier. It would also need to drastically expand its charging infrastructure.
Still, Newsom stressed in his Wednesday announcement that over 40% of the state’s carbon emissions come directly from transportation. In fact, transportation even outpaces the industrial, agricultural, and residential sectors combined.
It’s not impossible to think that this goal could become a reality. As Don Anair, deputy director of the clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told The New York Times: “It’s feasible, but it’s going to take California pulling all the levers at its disposal.”
California isn’t the first place to announce a phasing out of gas-powered vehicles. Fifteen other countries — including Britain, Denmark, and Norway — have all set similar goals; however, California is the first government in the United States to set such aggressive goals.
Environmentalists Express Concerns Over Oil and Gas
While many environmentalists praised the order, that also doesn’t mean they’re fully satisfied with it. Many have pointed out that California is one of the country’s largest oil and gas producers.
In recent years, energy companies in the state have used fracking to unlock new fossil-fuel reserves. Because of that, Kassie Siegel, the director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity, told The Times: “Setting a timeline to eliminate petroleum vehicles is a big step, but Newsom’s announcement provided rhetoric rather than real action on the other critical half of the climate problem — California’s dirty oil production.”
“Newsom can’t claim climate leadership while handing out permits to oil companies to drill and frack,” she added.
In his order, Newsom set a goal to end new permits for fracking by 2024. He also said he would work to help the state’s energy industry move away from its reliance on oil and gas.
Regarding why he did not issue an executive order banning fracking, he said he lacks the authority to do so on his own. Therefore, he called on the state legislature to enact such a ban.
Online Criticism and Criticism from Energy Companies
Energy companies offered even sharper words following Newson’s announcement of his fracking goals.
“Let’s be clear: Today’s announcement to curb in-state production of energy will put thousands of workers in the Central Valley, Los Angeles basin, and Central Coast on the state’s overloaded unemployment program, drive up energy costs when consumers can least afford it, and hurt California’s fight to lower global greenhouse gas emissions,” Rock Zierman, chief executive of the California Independent Petroleum Association.
Many online also criticized Newsom’s goals, with one person saying, “You are going to ruin California’s economy and people will lose their jobs.”
California’s Move Could Send a Ripple Across Other States
California is the fifth-largest economy in the world, and it’s not unlikely to think that pressure on auto companies from the state could prompt other states to increase their electric vehicle usage as well.
“We’ve seen this show before, where California does something, and others jump on board,” veteran auto industry analyst Karl Brauer told The Washington Post.
“If you want to reduce asthma,” Newson said Wednesday, “if you want to mitigate the rise of sea level, if you want to mitigate a loss of ice sheets around the globe, then this is a policy for other states to follow.”
Thirteen other states and the District of Columbia already follow California’s fuel-efficiency standards; however, the Trump administration is currently challenging California’s long-standing authority to set those standards for itself.
Because of that, last year, California and nearly two dozen other states sued the Trump administration for the right to set their own standards.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (NPR) (The Washington Post)
Biden Outlines $1.9 Trillion Stimulus Plan
- President-elect Joe Biden unveiled a sweeping $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief stimulus proposal on Thursday.
- Under the plan, $1 trillion would go to direct relief for Americans. This includes a round of $1,400 stimulus checks, an extension and $400 weekly increase to federal unemployment benefits, and a $15 minimum wage.
- The proposal would also allocate $440 billion for aid to local governments and businesses, as well as provide $400 billion to directly fight the coronavirus with more testing and vaccinations, among other efforts.
Biden Outlines Direct Aid in Stimulus Plan
President-elect Joe Biden announced the details of his $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief stimulus package while speaking at an event in Wilmington, Delaware on Thursday.
Biden described the package, titled “American Rescue Plan,” as a set of emergency measures to immediately address the country’s economic and healthcare needs. The package will be followed by a second, broader relief package in February, which will aim to address more long-term economic recovery efforts.
Most significantly, $1 trillion — more than half of the funding allocated in the first package — will go to direct relief for Americans. Among other measures, the direct aid provisions in the plan include increasing federal unemployment benefits from $300 a week to $400 a week and extending them from March to September.
Biden’s plan also includes $1,400 stimulus checks to top off the $600 already approved in the December stimulus package. However, eligibility for the direct payments would be expanded to families of non-citizen immigrants as well as families with adult dependents.
Additionally, the proposal includes several other measures targeted at directly helping struggling Americans, such as raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, adding billions in funding for child care, and expanding the child tax credit to poor and middle-class families.
As for the broader economic and pandemic-centered measures, Biden’s package would allocate $440 billion for aid to states, local governments, and businesses. It would also provide $400 billion to directly fight the coronavirus, with a major focus on expanding testing and accelerating vaccine distribution.
Biden has set the dual goals of delivering 100 million vaccines and reopening the majority of K-12 public schools in his first 100 days. To meet that objective, his plan includes $20 billion for a universal vaccination program, $50 billion to expand testing, and $130 billion to help schools reopen safely.
The proposal, overall, meets many of the demands for direct aid that Democrats have pushed for months but have been unable to approve with the Republican-controlled Senate. Now that Democrats hold the presidency and control of both chambers, many members have urged Biden to ask for an even higher price tag.
Biden, for his part, has said he would like to try for a bipartisan majority on his first piece of legislation, but given Republicans months-long resistance to many Democratic asks, that desire is likely a pipe-dream.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (CNN)
Democrats Ask for Investigation into GOP Members Aiding Rioters
- More than 30 House Democrats signed a letter Wednesday demanding that security officials look into “suspicious behavior and access given to visitors” at the Capitol the day before last week’s insurrection.
- The lawmakers claimed they “witnessed an extremely high number of outside groups” visiting, including guests who “appeared to be associated with the rally at the White House the following day.”
- The letter comes one day after Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ) accused her Republican colleagues of bringing rioters into the Capitol the day before for “reconnaissance.”
- Notably, neither the letter nor Sherill herself directly named any members, and these claims have not yet been verified.
Demands for Investigation
Congressional Democrats are demanding an investigation into whether Republican representatives aided the Capitol rioters who lead last Wednesday’s insurrection.
In a letter signed by 31 members Wednesday, lawmakers asked the acting House and Senate Sergeants at Arms to look into “suspicious behavior and access given to visitors” the day right before the attack.
In that letter, the Democrats say that they as well as some of their staffers “witnessed an extremely high number of outside groups” visiting the Capitol.
They pointed out that was unusual because the building has restricted public access since March as part of pandemic protocols. Since then, tourists have only been allowed to enter the Capitol if they were brought in by a member of Congress.
The members found the tours “so concerning” that they reported them to the Sergeant at Arms the same day.
“The visitors encountered by some of the Members of Congress on this letter appeared to be associated with the rally at the White House the following day,” the letter continued. “Members of the group that attacked the Capitol seemed to have an unusually detailed knowledge of the layout of the Capitol Complex.”
The demands come after Rep. Mikie Sherrill (R-NJ) claimed during a Facebook livestream Tuesday that she saw Republican representatives bringing now-identified rioters into the Capitol the day before the riots for “reconnaissance.” Sherrill also alleged that some of her GOP colleagues “abetted” Trump and “incited this violent crowd.”
Members Under Fire
Neither the letter nor Sherill have directly named any members, and none of these claims have yet been verified. However, over the last few days, a number of Republicans have been condemned for their perceived involvement in inciting the rioters.
In a now-deleted video, right-wing conspiracy theorist and “Stop the Steal” organizer Ali Alexander claimed he had planned the rally that took place before the riot with the help of three House Republicans: Paul Gosar (Az.), Andy Biggs (Az.), and Mo Brooks (Al.). All three men voted to undermine the will of the American people and throw out the electoral votes in Arizona following the insurrection.
Biggs and Brooks have both denied that they have any involvement, but Gosar, who tagged Alexander in a tweet he posted just hours before the attack, has not responded to any requests for comment from several outlets.
“Biden should concede,” Gosar wrote. “I want his concession on my desk tomorrow morning. Don’t make me come over there. #StopTheSteaI2021”
While Brooks has denied any involvement in planning the rally, his remarks to the would-be domestic terrorists at the event have sparked widespread condemnation.
“Today is the day that American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass,” he told the crowd. “Are you willing to do what it takes to fight for America?”
Some House Democrats introduced resolutions to censure Brooks for his comments. Other members have also been pushing to invoke Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, a relic of the post-Civil War era which disqualifies people who “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the U.S. from holding public office.
Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) has also received 47 co-sponsored on her proposed resolution that would start investigations for “removal of the members who attempted to overturn the results of the election and incited a white supremacist attempted coup.”
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (CNN)
House Impeaches Trump By Largest Bipartisan Margin in History
- The House voted to impeach President Donald Trump on Wednesday for “inciting an insurrection,” making him the first-ever president to be impeached twice.
- Ten Republicans broke party ranks to vote in favor of impeachment, which means this is the most bipartisan impeachment in U.S. history.
- Ahead of the vote, sources close to Senate Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters he believes Trump committed impeachable offenses and that he was pleased Democrats were moving forward with a vote because it will make it easier to “purge” Trump from the party.
- McConnel later said he has not yet decided whether he will vote to convict Trump. Still, he has refused to convene the Senate before Jan. 19, meaning that as of now, there is little chance that the Senate will conduct a trial and oust Trump before his term ends.
House Debates Impeachment
The U.S. House of Representatives voted 232 to 197 to impeach President Donald Trump on Wednesday for “inciting an insurrection,” making him the first-ever president to be impeached twice.
All Democrats voted in favor of the single article. They were also joined by 10 Republicans, which means this is the most bipartisan impeachment in U.S. history.
The decision was debated on the floor after Vice President Pence rejected Democrats’ calls to invoke the 25th amendment and remove Trump from office.
Most notable among the Republican members who voted to impeach was Liz Cheney (R-WY), the number three House Republican who announced her decision Tuesday night.
“There has never been a greater betrayal by a president of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution,” she said in a statement.
Questionable Path in Senate
No Republican Senators have publicly said they support removing Trump from office.
On Tuesday, The New York Times reported that sources close to Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said he “has told associates that he believes President Trump committed impeachable offenses and that he is pleased that Democrats are moving to impeach him, believing that it will make it easier to purge him from the party.”
Sources separately told Axios that “there’s a better than 50-50 chance” that McConnell would vote to convict Trump.
McConnell responded to the reports earlier on Wednesday but did not outright dispute many of the claims.
“While the press has been full of speculation, I have not made a final decision on how I will vote and I intend to listen to the legal arguments when they are presented to the Senate,” he said.
As for whether or not other members of the GOP would follow suit, a top Republican close to McConnell also told Axios that “Senate institutional loyalists are fomenting a counterrevolution” to Trump.
Additionally, McConnell’s advisers have said that he has “privately speculated that a dozen Republican senators — and possibly more — could ultimately vote to convict.” Notably, it would most likely require 17 Republicans to join Democrats in order for Trump to be found guilty.
In regards to a timeline, the Senate is in recess and not set to reconvene until Jan. 19, the day before Joe Biden’s inauguration. McConnell has rejected calls to ask that members return before then, meaning that as of right now there is very little chance that the Senate will conduct a trial and oust Trump before he leaves office.