WEBVTT - Trump Rollback of Rules Guts Obama Climate Legacy

0:00:00.160 --> 0:00:04.320
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe. President Trump has

0:00:04.360 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>made cutting regulations part of his agenda since the very

0:00:07.560 --> 0:00:12.560
<v Speaker 1>start of his administration. Today I will sign a presidential

0:00:12.800 --> 0:00:17.040
<v Speaker 1>memorandum directing the e p A to cut even more

0:00:17.200 --> 0:00:21.520
<v Speaker 1>red tape on our manufacturers. Much of that so called

0:00:21.600 --> 0:00:25.840
<v Speaker 1>red tape were regulations protecting the environment, and this week

0:00:25.960 --> 0:00:29.240
<v Speaker 1>marked the high point of Trump's regulatory rollback of US

0:00:29.320 --> 0:00:33.320
<v Speaker 1>climate change efforts. The Trump administration announced the final rule

0:00:33.360 --> 0:00:37.680
<v Speaker 1>to aggressively roll back Obama era fuel efficiency standards of

0:00:37.760 --> 0:00:41.599
<v Speaker 1>victory for oil and gas companies. Joining me is Pat Parento,

0:00:42.040 --> 0:00:45.920
<v Speaker 1>a professor of environmental law at Vermont Law School. Pat

0:00:46.000 --> 0:00:51.080
<v Speaker 1>explain what this latest rollback does. The rollback is from

0:00:51.159 --> 0:00:54.320
<v Speaker 1>the Obama Rule, which is a combination fuel economy and

0:00:54.360 --> 0:00:59.520
<v Speaker 1>emission standards rule that would have required achieving a corporate

0:00:59.640 --> 0:01:03.320
<v Speaker 1>fuel average of fifty four point five miles per gallon

0:01:03.400 --> 0:01:07.640
<v Speaker 1>by model year, and that would have required a five

0:01:07.800 --> 0:01:12.720
<v Speaker 1>percent increase in fuel efficiency every year going forward. The

0:01:12.760 --> 0:01:15.440
<v Speaker 1>Trump rule rolls it all the way back to only

0:01:15.480 --> 0:01:18.680
<v Speaker 1>one point five percent per year, up to US a

0:01:18.680 --> 0:01:22.280
<v Speaker 1>maximum of forty miles per gallon. When you pencil that

0:01:22.360 --> 0:01:26.360
<v Speaker 1>out in terms of emissions. It's the difference between six

0:01:26.480 --> 0:01:31.640
<v Speaker 1>billion tons of c O two and greenhouse gases between

0:01:31.680 --> 0:01:34.440
<v Speaker 1>the Trump rule and the Obama rule. Are many other

0:01:34.520 --> 0:01:37.240
<v Speaker 1>problems with the Trump rule, but the biggest one is

0:01:37.280 --> 0:01:39.520
<v Speaker 1>the one you mentioned, which is this would have been

0:01:39.520 --> 0:01:43.600
<v Speaker 1>the single biggest reduction in greenhouse gases of any federal

0:01:43.640 --> 0:01:46.720
<v Speaker 1>policy if Trump hadn't rolled it back. So is this

0:01:46.800 --> 0:01:50.160
<v Speaker 1>then the biggest step the Trump administration has taken to

0:01:50.280 --> 0:01:55.240
<v Speaker 1>reverse an existing environmental policy? Certainly in terms of a combination.

0:01:55.280 --> 0:01:58.440
<v Speaker 1>If I would say public health, air pollution is clearly

0:01:58.480 --> 0:02:01.920
<v Speaker 1>the most serious public health treat in terms of environmental

0:02:02.000 --> 0:02:04.960
<v Speaker 1>law and in terms of climate policy. Yew. This This

0:02:05.080 --> 0:02:08.480
<v Speaker 1>is I guess for the Trump administration. There their signature

0:02:08.560 --> 0:02:11.640
<v Speaker 1>move yet to be seen whether it's successful, but this

0:02:11.720 --> 0:02:14.480
<v Speaker 1>is the biggest one. There's almost a hundred of these

0:02:14.520 --> 0:02:18.680
<v Speaker 1>different policy and rule rollbacks that Trump has been pushing,

0:02:18.680 --> 0:02:22.000
<v Speaker 1>but this is their biggest one. So, the auto industry

0:02:22.480 --> 0:02:27.000
<v Speaker 1>is already going to increase fuel economy standards by about

0:02:27.040 --> 0:02:31.720
<v Speaker 1>two point four percent a year. That's already more than

0:02:31.800 --> 0:02:35.360
<v Speaker 1>what this rule requires. That's right. I've read the same

0:02:35.760 --> 0:02:38.880
<v Speaker 1>statistic that you did, and so even without the rule

0:02:39.000 --> 0:02:41.640
<v Speaker 1>we would be doing better. I suppose the idea of

0:02:41.639 --> 0:02:44.240
<v Speaker 1>the rule is you have the flexibility not to even

0:02:44.280 --> 0:02:47.320
<v Speaker 1>achieve with the market is suggesting you can do it,

0:02:47.360 --> 0:02:49.720
<v Speaker 1>should do? We don't know. I suppose how all the

0:02:49.720 --> 0:02:52.680
<v Speaker 1>different automakers are going to respond. One thing that's interesting,

0:02:52.760 --> 0:02:56.040
<v Speaker 1>of course, is that the automotive industry is split very

0:02:56.080 --> 0:02:59.840
<v Speaker 1>badly on this question. Four of the major automakers agreed

0:02:59.840 --> 0:03:03.640
<v Speaker 1>with California's more stringent standards, which were very similar, almost

0:03:03.680 --> 0:03:08.160
<v Speaker 1>identical to the Obama rule, and others in the automotive

0:03:08.160 --> 0:03:11.200
<v Speaker 1>industry have said, well, we wanted some relief from some

0:03:11.320 --> 0:03:13.920
<v Speaker 1>of the rapid pace at which we were to achieve

0:03:13.960 --> 0:03:16.720
<v Speaker 1>these fuel economies, but they don't necessarily agree with us

0:03:16.960 --> 0:03:19.400
<v Speaker 1>how far Trump has gone. So there's a real split

0:03:19.600 --> 0:03:23.480
<v Speaker 1>in the automotive industry. Well, carmakers will be locked out

0:03:23.520 --> 0:03:26.960
<v Speaker 1>of European markets if they don't keep up with the

0:03:27.000 --> 0:03:31.000
<v Speaker 1>fuel efficiency standards. Right, that's right. We're now a laggered

0:03:31.120 --> 0:03:35.640
<v Speaker 1>in terms of the global fuel economy improvements. At one point,

0:03:36.000 --> 0:03:38.720
<v Speaker 1>we were the leaders when the Obama rules went into place,

0:03:38.760 --> 0:03:41.480
<v Speaker 1>and now we're falling behind everybody else, and there will

0:03:41.560 --> 0:03:44.960
<v Speaker 1>be competitive disadvantages to that. We'll see how that that

0:03:45.080 --> 0:03:48.240
<v Speaker 1>all plays out, but it it certainly doesn't put us

0:03:48.320 --> 0:03:53.000
<v Speaker 1>in an advantaged position. Trump said that this will reduce

0:03:53.040 --> 0:03:55.840
<v Speaker 1>the price of a new car by a thousand dollars.

0:03:56.720 --> 0:03:59.840
<v Speaker 1>Is that true? Or will this increase the costs of

0:04:00.080 --> 0:04:02.840
<v Speaker 1>driving a car? Well, it will increase the cost of

0:04:02.920 --> 0:04:05.760
<v Speaker 1>driving it, no doubt, because you'll be paying more for gas.

0:04:06.120 --> 0:04:08.360
<v Speaker 1>Right now, gas prices are low, but we know how

0:04:08.880 --> 0:04:11.640
<v Speaker 1>volatile those prices are, and they're sure to go back up.

0:04:11.880 --> 0:04:14.600
<v Speaker 1>The market's been flooded, and of course the economy now

0:04:14.720 --> 0:04:17.640
<v Speaker 1>is flat globally, so there's lots of reasons why these

0:04:17.640 --> 0:04:20.719
<v Speaker 1>gas prices are currently low. But over the life of

0:04:20.720 --> 0:04:24.960
<v Speaker 1>the vehicle, the Obama calculation was was hundreds of billions

0:04:25.000 --> 0:04:27.919
<v Speaker 1>of dollars in savings, because of course we have lots

0:04:27.920 --> 0:04:31.280
<v Speaker 1>of cars and light trucks in America, and so yeah,

0:04:31.320 --> 0:04:33.240
<v Speaker 1>you'd have to take a look at the life cycle

0:04:33.320 --> 0:04:36.760
<v Speaker 1>cost of not just the initial costs of the automobile,

0:04:36.800 --> 0:04:39.720
<v Speaker 1>but the cost to fuel it over over time. And

0:04:40.040 --> 0:04:44.120
<v Speaker 1>Trump rule will definitely cost consumers money. I understand that.

0:04:44.279 --> 0:04:49.719
<v Speaker 1>In a February report, the agency's own Science Advisory Board

0:04:50.200 --> 0:04:56.400
<v Speaker 1>warned that the analysis being used was so flawed that

0:04:56.600 --> 0:04:58.640
<v Speaker 1>it might have led the e p A to make

0:04:58.880 --> 0:05:03.520
<v Speaker 1>incorrect conclude so its own science board. Yeah, the health

0:05:03.560 --> 0:05:07.800
<v Speaker 1>effects of these emissions, particularly during this pandemic that we're

0:05:07.800 --> 0:05:11.640
<v Speaker 1>dealing with, are really severe because they're all respiratory related.

0:05:12.080 --> 0:05:15.000
<v Speaker 1>And then the number of lives that will be lost

0:05:15.200 --> 0:05:19.080
<v Speaker 1>as a result of not lowering these emissions is significant.

0:05:19.360 --> 0:05:23.880
<v Speaker 1>If you look at at our population that have respiratory ailments,

0:05:23.920 --> 0:05:27.120
<v Speaker 1>Allowing automobile emissions is one of the major causes of

0:05:27.200 --> 0:05:30.920
<v Speaker 1>asthma and all these other problems. And so you're making

0:05:31.000 --> 0:05:34.400
<v Speaker 1>a decision to allow the death rate to go up

0:05:34.720 --> 0:05:38.960
<v Speaker 1>in a situation where we have the technology to prevent it,

0:05:39.360 --> 0:05:42.640
<v Speaker 1>and where the economics suggests you ought to be doing

0:05:42.640 --> 0:05:46.159
<v Speaker 1>it anyway. So it's a very perverse policy, I have

0:05:46.279 --> 0:05:48.239
<v Speaker 1>to say. And of course we haven't even yet talked

0:05:48.240 --> 0:05:52.120
<v Speaker 1>about the fact that Trump rule is also going to

0:05:52.160 --> 0:05:55.320
<v Speaker 1>be in conflict with California's rule, and there's a whole

0:05:55.400 --> 0:05:58.919
<v Speaker 1>legal issue all around that. Right. California is already in

0:05:58.960 --> 0:06:01.719
<v Speaker 1>court on that the all back of its waiver right.

0:06:02.120 --> 0:06:04.479
<v Speaker 1>And if California is successful, and I think they have

0:06:04.560 --> 0:06:07.160
<v Speaker 1>a very good chance of succeeding, then you're going to

0:06:07.240 --> 0:06:09.560
<v Speaker 1>have a split market in the United States. You're gonna

0:06:09.560 --> 0:06:14.000
<v Speaker 1>have thirteen states signing up with the California standards, which

0:06:14.080 --> 0:06:18.520
<v Speaker 1>from what I've read, represents of the car market in America,

0:06:18.880 --> 0:06:20.640
<v Speaker 1>and then you're going to have it another part of

0:06:20.640 --> 0:06:23.560
<v Speaker 1>the country under this Trump rule, which is also going

0:06:23.600 --> 0:06:27.040
<v Speaker 1>to be subject to litigation. So the automotive industry is

0:06:27.080 --> 0:06:31.400
<v Speaker 1>going to have anything but certainty or predictability. Quite the contrary,

0:06:31.680 --> 0:06:34.000
<v Speaker 1>it's going to be chaotic, and it's going to take

0:06:34.120 --> 0:06:37.800
<v Speaker 1>years to sort this out through litigation. No litigation can

0:06:37.839 --> 0:06:40.480
<v Speaker 1>be done quickly in this country. It's gonna be years

0:06:40.680 --> 0:06:43.799
<v Speaker 1>of litigation. And this is headed straight for the courts.

0:06:44.240 --> 0:06:47.200
<v Speaker 1>He has to go to the Supreme Court. The revocation

0:06:47.240 --> 0:06:50.080
<v Speaker 1>of the California waiver. That's the first time that's ever

0:06:50.120 --> 0:06:54.520
<v Speaker 1>been attempted. No administration, Republican or Democrat, over time, has

0:06:54.560 --> 0:06:58.040
<v Speaker 1>ever revoked a California waiver. There's nothing in the Clean

0:06:58.080 --> 0:07:01.240
<v Speaker 1>Air Act that authorizes a re location of a waiver,

0:07:01.440 --> 0:07:04.120
<v Speaker 1>So that's a novel question that has to go to

0:07:04.200 --> 0:07:07.839
<v Speaker 1>the United States Supreme Court. California and other states are

0:07:07.880 --> 0:07:12.840
<v Speaker 1>already gearing up to fight this rule in court, so

0:07:12.960 --> 0:07:16.119
<v Speaker 1>most likely will the judge grant an injunction to stop

0:07:16.120 --> 0:07:18.840
<v Speaker 1>it from going into effect. I think there's a good

0:07:18.920 --> 0:07:22.000
<v Speaker 1>chance of that. I think the chaos that is going

0:07:22.040 --> 0:07:25.600
<v Speaker 1>to be shown to the court from this move is

0:07:25.640 --> 0:07:27.640
<v Speaker 1>going to convince the court to put a hold on it.

0:07:27.880 --> 0:07:31.320
<v Speaker 1>And twenty states have vowed to sue to challenge the

0:07:31.400 --> 0:07:33.840
<v Speaker 1>Trump Rule, So you know, the courts are going to

0:07:33.920 --> 0:07:36.400
<v Speaker 1>be impressed by the fact that that number of states

0:07:36.920 --> 0:07:40.160
<v Speaker 1>thinks this is not only a bad idea, but dangerous idea.

0:07:40.480 --> 0:07:43.160
<v Speaker 1>That's a very strong argument for putting a hold on this.

0:07:43.680 --> 0:07:46.520
<v Speaker 1>Why rush this? It's gonna look rushed to the court

0:07:46.960 --> 0:07:49.680
<v Speaker 1>the way this is coming out right on the end

0:07:49.720 --> 0:07:53.280
<v Speaker 1>of March and in the middle of this pandemic crisis

0:07:53.320 --> 0:07:55.800
<v Speaker 1>that we're dealing with. All of these factors are going

0:07:55.840 --> 0:07:57.600
<v Speaker 1>to convince the court to put a hold on the

0:07:57.600 --> 0:08:01.600
<v Speaker 1>Trump Rule. I'm pretty convinced of that. What part does

0:08:01.720 --> 0:08:09.080
<v Speaker 1>this rollback play in the Trump administration's regulatory rollback? Yeah,

0:08:09.200 --> 0:08:13.040
<v Speaker 1>I mean this was a campaign promise promises kept. That's

0:08:13.040 --> 0:08:16.760
<v Speaker 1>been his mantra. And it doesn't matter that the scientists,

0:08:16.920 --> 0:08:20.200
<v Speaker 1>the experts within his agencies say it's a bad idea.

0:08:20.640 --> 0:08:23.320
<v Speaker 1>It doesn't matter even when a large portion of the

0:08:23.360 --> 0:08:27.040
<v Speaker 1>industry says it's a bad idea. It doesn't matter when

0:08:27.040 --> 0:08:31.000
<v Speaker 1>the economic arguments fall apart after you really scrutinize them.

0:08:31.200 --> 0:08:35.160
<v Speaker 1>Even the argument that this rule will produce less mortalities

0:08:35.200 --> 0:08:39.480
<v Speaker 1>from traffic accidents, even that has been challenged. Documents within

0:08:39.800 --> 0:08:43.240
<v Speaker 1>e p A suggested that the mortality rate could actually

0:08:43.320 --> 0:08:46.520
<v Speaker 1>go up as a result of this rule. So none

0:08:46.520 --> 0:08:49.360
<v Speaker 1>of the reasons that have been given for the rule

0:08:49.720 --> 0:08:53.240
<v Speaker 1>stand up to scrutiny. Why would this kind of rule

0:08:53.800 --> 0:08:57.840
<v Speaker 1>affect mortality rate? Well, it's a question of you know,

0:08:57.960 --> 0:09:01.760
<v Speaker 1>are you safer with lighter vehicles on the road or

0:09:01.880 --> 0:09:04.560
<v Speaker 1>are bigger, heavier vehicles And that's the difference in terms

0:09:04.559 --> 0:09:07.840
<v Speaker 1>of fuel efficiency. And the National Academy of Science has

0:09:07.960 --> 0:09:11.200
<v Speaker 1>actually did a study that said, well, over time, as

0:09:11.200 --> 0:09:14.520
<v Speaker 1>you take these big, heavy SUVs off the road and

0:09:14.679 --> 0:09:17.960
<v Speaker 1>hummers and things like that, your safety is going to improve.

0:09:18.559 --> 0:09:20.320
<v Speaker 1>Um So you have to look at it over the

0:09:20.360 --> 0:09:23.040
<v Speaker 1>longer term in terms of what kind of vehicles are

0:09:23.040 --> 0:09:24.680
<v Speaker 1>going to be out there on the highway that you're

0:09:24.760 --> 0:09:29.679
<v Speaker 1>running into. Literally, and the science suggests that fuel efficiency

0:09:29.840 --> 0:09:33.200
<v Speaker 1>is going to make our highways safer, not less safe.

0:09:33.440 --> 0:09:36.160
<v Speaker 1>If these cases find their way to the Supreme Court,

0:09:36.280 --> 0:09:39.760
<v Speaker 1>what kind of reception might they get. We know that

0:09:39.880 --> 0:09:44.000
<v Speaker 1>the newest appointees to the Court, Justices Corsas and Kavanaugh,

0:09:44.400 --> 0:09:47.920
<v Speaker 1>are very concerned about the impact of regulations on American

0:09:47.960 --> 0:09:51.880
<v Speaker 1>businesses and property owners. They are conservative in that light.

0:09:52.360 --> 0:09:55.120
<v Speaker 1>But I'm not one that is so cynical to believe

0:09:55.200 --> 0:09:58.480
<v Speaker 1>that anything the Trump administration says they are going to

0:09:58.600 --> 0:10:01.800
<v Speaker 1>rubber stamp they have. Yeah, they've given the President a

0:10:01.840 --> 0:10:05.000
<v Speaker 1>couple of victories, particularly on the border wall and some

0:10:05.120 --> 0:10:08.439
<v Speaker 1>other things like that. But when it comes to public health,

0:10:08.840 --> 0:10:12.240
<v Speaker 1>when the Court has shown data that suggests that people

0:10:12.280 --> 0:10:14.880
<v Speaker 1>are going to die as a result of policies that

0:10:14.880 --> 0:10:18.960
<v Speaker 1>are being adopted, policies that are not justified by technology

0:10:19.040 --> 0:10:23.520
<v Speaker 1>or economics, but are more justified by ideology or some

0:10:23.640 --> 0:10:28.040
<v Speaker 1>kind of anti regulatory meme, I don't think the Court

0:10:28.120 --> 0:10:31.160
<v Speaker 1>is going to go along with that. Right down the line, Pat,

0:10:31.200 --> 0:10:34.920
<v Speaker 1>We've discussed time and time again the Trump administration attempting

0:10:34.920 --> 0:10:41.440
<v Speaker 1>a rollback of environmental efforts by the Obama administration. What's

0:10:41.559 --> 0:10:47.480
<v Speaker 1>left of President Obama's environmental legacy, the sort of package

0:10:47.520 --> 0:10:51.880
<v Speaker 1>he put together during his time in office, Nothing I

0:10:51.920 --> 0:10:55.439
<v Speaker 1>would say nothing. If you look at epic category, whether

0:10:55.480 --> 0:11:00.240
<v Speaker 1>it's pollution control, public lands management, offshore protect and of

0:11:00.320 --> 0:11:06.000
<v Speaker 1>marine sanctuaries, protection of these beautiful monuments out west, in

0:11:06.040 --> 0:11:11.560
<v Speaker 1>all categories, natural resources, public health, environmental controls, MIPA, the

0:11:11.640 --> 0:11:16.040
<v Speaker 1>Nation Environmental Policy Act, every single aspect of Obama's legacy,

0:11:16.160 --> 0:11:18.880
<v Speaker 1>and you know presidents even before Obama, going all the

0:11:18.960 --> 0:11:21.360
<v Speaker 1>way back, even to Richard Nixon, if you want to,

0:11:21.760 --> 0:11:25.040
<v Speaker 1>all of that has been under attack. Almost a hundred

0:11:25.280 --> 0:11:29.240
<v Speaker 1>rules and policies have been rolled back. Nothing has been

0:11:29.240 --> 0:11:32.240
<v Speaker 1>missed by this administration. If it had anything to do

0:11:32.320 --> 0:11:35.880
<v Speaker 1>with the environment or protecting public health, it was under attack.

0:11:36.360 --> 0:11:40.200
<v Speaker 1>That's the legacy of this president's term. Thanks Pat, that's

0:11:40.240 --> 0:11:45.840
<v Speaker 1>Pat Parento of the Vermont Law School. Thanks for listening

0:11:45.840 --> 0:11:49.120
<v Speaker 1>to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen

0:11:49.160 --> 0:11:52.719
<v Speaker 1>to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg

0:11:52.760 --> 0:11:57.520
<v Speaker 1>dot com slash podcasts. I'm June Basso. This is Bloomberg

0:12:00.000 --> 0:12:01.360
<v Speaker 1>intern Dako