California ‘veered’ out of its lane in climate pact with Quebec: U.S. lawsuit

From Reuters

Timothy Gardner, Valerie Volcovici, Sarah N. Lynch

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States on Wednesday sued California for entering a climate agreement with Canada’s Quebec province, saying the state had no right to conduct foreign policy, in the latest feud between the Trump administration and the state.

FILE PHOTO: California’s Governor Gavin Newsom is seen at the California Democratic Convention in San Francisco, California, U.S. June 1, 2019. REUTERS/Stephen Lam/File Photo

President Donald Trump’s administration argued in the lawsuit that California’s 2013 agreement to link its emission-trading program – the centerpiece of its climate change policy – to Quebec’s violates the constitution, which prohibits states from making treaties or pacts with foreign powers.

“The state of California has veered outside of its proper constitutional lane to enter into an international emissions agreement. The power to enter into such agreements is reserved to the federal government, which must be able to speak with one voice in the area of U.S. foreign policy,” Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Bossert Clark said in a statement.

California, the most populous state and one of the top 10 largest economies in the world, has positioned itself as a leader on climate change action in the absence of federal leadership on the issue, setting off numerous political and legal battles with Washington.

Trump, a Republican who questions the science behind climate change, has eased regulations on the oil, gas and coal industries and intends to pull the United States out of the 2015 Paris agreement on climate change.

The U.S. Justice Department said California, state officials, the California Air Resources Board, and the Western Climate Initiative Inc entered a complex cap-and-trade emissions-curbing climate program with Quebec in 2013 without congressional approval.

California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra countered on Wednesday that the Trump administration is attempting to “chip away” at the cap and trade program it has had in place since 2012, which he said was “strengthened” by linking with Quebec.

California and Quebec’s emissions-trading programs are connected through the Western Climate Initiative, a carbon market program in which governments set a steadily declining limit on emissions, and polluters that cut emissions quickly can sell credits to others that need more time.

Environmental lawyers said the three Republican and Democratic governors in California who designed the cap-and-trade system and authorized its linkage with Quebec’s market were on “solid legal and constitutional ground.”

Full article here

Advertisements

70 thoughts on “California ‘veered’ out of its lane in climate pact with Quebec: U.S. lawsuit

    • PG&E has been at fault for many of our most recently devastating fires. But it isn’t greed (alone) that has caused this Public Utility to treat its customers like residents of a “developing nation”. No, the PRIMARY cause is mission-creep. PG&E used to follow a “mission statement” that was really simple … deliver cheap, plentiful, energy for CA homes and businesses. And … Mission accomplished! PG&E used to be a responsible, respected, Public Utility. The PUC used to regulate the Public Utility Monopoly with the Consumer in mind. Now, the PUC is a tool of Sacramento politicians who USE PG&E to promote their “belief” in global warming. The PUC is used to enforce those idiotic “beliefs”.

      Now … their “mission statement” includes words like “sustainability”, “global warming”, “affirmative-action”, “electric car power rebates”, “renewable energy”, “home insulation”, “free power for poor immigrants” … you name it … everything BUT … “maintain, repair, and improve the energy infrastructure” to ensure the delivery of cheap, reliable, energy.

      Ask yourself WHY electrical lines are being damaged by winds and sparking fires … NOW … unlike during any other time in PG&E history? What? The winds are stronger now? Rubbish. The temperatures are hotter now? Nonsense. The reason is lack of adequate maintenance and replacement of infrastructure. Period.

      So now my power is going to be SHUT OFF again … by PG&E from 10pm Sat. till 2pm Monday. This is NOT for safety. This is for incompetence. Incompetence by PG&E, incompetence by the PUC, incompetence by the State Legislature. This is all for “show”. These power outages are a Lawyers “solution” for PG&E’s FAILURE to properly maintain their infrastructure. But I actually don’t care. Because the people of CA who put these FOOLS and these FOOLISH programs into action by VOTING for them … DESERVE to reap what they’ve sown. The VOTERS of CA have turned this State into a 3rd world shithole. So wallow in your dystopian creation.

      Safety, my ass.

      • Kenji, take a hint from where you live and get yourself outta that idiotic state!!!! Got nothing like that going on in my AO or surrounding states.

        • In order to optimize her retirement benefits, my wife needs to stay in her current job for about 2 more years. Otherwise, we would be Ma and Pa Joad… in reverse … loading up our big ass SUV and moving to a SANE State. We would be “migrating” OUT of the charred “dustbowl” of CA. Leftist simpletons have decimated the CA dream. It is truly a nightmare, living here now.

          • OK, folks, where is a better place to live? I have a few requirements:
            (a) excellent, available medical care;
            (b) reasonable weather ( we neither like high humidity or massive amounts of snow);
            (c) low crime rates;
            (d) a fiscally-sound state;
            (f) a sane state government.
            (g) reasonable energy prices;
            (h) reasonable property prices and taxes;
            (i) access to a major international airport (i.e., at most a 1-hour drive).

            Our part of California fails on d – f, although Proposition 13 gives us reasonable property taxes. It would be good if those taxes were spent properly.

            Note that some of the requirements are overlapping or inter-related.

            We have begun discussing leaving California, but our research to date hasn’t really identified any alternatives that meet the requirements.

            We are not averse to moving outside the US, but we haven’t identified anywhere better that will allow immigration by septuagenarians.

            This group lives all over the place – surely some of you have some ideas on a better place to live than the Southern California coastal plain.

          • Unfortunately, people who moved out of CA will probably vote Democrats in other states and bringing along their insane CA policies

          • Jim

            Prescott, Arizona hits most of those. The major airport is in Phoenix, 90 minutes away though (there is a local airport, but with limited flights). Low humidity, freezing with rare snow (you won’t need to shovel, it will melt during the day). Unlike Phoenix the summer weather is great – dry and in the 90s (Phoenix is dry and in the 115s). It’s also mountainous.

            Sedona, AZ has better healthcare, but as a pseudo-hippie retirement area costs are considerably higher. Both are motorcycle-accessible year round

            The AZ legislature is more libertarian than conservative, so it tends to take a “get off my lawn” attitude more than a “thou must do good” attitude in most things (early medical marijuana adopter, seatbelts are mandatory for driver and kids (but adults can choose to be idiots), concealed or open carry without license, etc).

          • My sister, and her husband are in a similar pension/retirement bind in Chicago, a region that is fiscally broke beyond belief. My big question/advice to them might apply to you as well. Does California, Chicagoland/Illinois have 2 years left ?

          • R E Jim

            Franklin TN is attracting a lot of attention. Nissan NA HQ, for one, relocated from CA. Don’t bring your CA vote please.

          • “…OK, folks, where is a better place to live? I have a few requirements:…”

            Well, I could tell you but then everyone would want to move here and spoil it.:-)

          • “Retired_Engineer_Jim October 25, 2019 at 8:46 am”

            Forget the Australia, New Zealand or the UK. Unless you are really rich.

          • R/Eng Jim,

            You’d be most welcome in Queensland, Australia … tick all of those boxes except the state government but they are soon to be booted out for a conservative set.

      • Fault?
        How about the policies that they were forced to abide by that prevents trimming trees, removing brush, etc?
        Florida also has fire weather, months on end with zero rain, tinder dry conditions, large areas traversed by power lines…but we got none of that “illegal to trim a branch” crap going on, that is for sure.
        And hence we do not have power lines causing fires.
        Nor does much of anyplace else, AFAICT.
        Also, in most places, a person cannot sure for what are called “Acts of God”.
        Wind knocks tree down and hits power line and starts a fire. It is flat impossible to prevent this except by making sure zero trees are in a position to hit any power line ever.
        But doing so is unworkable and would be very unpopular.
        Here in Florida, the power companies have to plan ahead when trimming, because everything grows fast and trimming makes trees grow faster.
        If a tree is below a power line and grows past it on both sides, trimming the top of the tree will ensure that it will very soon be impinging again.
        Removing it will make a lot of people very angry (no matter where you are some people are just like that) and may be impractical for other reasons: Trees grow back unless land is mowed regularly, removal is expensive and time consuming, etc.
        The best trimming method involves leaving side branches uncut, and severely cutting the center part, leaving a vee shaped limb structure. This takes into account all factors: Tree growth characteristics, time and workload constraints, public perception, and safety and integrity of the power distribution system.
        But it requires working knowledge and experience with habits of growth, and a free hand for workers to make on the spot decisions as they work down miles and miles of lines. Some lackwit ignorant treehugging woke jackass making a rule about how much of a branch can be trimmed and when…that is where to look for the fault.
        People that work at the level of emotion, but have incomplete knowledge and little perspective, may think they are doing good, but you know what they day about that road to Hell, eh?

      • “So now my power is going to be SHUT OFF again …”
        I pointed this out before the first shutdown occurred a few weeks ago.
        It is not a one off event, or a temporary measure.
        It is THE plan for fire weather from now on.
        These conditions occur every single year, over wide areas of the state, and can last for weeks on end.
        I do not know the exact stats, but it seems to be there can easily be over a month of days every year, and at least a few weeks, across the vast majority of the state.

        Let me say it simply: These planned shutdowns will be occurring regularly from now on.
        Until something very major changes.
        It will not be annual weather patterns, it will not be the propensity of wood to burn when relative humidity is below 5%, it will not be how easily fire can spread in high winds, and it will not be the need for power to be distributed 24/7 to every customer.
        So it will have to be changes in law or policy followed by a laborious and time consuming cleanup of conditions that allow fires to start: Clearing trees back from lines.

        I am not so sure about equipment maintenance.
        I think the issue is physical contact between energized lines and tree limbs and other plant material.
        But I could be wrong about that.
        What sort of maintenance negligence is being alleged, besides line clearing?

        • To add insult to the injury, this fire started in the area where the local power was shut off. Authorities had a trouble to broadcast evacuation orders.

          I vote for a criminal incompetence. To force “rolling blackouts” which take days to “roll” to prevent a spark, and to create a spark anyway – what an achievement!

      • Kenji,
        While I whole heartedly agree with your assessment, I might not be so kind and stop merely at incompetence. The obvious incompetence lead to years of “criminal negligence” in executing their job functions potentially combined with “willful blindness”.
        This is not a mere “Oops, my bad.”

        “Recklessness is usually described as a “malfeasance” where the defendant knowingly exposes another to the risk of injury. The fault lies in being willing to run the risk. But criminal negligence is a “misfeasance” or “nonfeasance” (see omission), where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. In some cases this failure can rise to the level of willful blindness, where the individual intentionally avoids adverting to the reality of a situation. Criminal negligence becomes “gross” when the failure to foresee involves a “wanton disregard for human life.”

      • You might want to read the actual laws stopping pg&e from effective maintenance of their at risk lines. The Sacramento brainiacs passed a law requiring pg&e to ONLY use money taken from executive compensation to be used for hardening lines. And there is so much more.

      • So Kenji don’t hold back how do you really feel? Actually I feel your pain and echo your sentiments, what’s happened to the once great state is tragic. Even more tragic because it’s preventable. I moved out of California six years ago and now live in the mountains of Colorado. A few days ago it was -6F. Despite the somewhat harsh climate my energy costs here are half what they were in California. Go figure.

    • “SMH” is “Sydney Morning Herald”, Australia.

      Note that their “American” news is straight from “HuffPost” – “Huffington Post” – which has a distinct list to port…..

  1. The
    US Constitution provides:

    “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”

    On the face of it, it seems that the Administration is on solid grounds in sueing California.

    The only let out I can see is if “California, state officials, the California Air Resources Board,” entered into a contract or agreement with Western Climate Initiative, Inc – a private company – which entered into an agreement with the province of Quebec. But what does the wording of the agreement say?

    And could it be argued that since the President may make an agreement with another country on his own initiative, then since this alleged agreement took place under the oversight of then President Obama, and presumably with his approval, then it is implicitly lawful as a Presidential Executive Order. But I would think any lawyer would have difficulty argueing that before the Supreme Court!

    • The executive’s agreements with other countries are meaningless without Senate ratification.
      Thus any Obama executive branch “agreement’ died when he left office, and is unenforceable going forward. That is the wisdom of the construction of the Constitution. No President is King. The Congress checks his/her power on all foreign agreements via ratification or withholding it.

      • I don’t think it is unenforceable after Obama left office, it stands unless reversed. As this didn’t happen, and instead the Fed is suing the State, we can presume it was a state to provincial agreement.

        “Trump, a Republican who questions the science behind climate change…”

        I don’t think Trump questioned the science, he questioned the claims that are said to be based on the science. Tony Miller’s work demonstrates the stark difference between the two. Measurements are made, for example, and wild claims are made.

        Similarly, California claims to have made an enforceable agreement with Quebec based on law that doesn’t seem to support the act. Anyone can check and read it. It is not permitted.

        Suppose Quebec violated the agreement and billions in filthy carbon money went missing. Which body will negotiate a solution? Will California send a foreign ambassador to meet with foreign ambassador of Quebec? If they want to do that, they should depart the Union and Confederation respectively and create their own departments of State.

    • And could it be argued that since the President may make an agreement with another country on his own initiative, then since this alleged agreement took place under the oversight of then President Obama, and presumably with his approval, then it is implicitly lawful as a Presidential Executive Order

      1) for it to be an executive order, Obama would have to explicitly sign an order. He didn’t. so that “line of reasoning” will go no where.
      2) any “executive agreement” of Obama’s is only good for as long as Obama or someone with the same views on the matter is President – It would need congressional approval to be otherwise. Obama is not president any more, so his “executive agreements” are subject to the whims of the man who *is* president – Donald J Trump. The same thing happened with the Paris Accord. Since Obama didn’t send it to congress to be ratified, it only stood as long as there was a president of like mind to Obama to prop it up. Trump is not of the same mind as Obama, so one of his early actions was to declare we’re no longer going to be part of the Paris Accord.

      • I think in about 10 days Trump is going to formoally withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord. Then, one year later, the day after President Trump is reelected on Nov. 3, 2020, the U.S. will officially be out of the Paris Accords. The rules say we have to wait one year after submitting the official U.S. withdrawal notice before we are officially out.

        • Tom Abbott – the only US party bound by the Paris Climate Accord is former President Obama. The President does not have the power to bind the US to an international agreement without the consent of the Senate. Thus the US is not bound by the Paris Climate Accord – including its provisions regarding leaving the Accord. So the President can simply notify the countries in the Accord “Hey, just reminding you guys, the US is not and never was a party to the Accord. President Obama may have signed it but he did not do so with the power to bind the United States.”

          • Indeed Patrick, For all intents and purposes the US withdrew the moment Trump said we’re out. The only “need’ for filing the “formal paperwork” of the accord is so that the next president can’t simply say “no we didn’t” and then continue on as if we were still part of it.

          • I agree with Patrick on this point. The USA was never “in the agreement” and neither are many other countries. In Paris they agreed to agree, a remarkable achievement in terms of practicing to do something together as a planet. On that score it was a spectacular success, and no doubt one day that skill will be used to permanently end warfare – out of mutual desire.

            The Paris Accord is a voluntary club with most of the countries volunteering to accept money. Nice work if you can get it, literally.

            The sleeper in the Paris Accord is not it’s demand to create an unanswerable bureaucracy but in Article Six which deals with carbon trading. Brazil is putting up a heck of a fight about how 6.2 and 6.4 will be interpreted. All these schemes to make money out of thin air are based on the CDM trading mechanism and that ends in a few months. The Paris Accord replaces the Kyoto Protocol which is how CDM came to life.

            The PA is not internationally enforceable and internally it is not enforceable unless made into law. The US Senate never agreed to that. You cannot cancel what doesn’t exist. That would be akin to trying to cancel the good intentions of carbon traders.

        • Yes, Tom. According to the rules of the Paris Accord, the earliest Trump can give written notice is Nov 4th 2019 with a one year wait before it becomes “official”. Effectively, however, we left back when Trump first said we’re leaving – the rest is going through the motions so that the next president can’t declare that we’re still in it because Trump never “officially” got us out.

  2. “California and Quebec’s emissions-trading programs are connected through the Western Climate Initiative, a carbon market program in which governments set a steadily declining limit on emissions, and polluters that cut emissions quickly can sell credits to others that need more time.”

    …… well then, this must be all about the climate. How many degrees closer will we be to the Utopian Little Ice Age temperatures we all crave? Is it worth it?

    Answers in round numbers please.

    Hint: the round number key is somewhere up by the top right-hand corner of your keyboard.

    • Hint: the round number key is somewhere up by the top right-hand corner of your keyboard.

      That rather depends on they style and layout of ones keyboard. Since my keyboard has a number pad on the right side, the number closest to the “top right-hand corner” would be the number 9. Somehow I don’t think that’s the “round number” you are hinting at.

      • I think the key you want is on the extreme top left. The label is “ESC”.

  3. Constitutionally, it is a slam dunk for AG Barr’s DOJ.
    The Sacramento Communists cannot win this. The state lawyers know it.
    And they certainly have advised Comrade Newsom that.
    The only question is why it took so long for DOJ to act.
    Even an Obama DOJ should have sued against this blatant breach by a state of Federal authority in foreign affairs.
    A smart State lawyer would settle for California with US DOJ by agreeing to abrogate the Cal-Quebec agreement to prevent an embarrassment and an unfavorable court ruling that would be a lower-court precedent going forward for judges to read.

    Whatever happens, it will be fun to watch the Sacramento Marxists squirm.

    • So can consumers sue California for imposing what is essentially an illegal tax?

      Yes I realize California could impose a carbon tax directly on consumers in their state, but they didn’t. Or they could have done cap and trade within California, but they didn’t.

      • I received a $27.70 climate credit on my October PG&E electric bill. I read the bill insert on the credit while my area was blacked during the PSPS earlier this week.

        The funds to pay the credit comes from the cap and trade program. PG&E’s previously had charged certain ratepayers the costs associated with meeting the program goals via CPUC approved General Rate Cases.

        https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/climatecredit/

    • “Constitutionally, it is a slam dunk for AG Barr’s DOJ.
      The Sacramento Communists cannot win this. The state lawyers know it.”
      Agree 100%.
      Fighting the suit is a waste of time and money for the state.

  4. “California and Quebec’s emissions-trading programs are connected through the Western Climate Initiative, a carbon market program in which governments set a steadily declining limit on emissions, and polluters that cut emissions quickly can sell credits to others that need more time.”

    The legal problems with carbon trading goes well beyond separation of powers between states and the federal govt. Please see
    https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/09/30/cer/

    the origin of emissions trading and the reasons why it worked
    https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/03/12/acidrain/

    • The nice thing about Californian politicians is that they are above the law. Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, allowed gay marriages when it was still illegal. He is a Governor today. Kamala Harris, California’s Attorney General did not defend the California Constitution in court. She is a Senator today.

  5. The carbon credit scam 😐 London has it, a congestion zone which is £12.50 and now a ultra low zone which is roughly the same price, yet they have never told us were the money is spent (clearly not on the police as knife/gun crime is through the roof) and they are not planting millions of trees. How is the planet being saved?

    • It isn’t “spent” for the population of London (Lahndahn if you are from South London). That was never the intention. It fills bank accounts, that is all.

  6. “Trump Administration to Begin Official Withdrawal From Paris Climate Accord”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/climate/trump-paris-climate-accord.html?fbclid=IwAR2MQyxJnuOeAv8EYBIJL24iZXqvxrMyHomI3C0Vriot_oTCUTGmnGps3rI

    “Under the rules of the Paris Agreement, Nov. 4 is the earliest date on which the Trump administration can submit a written notice to the United Nations that it is withdrawing. It would go into effect exactly one year later. That could make the yearlong countdown a central issue in the coming presidential campaign.”

  7. It is clearly unconstitutional. Any such agreement with a foreign country like Canada has to be done through the federal government. California should have their senators work on it.

  8. I read Calis looking rocky financially (again) so it mightnt be an issue or an economy for long;-)
    if pacts with OS countries are verboten?
    then bust the fools who said theyd go with eu carbon scams under the govts wishes.

    • and yet, despite their rocky finances, Cali sure does like to spend the money fighting Trump in court – 46 times they’ve sued Trump in just the first two years of Trump’s term, and that’s not counting the number of times the Trump administration has sued them.

      • I don’t recall Califronia being very successful in their lawsuits against Trump. Trump seems to be winning nearly all the various lawsuits filed against him, California or otherwise.

        The U.S. Supreme Court needs to deal with the issue of Federal District Judges having the ability to enjoin the whole nation with one of their rulings. One Federal Judge should not have the power to overrule the President of the United States especially when it comes to foreign policy or immigration policy. And time and time again, when Federal Judges have ruled against Trump, their decsions have been overturned by higher courts. All they succeed in doing is delaying Trump, because the law is on his side, but that is a serious problem even so.

        The Supreme Court has addressed this in a small way recently by saying a Federal Judge’s ruling in the Ninth District can only apply to the Ninth District, not the whole nation. This needs to be standardized.

        • I haven’t been following all of them all that closely, but it seems they often have initial “success” in the lower courts which on a number of occasions gets blocked and/or overturned higher up the court chain (sometimes all the way to the Supreme Court).

  9. The government that runs Calif has been going out of their way…..for a long time….to be their own entity

    …I say we give it to them

    and then use them as the perfect example of what not to do

  10. I’m OK for the large cities of the Left to form their own country. Then we normals can impose a tariff on the vastly inflated prices of, for example, Apple products (they charge about 300 to 400% over cost), issue travel warnings and build walls around them. Actually, Hollywood did something like that ref. Escape from New York and other genre films. Imagine not issuing a visa to Zuck…
    And then the Left States of America can impose all sorts of new and elaborate fascist laws.

  11. “Trump, a Republican who questions the science behind climate change,…”

    No, he does not.

    He, as do many skeptics, question the improper interpretations and misrepresentations of the science behind climate change*. Skeptics also question the quality of many of the data sets associated with the changing climate.

    *”climate change” meaning simply a changing climate which may or may not have human contributions.

  12. California has been trading carbon for years before it was politically correct.
    [Goods produced using fossil fuel energy in China –> CA ports –> U.S. consumers]
    California should make an emissions-trading pact with China where it could really make a difference. Quebec is only child’s play. /s

  13. Veering is what California politicos do. Pull them over, give a sobriety (sanity) test, and sentence them to community service hours clearing brush and trees along power line right of ways.

    • A blood test for THC levels would probably nab most of those Sacramento Democrats as Legislating Under the Influence.

  14. Let’s see:

    Carbon Dioxide taxes seem to be a ferile field for corruption. Who is giving money to whom in this California/Quebec deal? Who are the losers? We probably know the answer to that one: Us Peons.

    And, doesn’t Calfornia have the same kind of deal with China?

  15. I believe that the historic circumstances that have meant that the States are responsible for energy policy with the federal government powerless to do much about it has destabilised the grids both in USA and Australia. This has meant that each state can have different policies on emissions and power generation. I think it is time that both governments need to declare a Climate Change policy emergency and take the power away from the states to make policies on climate change and power generation. They need to use the same powers that are used in wartime because that is what we are up against. There must be an essential services act that allows the federal government to override the states where the states have effectively declared war on the whole democratic system that we have live by during recent centuries. With this insidious campaign by greenie states to implement crazy policies it is only a matter of time before political and social structures collapse. This cancer within western civilised countries is destroying capitalism from within. This will if not stopped transfer global power from US and Europe to countries like China and Russia. The irony is that this revolution is largely being funded by billionaires whose fortunes have been accumulated by the political , economic and social systems they now seek to destroy.

  16. “solid legal and constitutional ground.”

    Irrelevant. The so called ‘scientific rationalization’ must be on solid scientific grounds first, i.e. conform to the immutable laws of nature, before human law can have any relevance. The irrational thinking behind cap and trade is based on the findings of the IPCC in support of the UNFCCC’s agenda of replacing free market capitalism with centralized control by the UN which is so wrong and unethical, it’s a disgrace to legitimate science and if allowed to continue represents an existential threat to the free world.

    The bottom line is that laws of man can’t override the laws of nature, despite what the political left wants to believe.

  17. California believes it is the roll model for the country if not the world. If it weren’t for the weather there would be no reason to live or have business there. It is lurching so far left it’s only a matter of a short time before it self destructs like all the other Marxist/Socialist governments before it. The only thing more prevalent in California than fine weather is arrogance.

  18. There’s no absence of leadership, the leadership simply isn’t doing what the “reporters” want.

    Really bad journalism, as expected.

    • I am not a “reporter”, but I expect a reliable power. I can cope with a 2-hour interruption, but I don’t want all my food in refrigerators to go bad, or to run out of water, or to be unable to buy gasoline.

  19. “Environmental lawyers said the three Republican and Democratic governors in California who designed the cap-and-trade system and authorized its linkage with Quebec’s market were on “solid legal and constitutional ground.””

    Heavy steps up the stairs to the next civil war.

Comments are closed.