there's probably a case to be made that it makes sense for green activists to pursue a strategy of having the federal government set a lower bound of acceptable policies (which could be...
there's probably a case to be made that it makes sense for green activists to pursue a strategy of having the federal government set a lower bound of acceptable policies (which could be accomplished by utilizing laws similar to how the federal government got states to up their drinking ages) and then having the states carve their own energy/climate policy path from there, but if i'm being honest i'm sure that any effort like that would be a massive clusterfuck.
since the constitution and how the courts interpret it put pretty hard limits on the jurisdiction of the federal government and everything that the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction on...
since the constitution and how the courts interpret it put pretty hard limits on the jurisdiction of the federal government and everything that the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction on is left to the states, there's a case to be made that the federal government would have trouble creating the necessary infrastructure to meet international climate standards--at least on its own--in part because jurisdiction is weird and in part because federal bureaucracy tends to be ridiculous.
in theory, you could probably sidestep most of this with the little idea i put up there, which would work by passing some sort of bill establishing minimum energy/climate policies that states would need to adhere to and tying their success or failure to meet such minimums to something important where there's federal jurisdiction like federal highway funding (which states use to fix highway infrastructure and stuff like that). this is how the federal government essentially coerced states into increasing the minimum drinking age. whether or not it'd be able to pass or survive after being passed is another story, though.
Did you read the article? It's the Washington state house.
there's probably a case to be made that it makes sense for green activists to pursue a strategy of having the federal government set a lower bound of acceptable policies (which could be accomplished by utilizing laws similar to how the federal government got states to up their drinking ages) and then having the states carve their own energy/climate policy path from there, but if i'm being honest i'm sure that any effort like that would be a massive clusterfuck.
since the constitution and how the courts interpret it put pretty hard limits on the jurisdiction of the federal government and everything that the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction on is left to the states, there's a case to be made that the federal government would have trouble creating the necessary infrastructure to meet international climate standards--at least on its own--in part because jurisdiction is weird and in part because federal bureaucracy tends to be ridiculous.
in theory, you could probably sidestep most of this with the little idea i put up there, which would work by passing some sort of bill establishing minimum energy/climate policies that states would need to adhere to and tying their success or failure to meet such minimums to something important where there's federal jurisdiction like federal highway funding (which states use to fix highway infrastructure and stuff like that). this is how the federal government essentially coerced states into increasing the minimum drinking age. whether or not it'd be able to pass or survive after being passed is another story, though.