The New York Times - 19.09.2019

A26 THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2019

N

In announcing on Wednesday his determination to revoke
California’s longstanding authority to set its own air pollu-

tion standards, President Trump finds himself arrayed
against the plain language of the Clean Air Act, California’s

historical role as a laboratory for tough new environmental

rules and the express wishes of several major automakers
and two-thirds of the American people.

It is, further, one more intended nail in the coffin of

President Barack Obama’s strategy to reduce greenhouse
gases and, coming as it does on the eve of a big United Na-

tions conference on global warming, a thumb in the eye to
the rest of the world.

A monumental legal battle lies ahead. California’s au-

thority to set its own pollution standards dates back to the
1960s, when the state passed laws to deal with its crippling

smog problem. The federal Clean Air

Act of 1970 codified that special author-

ity, as long as the state could show that

it had a compelling need for standards

stricter than the federal government’s.

Congress has repeatedly reaffirmed

that right, and in 1977 it said other

states could legally opt in to California’s

standards. Thirteen of them have now

done so.

Over time, strategies adopted in

California to control smog-producing pollutants became
standard across the country. So, too, with carbon dioxide,

the main greenhouse gas. California’s decision in 2002 to

add greenhouse gases to the list of pollutants it wanted to
control — a decision approved by the Obama administration

seven years later — arguably accelerated the push for zero-

emission and low-emission vehicles like plug-in hybrids.
(Tailpipe emissions are now the nation’s single biggest

source of greenhouse gas emissions.)

One problem with California’s aggressiveness is that it
created a two-tier market for automakers — one set of cars

for California and states that had joined in, another for the
rest of the country. To address that, in 2009 President

Obama forged a major agreement with all the players — in-

dustry, California and the federal agencies with control over
vehicles — to harmonize competing demands and, in effect,

create a single market.

As part of the deal, he began a series of executive ac-

tions to increase fuel efficiency and decrease global warm-

ing emissions — culminating, late in his term, in a rule that

required automakers to hit an average of about 54.5 miles

per gallon by the model year 2025.

As with nearly everything connected with his predeces-

sor, Mr. Trump hated the rule, and in August of last year pro-

posed freezing fuel economy improvements at about 37

miles per gallon, while also revoking California’s special au-

thority. California said it wouldn’t budge, negotiations en-

sued, but nothing happened.

Sensing that California could ultimately withstand any

challenge, four major automakers negotiated their own deal

with the state, pledging to build cars that would be nearly as

clean and efficient as those mandated by the final Obama

rules.

This apostasy appears to have sent the notoriously im-

patient Mr. Trump into a tailspin. In recent months, the ad-

ministration’s broader effort to roll back Mr. Obama’s 54.5-

mile-per-gallon standard has been hamstrung, as agency

staff members have struggled to find legal and scientific jus-

tifications for the rollback. The process, according to people

who’ve followed it, is a mess.

Mr. Trump appears to have decided he wanted some-

thing right now, and to proceed with one piece of his plan —

the move to strip California of its authority to set its own

rules.

He and his aides also know they are running out of time

to get something to the Supreme Court before his term is

out. Many experts see no surefire legal path for him to take,

since the Clean Air Act contains no provision for revoking

California’s authority. And California’s manifold problems —

ranging from sea-level rise to continued poor air quality to

water shortages to raging forest fires — would seem to jus-

tify its special status.

The stakes here are high for both sides. If Mr. Trump

wants to kill the Obama clean car standards, he has to kill

California’s authority. But in doing so, along with all his

other rollbacks, he would further weaken America’s stand-

ing in the increasingly urgent fight against climate change.

Mr. Trump Muddies the Air

ILLUSTRATION BY NICHOLAS KONRAD; PHOTOGRAPHS BY ANNA MONEYMAKER/THE NEW YORK TIMES AND GETTY IMAGES

EDITORIAL

To dismantle the
Obama climate

legacy, he’s
taking on
California, the
auto industry,
the Clean Air

Act and public
opinion.

TO THE EDITOR:

David Axelrod offers a strategy,

“Let Trump Destroy Trump” (Op-

Ed, Sept. 12), but his discussion

was short on specific tactics that

the Democratic Party can use. One

such tactic would be to refuse to

debate President Trump.

We live in a time when long-

standing norms have been

smashed or set aside at unprece-

dented rates. The norm of holding

presidential debates should be

questioned by the president’s

opponents.

The 2016 presidential debates

devolved into name-calling and

outright lying, leaving fields of

detritus for the fact checkers to

clean up, but the damage was

already done. A Democratic Na-

tional Committee decision to es-

chew these debates with Mr.

Trump, deferring instead to media

events with the individual candi-

dates, will allow the primary candi-

dates to campaign on their policies

and individual abilities, not their

macho characteristics. It will also

deprive Mr. Trump of an opportu-

nity to tear down opponents based

not on substance, but on craft and

stage presence — in other words,

street fighting.

This will afford the public a

better opportunity to cast their

votes for the most qualified candi-

date based upon the issues.

DAVID BERWALD

DELRAY BEACH, FLA.

TO THE EDITOR:

While I thoroughly agree with

David Axelrod in his assessment of

President Trump, he neglects one

factor. I honestly believe that what

will beat Mr. Trump is the exhaus-

tion factor. Every single week,

there are at least two, sometimes

three, new dramas to deal with,

along with multiple tweets of in-

sults and sometime lies.

I have a life. You have a life. We

all have important things to ac-

complish and deal with daily. This

weekly reality show is not on my

list and, I believe, is not on the list

of more and more people each day.

His endless need for attention is

disturbing and downright intru-

sive. We need a government that

works for us and keeps us in-

formed of issues, not spats, not

insults, not anger. Mr. Trump is

running America like his very own

therapy session. America needs

solutions, not endless, tiresome

controversy and cheesy drama.

MARGOT LEROY

GIG HARBOR, WASH.

TO THE EDITOR:

David Axelrod’s article cites many

of President Trump’s shortcom-

ings, but seems to suggest that we,

the Democrats, need do nothing —

in essence rely on Mr. Trump to

self-destruct. Wishful thinking.

None of his outrageous gaffes

seem to affect his base.

I believe there is a far more

effective approach: the use of

ridicule. Openly laughing at him

will drive him nuts and prod him

into self-destructive actions and

statements.

My only concern is that the

Democratic nominee doesn’t him-

self or herself self-destruct with

widely unpopular proposals that

outshine Mr. Trump’s failings. Like

all of my liberal friends, I’m horri-

fied by what I’ve seen during the

Democratic Party debates.

In the election, Democrats have

five winning issues: climate

change, health care, income in-

equality, Russian interference in

our elections and the abomination

currently occupying the White

House. Instead of focusing on

these issues, most of the candi-

dates are focused on well-meaning

but absolutely unsalable and self-

defeating positions on health care

for all, immigration and repara-

tions for descendants of slaves.

And tearing one another apart, to

the delight of the Republicans.

IRWIN COHEN, NEW YORK

TO THE EDITOR:

Hear, hear! The wise opponent

should just repeat President

Trump’s crass comments in a

debate. Just as a start: “I don’t

think it’s O.K. to say white suprem-

acists are ‘fine people.’ I don’t

think it’s O.K. to let your support-

ers chant ‘send her back’ about an

elected representative of our coun-

try. I don’t think it’s O.K. to say I’d

accept information on my oppo-

nent from a foreign government. I

don’t think it’s O.K. to call a war

hero a coward. I don’t think it’s

O.K. to say you can grab a woman

by her privates.”

Just let the words speak for

themselves.

AMY SIROKY

ARROYO GRANDE, CALIF.

2020 Strategy: Let Trump Self-Destruct?

LETTERS

TO THE EDITOR:

Re “Cokie Roberts, 1943-2019: A

Ceiling Smasher Who Raised the

Volume of Women in News” (front

page, Sept. 18):

God bless you and thank you,

Cokie Roberts, from a very sad-

dened conservative Republican.

You, a professional journalist, took

your business seriously. You re-

ported the news. Hewed to the

facts. And provided one-of-a-kind

insights.

PETER J. COTCH, ROCKPORT, MASS.

TO THE EDITOR:

Only a narcissist like President

Trump could find a way to make

Cokie Roberts’s death about him-

self, by saying, “She never treated

me nicely,” though acknowledging

that “she was a professional and I

respect professionals.”

Ms. Roberts was indeed a pro-

fessional and will go down in his-

tory as a trailblazing journalist

who set standards for others to

follow. She was a mentor to many

eager and aspiring young women.

Perhaps the fact that Ms. Rob-

erts confronted Mr. Trump on

racism during the 2016 campaign

is a reason for his sour grapes.

After all, the truth hurts.

JOANN LEE FRANK

CLEARWATER, FLA.

Cokie Roberts, Trailblazer

TO THE EDITOR:

Re “Trump to Scrap California’s

Role on Car Emissions” (front

page, Sept. 18):

You report that the Trump ad-

ministration will revoke Califor-

nia’s authority to require auto

emission standards that are strict-

er than those set by the federal

government. I look forward to

people in tricorn hats flying “Don’t

Tread on Me” flags filling the

streets of downtown Los Angeles

to protest this federal encroach-

ment on states’ rights.

Or does that happen only when

Washington is threatening to do

something truly egregious, like

expanding access to health care or

letting black people vote?

DAVID D. TURNER, NEW YORK

California Car Emissions

TO THE EDITOR:

Re “Forcing Companies to Be Good

Citizens” (editorial, Sept. 17):

Until corporate leaders begin to

address their companies’ tax re-

sponsibilities in a transparent and

ethical manner, it’s hard to buy

their virtue-signaling.

True corporate social commit-

ment should begin with respecting

global tax laws intended to fund

public needs throughout the world.

Rather than approaching tax re-

sponsibilities as something to

engineer, lobby against and liti-

gate, true leaders would honorably

view taxes as their fair share of

responsibility to the people of the

world.

EDWARD ABAHOONIE, SPARKILL, N.Y.

Companies’ Fair Share

TO THE EDITOR:

Re “Record Fine for Michigan St.

in Nassar Case” (news article,

Sept. 6):

Since last November, there has

been impassioned discussion re-

garding Education Secretary Betsy

DeVos’s proposed changes to Title

IX regulations, which have rightly

raised concerns for colleges and

universities across the country.

The investigations that led to

this $4.5 million federal fine re-

vealed what department officials

called “systemic failure to protect

students from sexual abuse” by

Michigan State. And as part of the

resolution agreement, you report,

“the university is also required to

hire an independent consultant to

conduct an assessment of its Title

IX grievance procedures and com-

pletely overhaul them.”

At the heart of the larger Title IX

debate, which was begun by Secre-

tary DeVos’s proposed rule

changes, is the issue of due

process in these proceedings,

which are badly in need of reform

and would greatly benefit from

consistency across universities.

This would ensure a fairer system

with clear standards that can

benefit all and ensure the integrity

of the results in Title IX proceed-

ings.

This fine will act as a meaningful

deterrent to schools that fail to

comply with Education Depart-

ment guidance, whatever those

final rules are determined to be.

KIMBERLY C. LAU, NEW YORK

The writer, a partner in the law firm

Warshaw Burstein, is chair of its Title

IX/College Discipline Practice.

To call Corey Lewandowski’s appearance before the House Sexual Abuse at Colleges

Judiciary Committee on Tuesday problematic would be gen-
erous. It was a strutting spectacle of contempt for democrat-

ic processes worthy of President Trump himself. Mr.

Lewandowski’s performance requires a serious response.
Maybe more than one.

The inaugural witness in this phase of the Democrats’

impeachment inquiry, Mr. Lewandowski had no interest in
shedding light on any of the troubling episodes cited in the

Mueller report. Instead, he worked to make a mockery of
the proceedings, prove his devotion to the president and gin

up attention for a possible Senate run, which he teased on

Twitter at one point.
He refused to answer lawmakers’ questions, claiming

some nebulous version of executive privilege that almost

certainly does not cover his conversations with the presi-
dent. The White House had provided a note excusing him

from talking about much of anything, which he repeatedly

read aloud. He boasted of his dishonesty and went all in on
the partisan trolling. He even worked a swing at Hillary

Clinton into his opening remarks. “Such a beautiful Opening
Statement! Thank you Corey!” Mr. Trump tweeted from Air

Force One.

Give Mr. Lewandowski points for knowing his audience.
While The Lewandowski Show was striking in its awful-
ness, it also suffered from more mundane problems com-

mon to such hearings. These high-profile televised events
bring out the worst in lawmakers, who cannot resist the op-

portunity to preen and try to score political points. Extract-

ing useful information from witnesses can seem like an af-
terthought.

It is not a coincidence that the illuminating part of Mr.

Lewandowski’s burlesque came once Democratic commit-
tee members turned things over to their majority counsel,

Barry Berke. In his allotted 30 minutes, Mr. Berke sliced

through Mr. Lewandowski’s baloney, getting him to admit
some lies and answer some concrete questions about Mr.

Trump’s directing him to have former Attorney General Jeff
Sessions interfere in the Mueller investigation.

Admittedly, convincing lawmakers to relinquish such

prime image-burnishing opportunities seems as likely as

Jared Kushner bringing peace to the Middle East. And

there’s an argument to be made that the people’s elected

representatives should have some role in such proceedings.

Happily, there are options for adjusting the size and shape of

that role.

For starters, lawmakers could increase the amount of

time allowed for questioning by staffers, who tend to have

more expertise, more time to prepare and less incentive to

showboat. Under the current rules, House committees have

the option of allotting a single hour for questioning by the

staff, to be divided equally between the minority and the ma-

jority. Why not bump that time up to two hours — or three?

Hearings could also be flipped to bring the staff into the

process earlier, when viewers are more likely to still be pay-

ing attention, rather than after every-

one has endured multiple hours of law-

makers’ playing to the galleries.

Another possibility: Restructure

the way members conduct their ques-

tioning. All the ping-ponging between

Republicans and Democrats, each with

only five minutes, ensures that no one

can construct a remotely cogent narra-

tive. Many barely have time to finish their opening rants.

Margaret Taylor, an expert in governance at the Brook-

ings Institution, addressed this problem on the Lawfare blog

this summer, noting: “Hearings become stilted and bizarre.

Witnesses painfully lurch back and forth in responding to

friendly or hostile fire. Viewers are left struggling to under-

stand what’s important and persuasive.”

Stilted. Bizarre. For anyone who has watched a tele-

vised hearing by either chamber, these words ring true.

A saner approach would be to have several members of

the majority go in sequence, followed by an equivalent num-

ber from the minority. Everyone still gets five minutes, but

the larger blocks of time let the process develop some flow

and help coordinate questioning. Members could even de-

cide in advance that each set of questions would stick to a

specific theme. Instead of multiple members offering varia-

tions of the same question — or the same rant — they could

create an arc with their inquiries. Everybody wins.

EDITORIAL OBSERVERMICHELLE COTTLE

The Lewandowski Circus

Let this

spectacle change

congressional

hearings forever,

because the

status quo is just

terrible.