The lack of a federal carbon tax prevents executive preemption---the perm ensures strike down

In light of the previous discussion, it is interesting to evaluate the current administration’s position on climate policy. During the 2016 presidential election campaign, Hillary Clinton reminded voters that her opponent, Donald Trump, had once tweeted, “[t]he concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”141 In August 2017, President Trump followed up his rhetoric by announcing that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement.142 The clear inference to be drawn from this is that federal climate policy will not be enacted anytime soon, and the Administration is also backing away from its international commitments to reduce carbon emissions. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the Federal Government will seek a ruling against state-level BTAs on the grounds of executive preemption. Ironically, recent economic analysis of the Paris Agreement after President Trump’s action suggests other countries’ reaction to the choice of the United States might actually provoke a protectionist response that has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with the Administration’s overtly protectionist stance and desire to maintain employment in the U.S. manufacturing sector.143