Would a convention of states benefit clean technology and the environment? (Part 2)

I discussed the potential issues with an Article V Convention of States in Part 1. It’s a procedure for modifying the Constitution that has never been used before, and it comes with risks like a runaway convention that may produce a totally new constitution drafted by Republicans.

In this second section, I’d like to go through three potential defense mechanisms for clean technology in the event of such a convention. As explained in Part 1, a coalition of delegates from blue states, purple states, and possibly light-red states would have to cooperate in order to carry out these measures.

A Blunting Approach (DAMAGE CONTROL) Damage control would be a simple tactic for an opposition coalition to employ. This would include the fewest states while yet having a reasonable chance of preventing the worst from occurring.

To accomplish this, the coalition would need to reach consensus before the convention on some ground rules. The extent to which the light blue, purple, and light-red nations might come to an agreement would determine where these red lines should be drawn. The red lines would undoubtedly permit outcomes that deep-blue progressives would find abhorrent, but they would also help prevent a total collapse and give deep-blue states a say in the decision-making process.

The complete abolition of all environmental regulation authority, the repeal of Wickard v. Filburn (a 1942 decision that significantly increased federal power), or any change that tips the scales in favor of fossil fuels are all scenarios that might cross that threshold.

Obviously, this would also involve red lines for issues other than the environment, but to cover all of those potential issues, a massive series of articles would be required. There’s a chance that trading on these environmental protection issues will take place within the opposition. What states could be persuaded to join the opposition and who would support the red states would have a significant impact on how this would all play out.

A TRADING STRATEGY FOR HORSES A coalition of purple and blue states might also prioritize their priorities and trade for those that are more important to them in order to advance their interests at a convention.

Progressives who lean deep blue are likely to be the most outraged by this tactic, but it may lead to better protections for some of their most valued values. Republicans might be willing to make a compromise, for instance, allowing red states to pollute more in exchange for strong protections for the environmental laws of blue states. Even though this is obviously not ideal, the states’ rights side of that discussion would appeal to more Republicans.

Horse trading may also take place on contentious subjects within the opposition coalition. For instance, putting a blatantly pro-gun replacement for the Second Amendment in place in exchange for allowing federal regulation of climate change would force Republicans to fight over those two issues and split the majority (NYSRPA v. Bruen already did this, whether some of us want to see that or not).

What horses could be exchanged would depend on who is in the opposition alliance and how big that coalition actually is, much like with the damage control plan. While a vehement resistance would run the danger of losing the bluest states, a bigger alliance would necessitate toning down the opposition.

The delegates from the red states would also be a factor. The opposition may take control of that part of the convention by offering the right Republican factions the correct bones if more delegates preferred one conservative issue over another. For this to happen, extensive research must be conducted quickly.

A NATIONAL SEPARATION OR DIVORCE STRATEGY Blue states may have little choice but to utilize the convention to demand more autonomy or outright independence from the mob of red states if things appear too hopeless before a convention. Even though it would be terrible to be in this scenario, this tactic doesn’t require success or failure. Similar to a genuine divorce, the majority of the bother and contention stems from technicalities over issues like child custody.

It makes sense to think about making it a divorce everyone can live with rather than one where it turns into a murder-suicide for the states that make up the United States since this is in some ways what Republicans are currently doing with the convention.

This tactic resembles horse trading in some aspects because the opposition alliance would give the red states a lot of what they want, but only if the blue states weren’t compelled to support it. It would also function within the coalition, enabling purple states to defend their blue counterparts while minimizing the impact on themselves.

This is not an all-or-nothing approach, as I have stated. The national divorce might take the form of granting dissenting states the ability to become semi-autonomous states, independent countries in free association with the United States (as numerous Pacific islands already are), or having an orderly secession procedure for states that don’t want to continue in the union at all (and a process for treaties that become effective upon exit).

Naturally, the specifics—particularly what would happen to those who wouldn’t want to live in a California or Texas that was independent—would determine how well any of these arrangements might function. Additionally, there are concerns concerning mobility in the event that any state that is still a member of the union or that leaves it were to become landlocked (could neutral zone corridors on Interstate roads resolve that?). How about tax collections?

How the North American continent may realign in the case of a peaceful separation or loosening of connection of the United States would be a more global question. Would Canada’s rural areas wish to align themselves with American conservatives? Would today’s more liberal US regions desire to join forces with Canada? How would the Southwest and some of Texas interact with Mexico, particularly the more and more blue New Mexico?

RETURNING TO CLEANTECH With this discussion of a broad plan, we must focus once more on clean technologies. They would be impacted by all of these factors, thus we must consider how every compromise, agreement, and national split will affect clean technologies.

When we see a suggestion, we should probe deeply: How would this impact the accessibility of transmission lines, solar-rich regions, and hydroelectric power? What about the production of EVs? Would the proposed constitutional change or agreement have an impact on the availability of rare earth minerals? On any of these topics, would we place the entire United States and/or North America in a negative position going forward?

the positive news Conservatives who support America First and other nationalists can be attacked with any action that will reduce American competitiveness. It’s easy to portray what’s good for CleanTech in a highly nationalistic light (mainly because it’s true!).

AT THE END There was a time not too long ago when we didn’t imagine the Supreme Court would reverse Roe, undermine the EPA’s power, or terminate gun regulation as we know it today. The concept of an Article V Convention, secession, and other such things may seem absurd at this time. However, those events took place as a result of conservatives’ successful long-term plan.

We must consider how we would respond to a convention of states and, perhaps more crucially, how we would react to a negative conclusion if it couldn’t be prevented in order to safeguard the future of clean technologies.

An aerial photo of North America serves as the featured image. image from NASA (Public Domain).

Do you value the unique reporting and cleantech news coverage on CleanTechnica? Consider becoming an Patreon patron or a CleanTechnica member, supporter, technician, or ambassador. Don’t miss a cleantech story, will ya? Subscribe to daily news updates from CleanTechnica by email. Or follow us on Google News ! Want to advertise with CleanTechnica, send us a tip, or propose a speaker for our podcast CleanTech Talk? You can reach us here.

Share

Related Articles

World News Today

Featured Posts

Sweden’s Plug-In EV Market Share Is At 59.4%, And The Volvo XC40 Is Growing
November 6, 2022
Sweden’s Plug-In EV Market Share Is At 59.4%, And The Volvo XC40 Is Growing
Reportedly delayed until the first quarter of 2023 is the Tesla Cybertruck
November 5, 2022
Reportedly delayed until the first quarter of 2023 is the Tesla Cybertruck
Together, Tritium and DC-America will offer a coast-to-coast EV charging solution.
November 5, 2022
Together, Tritium and DC-America will offer a coast-to-coast EV charging solution.
First EV charging stations are provided for Taco Bell in California.
November 5, 2022
First EV charging stations are provided for Taco Bell in California.
New GMC Hummer EV All-Wheel Drive Ebike Introduced by Recon
November 4, 2022
New GMC Hummer EV All-Wheel Drive Ebike Introduced by Recon
previous arrow
next arrow

Science News Today

Tech News Post