JK:

Popular, maybe, but where? Elected, maybe, but where? Not here. WE didn’t elect him, and yet his activism affects us nonetheless.

As for cleaner air — what he is doing may actually help IN CALIFORNIA. That does not necessarily hold true elsewhere. In the area I am in, there would be significant atmospheric ozone due to greenhouse gasses during the hot months even if all auto emissions were eliminated. It occurs naturally, as the copious vegetation around here naturally emits those gasses. I mean, the Smokey Mountains are just a stone’s throw from here, and they were smoggy before we ever got here. They have ALWAYS been smoggy, it is naturally occurring. IMHO, the major atmospheric irritant in this area — the Atlanta Metro area, that is — is not so much greenhouse related (although it occurs, much of that is NATURAL), but is due to POLLEN. And no sort of California style enviro-rules can change that. Meaning — if you have any sort of allergy to pollen, as I do, you are going to be miserable here ANYWAY. Even in the months when it is not hot enough for greenhouse reactions.

So, give me a break. It is BAD POLICY, and their precedent will eventually lead to similar BAD POLICY being enacted in places like this. They are hobbling themselves for something that is questionable at best. You, yourself comment on how clean the air is there, so do they really need this latest round of regulations? I say no. In California, they have not owned up to the principle of diminishing returns, as they have already reached that point of diminishing returns, where further effort merely costs and yet has trivial benefit. California has long been the tail that wags the environmental laws dog for the rest of the country.