Thread by @dana1981

A president who declares climate change a national emergency can then:

1) suspend all offshore oil leases
2) take steps to support 'critical technologies' like batteries & EVs
3) potentially restrict fossil fuel transport
4) regulate fossil fuel companies
legal-planet.org/2019/01/14/usi…

Redirecting military funds as @realDonaldTrump is trying to do for the border wall would be tricky. Doing so would need to 'require use of Armed Forces' to redirect Army civil works projects funds to 'projects that are essential to the national defense.' law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33…

or similarly, still making the case that use of the armed forces is necessary, authorize projects 'that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces.' law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10…

First question - is the use of the armed forces more necessary for the (fictional) border crisis or for addressing climate change? The DoD has long characterized climate change as a threat multiplier, but still a stretch to say armed forces are necessary to address it.

The armed forces obviously aren't needed at the border or to build a border wall, so if @realDonaldTrump's gambit holds up in court, perhaps this is a moot point (precedent will have been set deferring to the executive branch on what qualifies as necessary use of armed forces)

Second question - what climate-related projects are 'essential to the national defense' or 'necessary to support' the emergency use of the armed forces? Or at least which meet these standards as much as building a border wall?

Basically the Dem president would have to argue that climate change poses a national emergency that the armed forces must respond to, & that green projects are essential to the national defense, thus allowing funds to be diverted from military construction to said green projects.

I think #4 above (potential power to regulate fossil fuel companies) is the most intriguing. It seems like a broad power that could be deployed effectively in this type of scenario. Obviously not the ideal pathway, but one to be considered if the @GOP blocks all climate policies

Final important point - any steps in this direction would be met with legal challenges (just as Trump's are), which would hold it up in court for a few years. So it's a far less optimal path than finding a way to pass climate legislation, if there's a way around @GOP obstruction