Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Will California sell gas cars after 2035? Nobody knows for sure.

News Feed
Tuesday, December 31, 2024

While the Biden administration approved California’s effort to ban new sales of gas-powered cars by 2035, the Golden State’s automotive future remains uncertain. The incoming Trump administration is likely to try to undo the December approval — and a wave of litigation will also probably challenge the Biden administration’s decision.  But President-elect Trump’s anticipated actions could also face court challenges. And California could have more tricks up its sleeve to push its market toward electric vehicles regardless of what Trump does.  “There's just an enormous amount of uncertainty about whether the rule goes into effect — lots of moving parts. It will take a while before we know the answer to that question,” said Ann Carlson, a former Biden administration official who is now an environmental law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets its own rules for the nation about how much emissions automakers’ fleets can emit. The rules put forward by the Biden administration are so stringent that they will require a significant share of the auto market to become electric — but they don’t ban gas cars entirely. The Clean Air Act prevents states from setting different rules from the federal government — though as California has historically dealt with unique smog problems, the law provides an exemption allowing it to seek a waiver to set its own rules that go further than the federal ones.  The Biden administration recently granted that waiver, allowing California’s new standards that ban the sales of gas cars by 2035 to take effect. Eleven other states and Washington, D.C. — which combined with California make up more than 30 percent of the nation’s car market — have adopted California’s rule, meaning they, too, are poised for a shift away from gas cars.  In theory, this makes California’s rule a major shift in the American auto market — and a giant step forward in the nation’s fight against the climate crisis.  But a tangled web of law, politics and market considerations make the rule’s actual expected outcome less clear. The EPA’s approval of California’s gas car ban is sure to come with lawsuits. Republican-led states, oil, gasoline and ethanol producers and the auto industry are among the parties that could sue to try to overturn the rules. At the same time, the Trump administration will also likely to revoke the waiver through the regulatory process — though this action could also spur lawsuits from supporters of the California rule.  The EPA’s own standards, which if unchanged could make just 29 percent of the cars sold nationwide in 2032 gas-powered, will face similar legal uncertainty. The national rule already faces a lawsuit and Trump’s threats to overturn it.  However, any future Trump rule could also face legal hurdles from green groups that would argue it’s not strict enough.  As the legal process plays out, it’s not clear for automakers what their national- or state-level electric vehicle sales requirements will be. “Navigating these challenges is especially acute for heavily regulated automakers and suppliers because of our multi-year design and manufacturing cycles and the significant capital expenditures necessary to bring any new vehicle to market,” John Bozzella, president of the lobbying group Alliance for Automotive Innovation, said in a recent memo to Trump. He also called the current California and federal rules “out-of-step” with market realities.  California could try to implement a side deal with carmakers amid the potential policy and legal battles. After the last Trump administration revoked an Obama-era EPA authorization for California to set car standards, the state and several automakers inked a deal to increase the fuel efficiency of their car fleets.  “If companies are looking for certainty, their best effort will be to have an agreement with California,” said Margo Oge, who directed the EPA’s Transportation and Air Quality office for nearly two decades.  Oge said that if she were an auto company she "would want to know, at least for the biggest market in the U.S., that I can provide cars.” A spokesperson for the California Air Resources Board did not directly answer The Hill’s question about whether the state would pursue a similar deal this time. Instead, the spokesperson directed The Hill to the agency’s press release on the EPA waiver in which California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said, “Clean cars are here to stay … California can rise to the challenge of protecting our people by cleaning our air and cutting pollution.” If the carmakers do strike any such accord, it’s not clear what share of new cars sold would be electric — and on what timeline — under the agreement.   Another wildcard is that Republicans may try for a shortcut: the Congressional Review Act (CRA). This law allows simple majorities of the House and Senate to overturn a recent regulatory rule with the president’s approval. The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog, has said that the EPA waiver is not subject to be overturned under the CRA.  But Republicans could still try to use the tool anyway, said Carlson, who was the acting administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under President Biden.  She added that this would almost certainly spur “a follow-up lawsuit, ... arguing that the Congressional Review Act does not, in fact, apply to waivers.” Asked whether the GOP would pursue a CRA, a spokesperson for Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) did not directly answer, instead saying that the incoming chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee would look for any way possible to reverse the Biden administration’s action. 

While the Biden administration approved California’s effort to ban new sales of gas-powered cars by 2035, the Golden State’s automotive future remains uncertain. The incoming Trump administration is likely to try to undo the December approval — and a wave of litigation will also probably challenge the Biden administration’s decision.  But President-elect Trump’s anticipated actions could also...

While the Biden administration approved California’s effort to ban new sales of gas-powered cars by 2035, the Golden State’s automotive future remains uncertain.

The incoming Trump administration is likely to try to undo the December approval — and a wave of litigation will also probably challenge the Biden administration’s decision. 

But President-elect Trump’s anticipated actions could also face court challenges. And California could have more tricks up its sleeve to push its market toward electric vehicles regardless of what Trump does. 

“There's just an enormous amount of uncertainty about whether the rule goes into effect — lots of moving parts. It will take a while before we know the answer to that question,” said Ann Carlson, a former Biden administration official who is now an environmental law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets its own rules for the nation about how much emissions automakers’ fleets can emit. The rules put forward by the Biden administration are so stringent that they will require a significant share of the auto market to become electric — but they don’t ban gas cars entirely.

The Clean Air Act prevents states from setting different rules from the federal government — though as California has historically dealt with unique smog problems, the law provides an exemption allowing it to seek a waiver to set its own rules that go further than the federal ones. 

The Biden administration recently granted that waiver, allowing California’s new standards that ban the sales of gas cars by 2035 to take effect.

Eleven other states and Washington, D.C. — which combined with California make up more than 30 percent of the nation’s car market — have adopted California’s rule, meaning they, too, are poised for a shift away from gas cars. 

In theory, this makes California’s rule a major shift in the American auto market — and a giant step forward in the nation’s fight against the climate crisis. 

But a tangled web of law, politics and market considerations make the rule’s actual expected outcome less clear.

The EPA’s approval of California’s gas car ban is sure to come with lawsuits. Republican-led states, oil, gasoline and ethanol producers and the auto industry are among the parties that could sue to try to overturn the rules.

At the same time, the Trump administration will also likely to revoke the waiver through the regulatory process — though this action could also spur lawsuits from supporters of the California rule. 

The EPA’s own standards, which if unchanged could make just 29 percent of the cars sold nationwide in 2032 gas-powered, will face similar legal uncertainty. The national rule already faces a lawsuit and Trump’s threats to overturn it. 

However, any future Trump rule could also face legal hurdles from green groups that would argue it’s not strict enough. 

As the legal process plays out, it’s not clear for automakers what their national- or state-level electric vehicle sales requirements will be.

“Navigating these challenges is especially acute for heavily regulated automakers and suppliers because of our multi-year design and manufacturing cycles and the significant capital expenditures necessary to bring any new vehicle to market,” John Bozzella, president of the lobbying group Alliance for Automotive Innovation, said in a recent memo to Trump. He also called the current California and federal rules “out-of-step” with market realities. 

California could try to implement a side deal with carmakers amid the potential policy and legal battles.

After the last Trump administration revoked an Obama-era EPA authorization for California to set car standards, the state and several automakers inked a deal to increase the fuel efficiency of their car fleets. 

“If companies are looking for certainty, their best effort will be to have an agreement with California,” said Margo Oge, who directed the EPA’s Transportation and Air Quality office for nearly two decades. 

Oge said that if she were an auto company she "would want to know, at least for the biggest market in the U.S., that I can provide cars.”

A spokesperson for the California Air Resources Board did not directly answer The Hill’s question about whether the state would pursue a similar deal this time. Instead, the spokesperson directed The Hill to the agency’s press release on the EPA waiver in which California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said, “Clean cars are here to stay … California can rise to the challenge of protecting our people by cleaning our air and cutting pollution.”

If the carmakers do strike any such accord, it’s not clear what share of new cars sold would be electric — and on what timeline — under the agreement.  

Another wildcard is that Republicans may try for a shortcut: the Congressional Review Act (CRA). This law allows simple majorities of the House and Senate to overturn a recent regulatory rule with the president’s approval.

The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog, has said that the EPA waiver is not subject to be overturned under the CRA. 

But Republicans could still try to use the tool anyway, said Carlson, who was the acting administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under President Biden. 

She added that this would almost certainly spur “a follow-up lawsuit, ... arguing that the Congressional Review Act does not, in fact, apply to waivers.”

Asked whether the GOP would pursue a CRA, a spokesperson for Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) did not directly answer, instead saying that the incoming chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee would look for any way possible to reverse the Biden administration’s action. 

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Flatwater Free Press and Grist hire Anila Yoganathan to cover climate change in Nebraska

Yoganathan will report local stories, which will be available to republish for free.

The Flatwater Free Press and Grist are pleased to announce the hire of reporter Anila Yoganathan to cover how climate change is impacting Nebraska communities, from worsening extreme weather to shifting energy systems and economies.  Yoganathan will be an employee of Flatwater and based in Omaha, with the two newsrooms splitting the costs of her salary as part of their new collaboration. Anila Yoganathan was born and raised in Georgia and graduated from the University of Georgia. She previously worked at the Atlanta Business Chronicle, covering everything from energy and manufacturing to infrastructure and economic development, and as an investigative reporter for the Knoxville News Sentinel in Tennessee. Her work has also appeared in the Associated Press and Atlanta Journal-Constitution, among other publications.  “We’re thrilled to welcome Anila and to partner with Grist on this important work,” said Matt Wynn, executive director of the Nebraska Journalism Trust. “Her reporting will help ensure Nebraska’s environmental and agricultural stories are told with the depth they deserve — and that they reach an audience that needs to hear them.” “I am so excited to learn more about the environment and energy landscape in Nebraska,” said Yoganathan. “My favorite part of the job is getting to know a community and telling their stories.” The hire marks the continued expansion of Grist’s Local News Initiative, which aims to bolster coverage of climate change in communities across the United States through partnerships with local newsrooms. Grist already has reporters embedded with WABE in Georgia, IPR in Michigan, WBEZ in Illinois, BPR in North Carolina, Verite News in Louisiana, and The Salt Lake Tribune in Utah. Yoganathan will be the seventh such reporter. Yoganathan will report local stories for Flatwater, which will be shared with the newsroom’s statewide and regional network of syndication partners. Grist will also adapt Yoganathan’s stories and bring them to its nationwide audience and publishing partners. “At a time when trust in journalism is eroding, Flatwater Free Press has managed to buck the trend and develop a deep connection with its Nebraska readers,” said Katherine Bagley, Grist’s editor-in-chief. “Combined with Anila’s investigative reporting skills and sharp eye for compelling environmental stories, we’re excited to bolster climate reporting in a state on the frontlines of a warming planet.”  This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Flatwater Free Press and Grist hire Anila Yoganathan to cover climate change in Nebraska on Nov 10, 2025.

UN General Assembly Chief Says Curbing Climate Change Would Make World More Peaceful and Safer

The president of the United Nations General Assembly says climate change is the biggest threat to world peace

BELEM, Brazil (AP) — Harms from climate change are the biggest threat to world peace, the president of the United Nations General Assembly says.“To those who are arguing that in these times we have to focus more on peace and security, one can only say the climate crisis is the biggest security threat of our century,” General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock told The Associated Press in an interview at the U.N. climate talks at the edge of the Amazon.“We can only ensure long-lasting peace and security over the world if we fight the climate crisis altogether and if we join hands in delivering on sustainable development because they are heavily interconnected,” said Baerbock, a former German foreign minister.Baerbock pointed to droughts and other damage from climate extremes in places such as Chad, Syria and Iraq. When crops die, people go hungry and then migrate elsewhere or fight over scarce water, she said.“This is a vicious circle,” Baerbock said. “If we do not stop the climate crisis it will fuel hunger and poverty which will fuel again displacement and by that will challenge regions in a different way, leading again to instability, crisis and most often also conflict. So, fighting the climate crisis is also the best security insurance.”But at the same time, dealing with climate change's problems can make the world more peaceful, Baerbock said, pointing to conflicts over water in Central Asia. There, an agreement on water became “a booster for peaceful cooperation and peaceful settlement.” Drought can take a long time to make an impact, but storms made worse by Earth's warming atmosphere can strike in a flash. Baerbock pointed to last month's Hurricane Melissa decimating Jamaica and two typhoons smacking the Philippines.“Achievements of sustainable development can be diminished in just hours,'' Baerbock said. That's why foreign aid from rich nations to poor to help deal with climate disasters and adapt to future ones "are also investments in stable societies and regions," she said.Baerbock, a veteran of climate conferences, said people scoffed at the young people of small island nations who filed a suit in the International Court of Justice about climate change, damage and their future. But the court's ruling in July that action must be taken to limit warming “shows the power of the world if it works together,” she said.Small island nations have said they will take the court's decision to the U.N. General Assembly, where votes are decided by majority unlike the veto power of the U.N. security council or the consensus unanimity of U.N. climate talks.“Now it’s up to the majority of the member states if they want to bring a resolution forward underlining the importance of this case,” said Baerbock, adding that she has to follow the desires of the majority of the 193 U.N. member states.“The vast majority of member states has called not only at the last climate conferences but also here in Belem for transitioning away from our fossil world, not because of the climate crisis, but because they underline that this is the best security investment for all of us,” Baerbock said.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

The meat industry’s climate accountability moment is here

Some of the world’s biggest meat companies are finally facing a degree of accountability for allegedly deceiving the public about their pollution. On Monday, America’s largest meat producer, Tyson Foods, agreed to stop marketing a line of its so-called climate-friendly beef and to drop its claim that it could reach “net-zero” emissions by 2050. The […]

Cattle at a large feedlot in Texas. Some of the world’s biggest meat companies are finally facing a degree of accountability for allegedly deceiving the public about their pollution. On Monday, America’s largest meat producer, Tyson Foods, agreed to stop marketing a line of its so-called climate-friendly beef and to drop its claim that it could reach “net-zero” emissions by 2050. The changes are the result of a lawsuit settlement with the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit that sued Tyson for allegedly misleading consumers. Meat and dairy production are two of the highest polluting industries, accounting for 14.5 to 19 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, with much of it stemming from beef. As part of the settlement, Tyson must refrain from making these environmental claims for five years and can’t make new ones unless they’re verified by experts.  “This settlement reinforces the principle that consumers deserve honesty and accountability from the corporations shaping our food system,” Caroline Leary, general counsel and chief operating officer at EWG, said in a press release.    This story was first featured in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here to explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week. Tyson Foods declined an interview request for this story. In a statement to Vox, a Tyson spokesperson said the decision to settle “was made solely to avoid the expense and distraction of ongoing litigation and does not represent any admission of wrongdoing by Tyson Foods.”   (If you’re wondering how Tyson was ever allowed to make these claims in the first place, it’s because the US Department of Agriculture lets meat companies say pretty much whatever they want on their packaging.)   Less than two weeks ago, the US subsidiary of Brazil-based JBS — the world’s largest meat company — paid $1.1 million to settle a similar lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James over the company’s claim that it could reach net-zero emissions by 2040. “Bacon, chicken wings and steak with net-zero emissions,” the company stated in a 2021 full-page New York Times ad. “It’s possible.” (It’s not.)  The terms of the settlement will require JBS to discuss net zero as a goal or ambition, as opposed to a pledge or commitment. JBS didn’t respond to an interview request for this story. It all amounts to what two environmental researchers have called a form of “epistemic pollution” that shapes “what we know, understand and believe” about meat’s climate footprint. This pollution of public discourse has worked: Polls show people significantly underrate animal agriculture’s environmental impact.   The two settlements represent an antidote to that pollution, and a rare shred of justice for an industry that has otherwise evaded climate accountability. But if the events of the last 10 days at the world’s largest climate change conference are any indication, the meat giants aren’t deterred and are as emboldened as ever to mislead the public on their pollution and obstruct efforts to regulate it.  Calling the meat industry’s bluff  This month, over 50,000 people descended on Belém, Brazil, to attend the United Nations’ annual COP (conference of the parties) climate summit, where world leaders meet to assess the state of climate change and pledge to cut emissions.  The conference largely focuses on fossil fuels, but in recent years, it’s begun to put more attention on food and agriculture, which account for around one-third of global climate-warming emissions. In response, meat and dairy companies have ramped up their presence at COP events to influence negotiations. This year was no different. In fact, JBS led the food industry’s officially recognized effort to develop environmental policy recommendations for governments to consider.  Unsurprisingly, JBS and its peers didn’t recommend stringent environmental regulations or policies to shift countries away from meat-heavy diets, which environmental scientists say we must do to meet global climate targets. Instead, it’s promoting voluntary sustainability programs, like paying farmers to adopt more sustainable practices. In other words: “Don’t regulate our pollution, we’ll volunteer to clean it up — but only if governments give us money.”  This voluntary approach has been the meat industry’s playbook for decades. It’s been highly effective at shutting down the prospect of significant reforms to how we farm and what we eat, both in the international arena, like at COP, and here at home (most US environmental laws wholly or partially exempt animal factory farms).  The industry is able to sway policy in its favor because it invests a lot in doing so. It donates millions to politicians and aggressively lobbies them; it plays dirty by attacking scientists and pushing an alternative set of facts; and it portrays itself as a network of small, humble farmers and ranchers stewarding the land when, in reality, a handful of major polluters control much of the meat aisle.  The lawsuit settlements, however, are a small crack in this armor, and illustrate how when the industry is forced to defend some of its more outlandish claims, it can’t. We might eventually be able to have an honest public conversation about meat’s environmental and ethical harms, but only if more of civil society is willing to call its bluff.

‘Climate smart’ beef? After a lawsuit, Tyson agrees to drop the label.

Advocates say a recent settlement is a ‘win’ in the fight to hold industrial ag giants accountable.

Shoppers have long sought ways to make more sustainable choices at the supermarket — and for good reason: Our food system is responsible for a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. The vast majority of emissions from agriculture come from raising cows on industrial farms in order to sell burgers, steak, and other beef products. Beef production results in two and a half times as many greenhouse gases as lamb, and almost nine times as many as chicken or fish; its carbon footprint relative to other sources of protein, like cheese, eggs, and tofu, is even higher.  If you want to have a lighter impact on the planet, you could try eating less beef. (Just try it!) Otherwise, a series of recent lawsuits intends make it easier for consumers to discern what’s sustainable and what’s greenwashing — by challenging the world’s largest meat processors on their climate messaging. Tyson, which produces 20 percent of beef, chicken, and pork in the United States, has agreed to drop claims that the company has a plan to achieve “net zero” emissions by 2050 and to stop referring to beef products as “climate smart” unless verified by an independent expert.  Tyson was sued in 2024 by the Environmental Working Group, or EWG, a nonprofit dedicated to public health and environmental issues. The group alleged that Tyson’s claims were false and misleading to consumers. (Nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice represented EWG in the case.) Tyson denied the allegations and agreed to settle the suit.  “We landed in a place that feels satisfying in terms of what we were able to get from the settlement,” said Carrie Apfel, deputy managing attorney of Earthjustice’s Sustainable Food and Farming program. Apfel was the lead attorney on the case. According to the settlement provided by Earthjustice, over the next five years, Tyson cannot repeat previous claims that the company has a plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 or make new ones unless they are verified by a third-party source. Similarly, Tyson also cannot market or sell any beef products labeled as “climate smart” or “climate friendly” in the United States. “We think that this provides the consumer protections we were seeking from the lawsuit,” said Apfel.  The settlement is “a critical win for the fight against climate greenwashing by industrial agriculture,” according to Leila Yow, climate program associate at the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy, a nonprofit research group focused on sustainable food systems.  In the original complaint, filed in D.C. Superior Court, EWG alleged that Tyson had never even defined “climate smart beef,” despite using the term in various marketing materials. Now Tyson and EWG must meet to agree on a third-party expert that would independently verify any of the meat processor’s future “net zero” or “climate smart” claims.  Following the settlement, Apfel went a step further in a conversation with Grist, arguing that the term “climate smart” has no business describing beef that comes from an industrial food system.  “In the context of industrial beef production, it’s an oxymoron,” said the attorney. “You just can’t have climate-smart beef. Beef is the highest-emitting major food type that there is. Even if you were to reduce its emissions by 10 percent or even 30 percent, it’s still not gonna be a climate-smart choice.” A Tyson spokesperson said the company “has a long-held core value to serve as stewards of the land, animals and resources entrusted to our care” and identifies “opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the supply chain.” The spokesperson added: “The decision to settle was made solely to avoid the expense and distraction of ongoing litigation and does not represent any admission of wrongdoing by Tyson Foods.”  The Tyson settlement follows another recent greenwashing complaint — this one against JBS Foods, the world’s largest meat processor. In 2024, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued JBS, alleging the company was misleading consumers with claims it would achieve net zero emissions by 2040.  James reached a $1.1 million settlement with the beef behemoth earlier this month. As a result of the settlement, JBS is required to update its messaging to describe reaching net zero emissions by 2040 as more of an idea or a goal than a concrete plan or commitment from the company. The two settlements underscore just how difficult it is to hold meat and dairy companies accountable for their climate and environmental impacts.  “Historically, meat and dairy companies have largely been able to fly under the radar of reporting requirements of any kind,” said Yow, of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. When these agrifood companies do share their emissions, these disclosures are often voluntary and the processes for measuring and reporting impact are not standardized.  That leads to emissions data that is often “incomplete or incorrect,” said Yow. She recently authored a report ranking 14 of the world’s largest meat and dairy companies in terms of their sustainability commitments — including efforts to report methane and other greenhouse gas emissions. Tyson and JBS tied for the lowest score out of all 14 companies. Industrial animal agriculture “has built its business model on secrecy,” said Valerie Baron, a national policy director and senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, in response to the Tyson settlement. Baron emphasized that increased transparency from meat and dairy companies is a critical first step to holding them accountable.  Yow agreed. She argued upcoming climate disclosure rules in California and the European Union have the potential to lead the way on policy efforts to measure and rein in emissions in the food system. More and better data can lead to “better collective decision making with policymakers,” she said.  But, she added: “We need to actually know what we’re talking about before we can tackle some of those things.” Editor’s note: Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council are advertisers with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline ‘Climate smart’ beef? After a lawsuit, Tyson agrees to drop the label. on Nov 21, 2025.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.