 That's it. Obama is no longer president. You might cry, you might be happy, but let's think for a moment about the environmental legacy he leaves behind. At home, Obama worked to lower emissions of greenhouse gases from cars and power plants, he's boosted renewable energy, and set new records for protected public land. On the international level, he has spearheaded climate deals like the Paris Accord, an agreement among nearly 200 nations to lower carbon emissions in the fight against climate change. The new president of the United States, Donald Trump, has vowed to dismantle all that, but environmental groups are preparing to fight back. For the next four years, when it comes to climate policy, the place to watch isn't the White House, it's the courtroom. The courts is really the area of last resort for a lot of environmental groups and a lot of states that have supported the Obama administration agenda. A lot of environmental groups are gearing up to fight any anti-climate action by the Trump administration already. People are fully staffed up and fully ready to hit the green go button on the litigation. Trump's record on the environment already isn't great. I mean, he's said climate change is a hoax. And his actions so far don't bode well. He nominated ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. His pick for the head of the Environmental Protection Agency is Scott Pruitt, a man who sued the EPA over environmental regulations. His transition team also sent a questionnaire to the Department of Energy asking for the names of employees who worked on climate policy. That's really intimidating, even if Trump's team later said the questionnaire was not authorized. Most importantly, Trump vowed to scrap the Clean Power Plan, Obama's signature policy to reduce CO2 emissions. But rolling back the CPP won't be that easy. In fact, a lot of people are already trying. Two dozen states and industry groups have sued the EPA, arguing that it overstepped its authority under the Clean Air Act. If Trump's EPA tries to halt that lawsuit before a ruling is reached, several other states are about to sue the administration. The EPA has to follow the Clean Air Act and regulate air pollutants in the U.S. And in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases like CO2 are air pollutants under that law. In 2009, the EPA determined that greenhouse gases like CO2 endanger people's health and welfare. If Trump's EPA declares that greenhouse gas emissions aren't dangerous to the public, environmental groups would sue and probably win because... I think it would be really difficult at this stage to argue in a legally defensible manner that there is not endangerment given what we're seeing with the Greenland ice melt, Antarctica. The more frequent storms or more frequent severe storms, I should say, precipitation changes throughout, many of which have been connected to human responsibility for CO2 and other climate related emissions. In short, global warming. The courts are likely to hear cases on a host of other environmental issues. If endangered species aren't protected under the Endangered Species Act, environmental groups could sue the government for inaction. If Trump decides to undo some of the national monuments named by Obama under the Antiquities Act, that could also wind up in the courts. How the courts will rule is difficult to predict. Trump will be able to appoint a new Supreme Court justice, skewing the balance to the conservative side. Environmentalists also worry about some 100 plus judicial vacancies that Trump will be able to fill with his appointees. The Supreme Court will get a lot of attention, but the federal courts pose a much more immediate opportunity. A couple of openings are at the Second Circuit, which has ruled on water pollution before. Other openings are at the Ninth Circuit, which is important for endangered species cases. I think the Trump administration can do many damaging things, but ultimately the law is on our side, so we'll win cases if we have to bring them against these rollbacks. And we'll also find that they lose in the court of public opinion because the public is in favor of these things, not against them. So it's a wind up in the court, not wind up. Yeah, wind up. Okay. Spelled the same way as wind. Yeah, that's true. The f— You just started speaking. I was like, I think it's wind, but it is spelled like wind.