2 more bills in California target global warming
The Golden State is certainly living up to its reputation as the world's environmental watchdog this week. In addition to the state's attorney general suing automakers over greenhouse gases and the recently passed law capping all emissions that contribute to global warming, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will have until the end of the month to decide whether or not he's going to sign two new bills aimed at reducing greenhouse gases. The state's Democratic-controlled Senate and Assembly have already approved both.The first, authored by Assemblyman Joe Nation, would require cleaner emissions from new cars sold in California by 2010 and mandate that 50 percent of them run on alternative fuels by 2020.
The second, by Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, would require that power imported from power plants outside of the state comply with the same greenhouse gas standards that power plants in California meet. Environmentalists say this bill may expose "California's dirty secret," that while power plants within the state lines tend to be relatively clean, California imports a significant amount of electricity from high-polluting plants in the neighboring region.
Governor Schwarzenegger has not yet indicated whether or not he will sign either bill into law.
[Source: San Francisco Chronicle]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Howard Lee Harkness 2:40PM (9/22/2006)
While I poke fun at Californians about some of the really nutty things they do, I have to admit that their efforts to get clean air have had tangible results. When I was in LA back in 1960, I hated to go outdoors because the smog was so bad I could hardly see for my eyes watering. And it did STINK!! But I visited Disneyland just a few years ago, and the smog problem was greatly improved.
Reply
loikll 2:46PM (9/22/2006)
California sure loves to keep lawyers and judges busy by writing unconstitutional laws for courts to strike down. This is likely more of the same.
If you have trouble grasping the point, as a general rule no one state has any legal or constitutional authority to dictate practices in another state (do I really have to point that out?). Of course they don't, why would anyone think they could?
You should've learned in 8th grade that goverment bodies in the US do not have unlimited power; their powers are limited by the US and state contitutions. That's what constitutions DO; they limit government powers. And states specifically cannot regulate INTERstate commerce. They have never been allowed that power.
Other states don't usually indulge in this intrusive stuff, but California always has a burr up its ass.
Things get a little gray when a state tries backdoor dictatorship by trying to use its role as a consumer to dictate Interstate and other states' policy. And that's what clogs up the courts and costs companies tons of money until the laws are finally struck down.
Reply
John Volpe 3:29PM (9/22/2006)
CA is out to prove its the land of fruits and nuts.
They don't like what cars do to the environment, -that's easy. Hopefully the manufacturers should stop shiping vehicles and their parts to CA.
Energy, just let the lights and AC go off.
they deserve it.
What a buch of bunk.
Reply
Brett 4:43PM (9/22/2006)
Smog remains a problem for the socal area, especially the inland empire. I was in Riverside from 2000-2005, and visibility could go down to about 1/2 mile during the summer afternoons due to smog even though the sky was completely clear above. I certainly don't agree with a lot of the legislation that CA pushes, but I think these two laws are pretty reasonable provided that my understanding of them is correct. The first is pretty easy; 50% of cars sold have to be "capable" of running on alternative fuels. So the diesels are certified to run on biodiesel, and gasoline vehicles can run E85, which is a relatively inexpensive upgrade to the fueling system. That sounds doable to me and the customers absorb the cost so why would the car companies care? What they are trying to do with the 2nd law is to regulate their own state not others as I understand it. Power consumers in CA will be prohibited from buying power from out of state producers that don't meet their emissions standards. There's no point in having an emissions law for the state power producers if a loophole that huge is going to be left open.
Reply
Trent 8:31PM (9/22/2006)
If it weren't for California's efforts to implement improved emissions requirements above and beyond the federal emissions requirements in the early 1990s, southern California would still be drenched in smog. There are still days that smog is bad, but nothing compared to twenty years ago when we had first stage smog alerts regularly during the summer. Now millions of Californians and non-Californians in states that have adapted California's emissions standards breathe cleaner air.
The suit over greenhouse gases is more forward thinking on California's part. If you read between the lines, its really about increasing the fuel economy of vehicles. The only way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is by increasing fuel economy. The revised CAFE standards recently enacted by the Federal government are pathetic. California is taking another avenue (greenhouse gas emission reductions) for more dramatic fuel efficiency increases without the help of the lackadaisical Federal government. California and the rest of the country stand to benefit from the suit (whether it reaches the courts or is settled) with increased fuel economy standards that not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but reduce our reliance on petroleum, while still allowing people the freedom to drive vehicles that meet their needs.
Reply