EPA says no to California greenhouse gas rules waiver
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson today announced the agency was rejecting California's application for a waiver that would allow the state to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. California and seventeen other states had wanted to impose rules that would limit CO2 emissions. The rules would have effectively raised fuel efficiency requirements since CO2 emissions are directly related to fuel burned. Johnson used the energy bill that was signed into law by the President today as part of the rationale for the decision. Since the new fuel economy regulations apply to all fifty states denying the waiver would avoid having multiple state level regulations that would make life more difficult for carmakers. Immediately following the announcement California Attorney General Jerry Brown said he and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would sue the EPA at the earliest possible time to overturn the decision.
[Source: San Francisco Chronicle]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Mort 9:21PM (12/19/2007)
Our only hope is to foment unrest between the states and the fed gub.
Reply
terrence_bethea 10:25PM (12/19/2007)
I'm absolutely astonished that the Environmental Polluting Agency would stand in the way of rigorous protection of the environment. :P
It shouldn't be surprising since the 'typical' regulatory appointment during the Bush Regime was someone that formerly collected pay checks from the industry being regulated.
Reply
John Smith 1:19AM (12/20/2007)
Good riddance to bad Communists.
The Commerce Clause comes back to bite liberals in the buttocks.
Go take your stealth Marxism elsewhere.
Reply
Wildgoosechase 1:45AM (12/20/2007)
No surprise here. Separate standards would fragment the industry and create “black markets” in which large vehicles are simply bought out of state. A far more practical solution is to charge registration fees based on CO2 emissions.
Reply
why not the LS2/LS7? 2:10AM (12/20/2007)
Ahhh. Now we see. GWB looked green for a good 15 minutes there.
Reply
why not the LS2/LS7? 2:12AM (12/20/2007)
Wildgoose:
CARB has always had penalty fees for bringing in used cars that don't meet spec (environmental impact fee). If you want to bring a car in that way, you can do it, but it'll cost you.
Even with these "black market" "holes" in the laws, the laws have been very, very effective.
Reply
Mack 3:15AM (12/21/2007)
I hope CA follows through with this. If they do and they aren't succesful, perhaps they could just
begin manufacture of there own cars, or just implement a whole lot more light rail and rail.
I can only imagine rail is a lot cheaper to maintain than a eight lane highway. Taxpayers might be interested in this.
Heck it might be a fight. Stop repairing and maintaing an old outdated form of transportation.
If people want to be stuck in traffic then let them do so. But for the rest of us, lets move on.
There is a better road ahead.
Reply
Domenick 4:57AM (12/20/2007)
It's kinda funny to watch Conservatives argue against States rights when it's inconvenient for them. Hopefully Republican governor Schwarzenegger will push ahead. Maybe they can get some electric car (and solar) carrots to go with their CO2 sticks.
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 6:55AM (12/20/2007)
So the EPA rationale for rejecting California is that it "would make life more difficult for carmakers".
This is supposed to he the Environmental Protection Agency, not the Automaker Profit Protection Agency.
The EPA's job is to establish regulations to have a positive impact on the environment, not the to have a positive impact on carmakers.
The one true conserative is Ron Paul, he would get the Federal government out of the business of telling states what they can and cannot do. The Federal government was not created to simply make all the laws cater to the interests of big corporations. That's not even conservatism, that's corporatism, which is something closer to fascism than true conservatism.
Maybe the United States should just split into two countries, blue states in one, red states in the other. No need for a civil war this time, At this point I think both sides would agree that they would rather go there own way.
Reply
Mort 9:20AM (12/20/2007)
New Jersey has filed a federal lawsuit against the owner of Portland Generating Station claiming the Pennsylvania based coal-fired power plant's pollutants blow across the Delaware River into Warren County harming New Jersey residents...
Reply
Mort 9:20AM (12/20/2007)
http://blog.pennlive.com/lvbreakingnews/2007/12/nj_files_suit_against_reliant.html
Reply
AlexNC 9:32AM (12/20/2007)
This federal over-rule is getting out of hand. States should be able to make their own rules, especially when the rules are means to better the environment. I could see the EPA stepping in if California wanted to pass a law that allows higher CO2 outputs, but that is not the case. They want to lower them.
Reply
Tim 11:12AM (12/20/2007)
This is just one example of why the Civil War was REALLY fought... STATES RIGHTS vs. FEDERAL MONOPOLY & TOP DOWN RULE!
“We, the People...” lost that war and the price for the people's failure was top down government of, by and for the powerful elite!
Reply
susan.kraemer 11:30AM (12/20/2007)
How long before states secede? The Soviet Union broke up over its overreaching in fighting in Afghanistan. Our nation in choosing to vote for an administration that was just the "gee shucks have a beer with me" face of the oil industry, has now sunk a trillion into Iraq, while resisting the real fight against climate change, that will impact 5 oil companies. Already half the states have an Renewable Energy Standard that requires utilities to get more clean electrons.
Reply
Tim 12:40PM (12/20/2007)
Susan, several States are trying to secede right now with more to follow. The only hope is Ron Paul who is the ONLY candidate who will obey the 10th amendment without trying to use the "commerce clause" to lawyer/weasel his/her way around it for social-ist programs, empire building and corporate welfare.
Reply
Whopper 12:54PM (12/20/2007)
I worked in Detroit in the early 70's. We were working on safety and pollution devices. Because the feds hadn't settled on a firm pollution number I know of at least two of the Big Three that had separate teams working on different pollution targets.
The auto companies have finite resources. If the states are permitted to have different standards the result will be like in the 70's - bad solutions and bad products because the resources are spread too thin.
Set one goal with a reasonable time span and you'll get good results.
From my standpoint, California buys Asian imports for the most part anyway; Detroit ought to say the heck with them and refuse to build or sell American iron there and pull all manufacturing out.
Reply
Karkus 12:51PM (12/20/2007)
In addition to suing the EPA, CARB should punish the govt/automakers by making their other pollution standards even tougher (except NOx which are already tough for diesels). Although the correlation between those pollutants and fuel econonmy isn't that strong, it may be strong enough to get some CO2 reductions that way.
Reply
david 1:49PM (12/20/2007)
What if California said screw the Federal Government and enforced the law anyway? If 16 states followed what could the EPA really do?
Reply
Tim 3:28PM (12/20/2007)
David #18:
"If 16 states followed what could the EPA really do?"
Answer: Extortion! The feds would withhold the state's citizen's federal income tax money that they stole via threat, duress and coercion.
Reply
Wildgoosechase 12:52AM (12/21/2007)
What I want to see is the to lead by example. Let's have the vehicles owned by the State of California reflect or beat their proposed standards. By doing this they will prove that their needs can be met with cleaner vehicles.
Reply