Bush pulling support for EPA head?
It looks like Bush is trying to avoid the massive sh*t storm building around the EPA head's decision to deny the California waiver. Check out this exchange from today's press briefing at the White House:
Q Under what authority can the President tell California it can't have tougher global warming levels than the national strategy that he said he wanted?
MR. FRATTO: I mean, the President didn't tell California that, but the EPA Administrator made his independent decision on whether to approve or not approve that waiver. He made a decision not to approve the California waiver, and as he explained, I think, he made that based on what he thought was best for the nation in addressing this issue. And he pointed to the really significant policy changes that are going to come through from the energy bill that we signed last week.
Q -- no longer supports the kind of states' rights that he did when he was governor?
MR. FRATTO: There's always a balance. And he does support -- he does have a healthy respect for states' rights. But these decisions need to be made in terms of what is best for the country. We support EPA Administrator Johnson's decision, but it was his decision to make.
The president didn't tell California that, independent decision, I think he made, Bush supports state rights... ah, the EPA head serves at the pleasure of the president and Bush does not sound too pleased. If I were EPA administrator Stephen Johnson, I would start cleaning out my desk right now. The video above shows Arnold saying he is going to sue as quickly as possible to get his state that waiver.
[Source: White House]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Whopper 3:58PM (12/21/2007)
Arnold should stick to lifting weights. Imagine, if you will, if the states were permitted to establish the width between railroad rails and various states chose different widths. Interstate shipping would be a nightmare. This is the kind of nightmare Arnold wants to visit upon the automakers. A more direct, and logical, solution would be to add $2 tax per gallon of gas in California.
Reply
Lascelles Linton 4:02PM (12/21/2007)
Whopper, Politics have very little to do with what's direct and logical :D
Reply
ug 4:22PM (12/21/2007)
The width of railroad tracks analogy is idiotic. California already won a similar court case. Go read the decision before offering your layman opinions.
Reply
John Smith 4:24PM (12/21/2007)
This is a lie.
The transcript posted clearly shows that the administration stands behind the EPA decision.
" We support EPA Administrator Johnson's decision..."
What does that mean to you?
Why don't you all just link to MoveOn.org now. This is clearly a political blog with no balance whatsoever.
Reply
Whopper 4:34PM (12/21/2007)
Court decisions have little, if anything, to do with reality. Politicians and lawyers are a hindrence to progress and produce nothing of value. Take your non-layman decision and stuff it.
Reply
ug 4:32PM (12/21/2007)
"This is clearly a political blog with no balance whatsoever."
If you don't like it, get lost. This is AutoBlogGreen, not RushLimbaugh.
Reply
jm99 4:38PM (12/21/2007)
@ John Smith:
Actually, no, in general this blog isn't any more political than you would expect from a blog with 'Green' in its name. This is just yet another overly-sensationalized posting by Lascelles, in which he (as usual) took the smallest possible strand of something, pulled it way out of context, and ran with it. He does this at least once or twice a week lately.
In summary, I agree with the first part of your post -- there isn't a story here.
Reply
Lascelles Linton 4:49PM (12/21/2007)
John Smith and jm99, Bush said;
"Director Johnson made a decision based upon the fact that we passed a piece of legislation that enables us to have a national strategy, which is the"
Us, understanding, seems like support. Now the White House says;
"He made a decision not to approve the California waiver, and as he explained, I think, he made that based on what he thought was best for the nation in addressing this issue."
Lack of understanding, independence. Even after the quote you make, the White House writes "but it was his decision to make."
You don't think he is backing away from Johnson, even a little?
Reply
small-wee-wee 5:05PM (12/21/2007)
Tell the EPA to stop standing in the way of state progress on global warming.
http://environmentamerica.org/action/global-warming/epa-waiver
Reply
steven 5:20PM (12/21/2007)
@up: Are you referring to the case that decided the EPA had to rule on CA's waiver request? The courts told the EPA to do something they were already planning to do. Otherwise, please cite the case.
OK, how about this analogy... Let's say all the states want to have different gasoline formulations with different combinations of additives that specifically address "their climate and their topography". Now that would do what? Answer: Cause the refineries to have to switch back and forth between different refining processes, increase the costs of new refineries to a point that it greatly reduces the number of new refineries being built, all resulting in higher gasoline prices and seasonal shortage for everyone.
Duh! THEY DID, IT HAS. Heck, some of those things make gas even more dangerous to the environment.
And it will have a similar result if the states are allowed to come up with different requirements for their cars. Higher prices for everyone with limited benefit. Oh the car companies will do it, but what's the chance that only CA drivers will have to pay the increase costs?
Reply
Charles S 5:42PM (12/21/2007)
Whooper:
Your analogy is irrelevant. If a state wants to regulate nail size, it should be able to do so. States had always been allow to regulate details down to a measurement level. Alcohol is a good example on how tightly the state regulate the content and measurements. Even for gasoline, states also differ in octane ratings and formulation of the fuels.
Your arguments seem to center more around "standards or progress" which really has nothing to do with states rights to regulate within its borders.
Reply
Mort 5:48PM (12/21/2007)
Arnie needs to hire some hookers with cocaine and send them to work on the congreffs critters and bureaucrats. That is the only language they understand. The green movement needs more bribe money, lots more.
Reply
mrbell321 5:50PM (12/21/2007)
Whopper, the states should(and legally do, actually) have every right to govern what happens in their state. If CA decides that it doesn't want any new gas powered vehicles on their roads, more power to them. The car companies have two options: don't sell there or build non-gas powered vehicles. This kind of stuff happens in many other industries and they deal with it. I think it's silly that CA has to try to get a waiver to do something better than the EPA. Doing better than regulations shouldn't be illegal, it should be encouraged. That is called progress and I wish the current administration understood what that meant...
Reply
Geoff de Ruiter 6:19PM (12/21/2007)
Just a quick point, and I could be wrong, the standards that cali wants was also co-signed to be followed by 16, or so, other states resulting in approx half the US population and there to be bought vehicles and such being regulated. So we are not just talking about Kali-fowrn-yia here.
Reply
Domenick 6:19PM (12/21/2007)
"...the EPA Administrator made his independent decision..."lolz As if. That's the best bit of comedy I've heard all day. Of course, I just woke up but still, great chuckles.
Reply
mike 7:44PM (12/21/2007)
Why is CA interested in Global Warming?
CA city's get their water supply from Northern CA mountain Snow Pack, if that snow melts the STATE Goes DRY. No water for people or agriculture, the state will be one of the First to go into Environmental and Economic SHOCK.
The Rush BS about Global Warming doesn't fly in CA because those Business Interests don't want to be put Out of Business to prop up Big Oil.
It's clearly a battle of small business against the Big Oil / Big Coal lobby.
Reply
kballs 8:17PM (12/21/2007)
There's a condition/exception to every statement made by every politician. Conservatives supporting state rights means:
Supporting a state's right to limit the freedoms of it's people (laws against abortion, gay marriage, buying booze on Sunday, etc.).
What it does NOT mean:
Supporting a state's right to limit the freedoms of corporations (limiting automakers from selling vehicles with high greenhouse gas emissions).
Reply
susan.kraemer 10:03PM (12/21/2007)
Whopper makes a very silly analogy. CA has regulated the efficiency of our apppliances, fridges, dishwashers etc for years we have had higher standartds than the rest of the nation and as a result our carbon footprint is half that of the USA as a whole.
Unlike rail measurements, if California regulated vehicle efficiency it would not derail you other states. It would simply mean we would not see any of the inefficient models on our lots. We would choose between only the good and better, like we do with appliances.
Since efficient appliances and vehicles cost us less to run, if we want to do this it is our business.
(And Lascelles consistently writes terrific posts here, and finds the funniest videos.)
Reply
gsolman6 11:07PM (12/21/2007)
If they can have watered-down beer in Oklahoma then 16 states - some of which are coastal - should be able to have their own CO2 standards.
When you go with the least common denominator at the federal level you are accepting policy that is 5-10 years behind the times, at least when you have compare CA to the U.S. gov't policies historically.
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 5:03AM (12/22/2007)
The law specifically allows California to set their own standards. What the car companies didn't like was not California so much, but the fact that 16 other states wanted to adopt the California standards. The "patchwork" argument is false, the real fear is that California would set the de-facto standard for the entire country.
Personally, I don't have a problem with CA being the leader instead of Wsshington, DC.
Reply