Auto Alliance lobbying state legislatures in CO2 fight
Colorado Capitol. Photo by Cpt. Spock. Licensed under Creative Commons license 2.0.
We know that 18 states are getting serious with legal action against the EPA on a national level, but local emissions fights in state legislatures also bear watching. Harry Stoffer, writing in Automotive News, describes how a "top industry lobbyist" and president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Dave McCurdy, is going around to statehouses to work against state-based CO2 rules. In three states - Minnesota, Colorado and Montana - McCurdy's efforts seem to be paying off; those states are retreating from efforts to implement stricter emissions laws. It's no secret that the automakers are against a patchwork of state laws that - gasp - might result in a cleaner environment but would put pressure on automakers to make vehicles that are even cleaner than federal law requires. McCurdy issued a statement against the ruling of a Federal Judge in favor of states regulating greenhouse gases, for example. Still, the next time we talk to Charles Territo or someone else in the Alliance, we'll be sure to ask about all this.
[Source: Harry Stoffer / Automotive News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
davewin 12:39PM (4/07/2008)
Nothing wrong with lowering emissions but vehicle emissions should be regulated by one entity, and one entity alone (EPA).
The sheer number of different regulations would be spectacularly bureaucratic if it work enacted on a state or local basis - a patchwork indeed.
Though that's being generous. I would describe patchwork more as a regulatory CF (which rhymes with regulatory fustercluck).
Just check out what can happen when different jurisdictions are allowed to make their own rules. Here's an example on anti-idling regulations:
http://www.atri-online.org/research/idling/Truck_Idling_Regulations.htm (scroll down and click on the left PDF).
With all due respect to CA Attorney General Jerry Brown, this is a slippery slope and won't help reduce emissions.
Don't try to let each state do its own thing. And remember that while 18 states is a significant number, what about the other 32 states?
If the goal is to reduce emissions, get EPA to do a Federal reg.
Reply
rgseidl 1:03PM (4/07/2008)
Unlike different criteria emissions, variations on CO2 emissions targets could be dealt with by varying the mix of vehicles sold from state to state. What the auto industry fears is growing market share for small cars, which deliver small profits. Thanks to legacy obligations on retiree pensions and health care, the Big Three would suffer more as a result of such a shift than their competitors.
Ideally, fuel economy targets would be defined at sensible levels nationally. The problem has been that in recent year the DOT hasn't been aggressive enough for many states' liking. Note that EPA currently has no jurisdiction over CAFE or fuel taxes, only over test procedures and the stickers you see in the showroom.
Reply
Whopper 1:31PM (4/07/2008)
"What the auto industry fears is growing market share for small cars, which deliver small profits."
rgseidl, I must disagree with you and agree with davewin for the simple reason that I worked on EGR with Ford back in the mid 1970's. At that time there were several potential regulations pending from the feds. Each regulation required a different approach because there was a different cost component for each. This is the same reason the FAA controlls all US airspace and not individual states. To do otherwise would be a nightmare.
Reply
Radical green 3:30PM (4/07/2008)
Question is why we spend time on the symptom (global warming) instead of the actual problem (overpopulation), as John Feeney pointed out in his latest interview:
http://www.corrupt.org/act/interviews/john_feeney
Reply
GoodCheer 3:59PM (4/07/2008)
Boy if you thought increasing gas tax was political suicide, you don't even want to talk about population control.
I don't think the analogy to the FAA is a good one. As rgseidl points out, all automakers would have to do would be to limit sales of more-polluting models to states based on their restrictions. I really don't think it would be problem.
On the other hand, I do think once central (federal) authority SHOULD take the lead and make change happen, but nobody at the federal level wants to step up and make change happen.
Reply
mike 4:44PM (4/07/2008)
These guy's must be the Out of Touch with Reality Club. Because, we've got global warming, china and india becoming bigger buyers of oil on world markets, and FBI proof that Saudi Arabia FUNDED the 9/11 Terrorists.
And they think we want more Guzzlers.
Reply
KarenRei 4:54PM (4/07/2008)
Population control doesn't have to be overt and dictatorial. Many other methods can be used. Examples:
1) Firmly battling the fight against birth control waged by the religious right and increasing funding for family planning programs (at home and overseas)
2) Campaigns focusing on education on the impacts of population, perhaps including integrating such lessons into school curricula, could have a big effect on people's choices as to how many children to have, if any.
3) Lastly, improved campaigns to alleviate 3rd-world poverty would have a major impact, as poverty is strongly correlated with the number of children per woman.
You don't have to force people. You just need to educate them and get them on financial footing where they don't need to use children as breadwinners. People can still make their own choices; we should just want them to have the best available information and the least societal pressure.
Reply
Chris M 7:39PM (4/07/2008)
California gets to set its own air quality standards because it implemented environmental regulations before the Federal goverment did - and thus has priority. The Federal EPA law allows California to set its own standard, and allows the other states to follow the California or Federal standards. Thus, at most, there would only be two standards to be met, not "chaos" as some contend. The only thing preventing the Federal standard from matching the higher California standard is the stubbornness of certain legislators and the Bush administration.
Reply