Obama to revisit states' rights on carbon emissions
In an announcement that should come as little surprise to anyone paying close attention, Lisa Jackson, President-elect Obama's newly-nominated EPA administrator, has said that she will immediately revisit the topic of whether individual states have the right to enact laws governing carbon emissions. Any laws made by individual states would have the effect of jacking up the national fuel economy requirements, which are themselves currently up in the air, since carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct created when burning fossil fuels. These desire for state-specific laws started in, not surprisingly, California, though other states would surely adopt the far-left state's set of rules if given the chance.The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, representing most of the major automakers in the U.S., opposes the notion that states should be allowed to set their own greenhouse gas laws, instead favoring a national standard, whatever that may be. This is an issue that has been fought back and forth for a long time and one that isn't likely to be resolved any time soon.
[Source: Automotive News - Sub. Req.]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
joejoejoe 1:41PM (1/16/2009)
The "far-left" state of California has a Republican Governor that also supports setting state-level emissions rules.
Reply
Chad 2:21PM (1/16/2009)
I'm surprised more Republicans and Libertarians aren't behind the idea of each state setting it's own emissions rules.
After all any power of the federal government not specifically stated in the constitution should be left to the states or the people.
What's the worst that could happen? Oh dear, Honda can only sell fits, insights, civics, and 4 cylinder Accords in California! I'm sure the World would end. (just an example don't jump on my case about it)
Reply
dave b 3:14PM (1/16/2009)
Chad,
the federal government expanded their role and will assume jurisdiction over limits over the commerce clause. I'd agree it would seem like a state-rights issue, but I think individuals would rather be free to choose what to drive rather than be told what to drive. nothing prohibits auto makers from offering greener vehicles, whcih CA residents are free to buy if they choose.
Reply
Nick 3:56PM (1/16/2009)
dave b:
Here comes again the "individuals should be free to choose / autmakers free to offer cleaner vehicles".
LIsten up, governments were created BECAUSE people think with their wallets, not thinking of what would serve them as a group. It's not like your vision hasn't been tried before...remember U.S. automakers were subject to very lax regulation, and as a result 50% of vehicles are large SUVs/Trucks, resulting in hundeds of billions of $ more going overseas, along with the environmental impact.
YES you're right, people were still free of buying a cleaner vehicle, but they didn't. WHY? Because there was no incentive or good product to buy.
It sounds almost like Republicans want to abolish government and turn anarchists, oh but except for so called "moral values"..there it's ok to tell people how to behave at home, how to dress, that they can't use the pill or condoms etc..
Last point: US oil consumption needs to come down drastically for everyone's good, and the only way of implementing that is with the government stepping in.
Max 4:00PM (1/16/2009)
Good point Nick, let's turn America into a Republican anarchy, with no taxes, no police, no fire departments, no toll free roads, no public schools, no help to the unemployed at all etc....
There's something crazy about that (tried and failed) idea of "the market will adjust itself". It hasn't, and it never will. Sorry to break the Republican dream, but some government regulation is necessary.
Reply
Tim 4:15PM (1/16/2009)
Max #5 said:
"...some government regulation is necessary."
ABSOLUTELY!
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This means that the States compete for corporate and individual tax base and 50 competitors produce products, services and innovation MUCH cheaper than one federal monopoly.
HOWEVER, Federalist (including activist judges) have ILLEGALLY used the "commerce clause" to throw the entire Constitution in the trash bin by calling EVERYTHING commerce so they can control and manipulate it... AND US!
Federalism, Socialism, Fascism and Marxism are ALL kissing cousins.
Obama is a Socialist and his wife is a Marxist
The “Republicans vs the “Democrats” argument is just plain ignorant of the REAL argument which is the rule of LAW vs the rule of Men and the Rule of Men is Tyranny!
There is little difference between Socialist Democrats and Fascists NeoCons and this is why we will see NO REAL CHANGE in the Obama administration. You will see MORE debt, MORE foreign intervention, MORE central planning, MORE federal intrusion over States rights, MORE taxes, MORE lowering of our standard of living.
So if MORE of the SAME is “Change”, enjoy yourselves.
Reply
Winsor 7:28PM (1/16/2009)
"These desire for state-specific laws started in, not surprisingly, California, though other states would surely adopt the far-left state's set of rules if given the chance."
Far left? Republican governor. Vote by the people to take civil rights away from gay people. Unable to find a budget solution because of the no tax ideology of the Republicans in the legislature. No problem for the governor to levy increased taxes on the poor and middle class to solve the problem.
It is a shame that people are so caught up into repeating ideological cant that they no longer think about what they are saying. Unfortunately in the right wing world view being informed is communistic and ignorant is patriotic.
Reply
Mike 4:18PM (1/19/2009)
If the Feds can regulate some pollution with the Clean Air Act, why not CO2?
I don't buy the argument that CO2 emissions from one state 'don't affect' others.
Currently, no US states use CO2 emissions as the basis for progressive auto-registrations (pay more to register a vehicle that emits more CO2), do they? Not even CA, AFAIK
Reply
doug 9:19PM (1/19/2009)
There is a bigger problem than the phony multiple rules argument (since any state wanting to set their own requirement would just choose California's as they do now):
The problem is that by enacting these CO2 rules, customer choice is about to be severely restricted to small vehicles that can pass the new CO2 emissions rules. Say goodbye to large cars, SUVs, CUVs, wagons, V6 and V8 engines etc.
Not every consumer's needs can be met with a Honda Fit.
Reply