Montana could follow California on greenhouse gas rules
Montana could soon become the latest state to adopt California emissions rules if a recently-introduced bill becomes law. California still hasn't received the go-ahead from the EPA to even regulate carbon dioxide emissions but Montana Senate Bill 180 would make CO2 a regulated pollutant. If the EPA reverses a late-2007 ruling, automakers will have to achieve a fleet average of 44 mpg by the end of the next decade in order to meet the California standards. Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer supports the senate bill and sent a representative to testify at a recent hearing. While Montana would simply adopt the standards set by California, state regulators would have to ensure that automakers meet the standard in the state based on sales. The Montana bill would also extend beyond cars an regulate emissions from commercial and industrial sources.
[Source: Green Car Congress]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Mike!!ekiM 8:38PM (2/08/2009)
Is this proof the Oil and Coal industry propaganda campaign is losing? Montana going Green is Big. The US Lenin Oil and Marx Coal, the Rush "I Don't know What I'm Talking About" Limbaugh Age of Incompetence about to end? Will we finally make law to save this planet for your grandkids start to happen?
I don't believe it.
Reply
Mike!!ekiM 8:43PM (2/08/2009)
Why does "Clean-Coal" keep advertising a product that doesn't exist?
I believe this is SHUT-UP money for ABC, CBS and NBC. When's the last time you heard a report about Global Warming and weather pattern weirding in the news? "Clean-Coal" is Kick-Back money to the news organizations to shut up about global warming.
Even PBS is getting into the act, with lots of spots about "increasing supply" for oil. On PBS, not one word about Climate Change. Let's keep those dollars rolling in.
The Oil and Coal industry, what product to they make? PROPAGANDA.
Reply
Max 10:14PM (2/08/2009)
Mike!!ekiM, you've got it absolutely right.
TV networks do not play programs that are going against their advertiser's will. If they showed news of how Global Warming is affecting the world right before a Clean Coal ad, then the coal industry will fire back by cancelling their ads (and money).
Rain 8:46PM (2/08/2009)
WTF?
Do they intend to put catalytics on all the chimneys of the hillbilly cabins?
They have not held jobs in years up there and no reason too with hunting and fishing unregulated,welfare and free firewood.
They grow their own smoke,mushrooms,meth and make their own beer and wine the only thing they need money for is bullets and gas and they get that from shining on the tourist's and prostitution,real conservative hotbed there.
If the Fish and Wildlife and logging goes unenforced,where do they get the idea that some kind of regulation on emmisions is going to make any difference?
Its just like Alaska except with out lobbyist's.
Oh My People!
Reply
MMGW farce 11:07PM (2/08/2009)
I am the first to voice the need for conservation and efficient living, I added thousands of dollars in efficiency upgrades when I built my house and drive a 40mpg car (I know that I not saving the world but it is a start…) in my investigation I cannot find enough evidence to support the adoption of CO2 as a pollutant. Correlation (CO2~temperature) does not necessarily equal causation… this is one of the first things taught in a high school science class.
I really think that we, as the green crowd should drop the fight on MMGW where we tend to take an adversarial position with some of our own as well as most of the “conservative” crowd and focus all of our efforts on efficiency, recycling and renewable energy (not corn ethanol) where there is overwhelming support across all ideologies. Consensus = results where MMGW = debate, rhetoric, government overreach and political posturing.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 3:17AM (2/09/2009)
Unfortunately, we cannot run experiments in a controlled environment to try to separate correlation from causation in this case. And the downside of it being a causationary situation are so high that many people think the best thing to do is assume it is a causative link and act appropriately.
Max 5:23AM (2/09/2009)
MMGW farce:
"Correlation (CO2~temperature) does not necessarily equal causation…"
A great example of average Joe, who has absolutely no scientific background, deciding that climate change is not related to CO2, in the face of 99% of of the world's top scientists. There is overwhelming evidence that CO2 is related to global warming, but I assume that Clean Coal ads, Exxon Mobil ads ("We call it life") and a healthy dose of FoxNews are enough evidence of the contrary to you?
robert 6:41AM (2/09/2009)
Uh-oh, Al's scam is being exposed.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d21-Oceans-are-cooling-according-to-NASA
RSR 8:06AM (2/09/2009)
"99% of of the world's top scientists." - That's the most unscientific claim I heard today. Define top scientists. Does Bill Nye the science guy count as the top scientist? All of sudden, everyone with some science background is climate expert now.
Christine Smith 9:29AM (2/09/2009)
MMGW writes: "Correlation (CO2~temperature) does not necessarily equal causation… this is one of the first things taught in a high school science class."
Apparently while you were paying attention in statistics class, you were not paying attention in your basic earth science class where they taught about the greenhouse effect. CO2 is not said to affect temperature based merely on correlation. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. By defintion, greenhouse gases "...allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere freely. When sunlight strikes the Earth’s surface, some of it is re-radiated back towards space as infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases absorb this infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere." ~http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm
The link between CO2 and temperature is a basic physical process that has been understood for over 100 years. If you want to question the future impacts of climate change on a scientific basis, that's fine, but the underlying concepts and mechanics of it are beyond question scientifically.
For more information, see the following:
http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
http://climate.dot.gov/about/overview/science.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
MMGW farce 7:17PM (2/09/2009)
I do not believe that I will be able to convince any of you that the evidence just does not support MMGW just as I will not be able to convince a back woods Baptist that god is not real (I am also an atheist… go figure). It is like the new washed-up hippy liberal douche religion, you guys are incorrigible. Even though MMGW is only a theory, the debate is closed to you guys and I know that.
My comment was not to change your mind, it was to impress on you that there is an easier way to reduce CO2 other than being adversarial and direct (see above… hurts doesn’t it). The main problem with convincing the public at-large is that temperatures fluctuate naturally support will ebb and flow with it. There is a lot of resistance to MMGW in the general public and it is growing the colder and longer that this winter gets. The best way is to show people that they can save money, be a good citizen and that we can be nationally energy independent if we go down the efficiency, recycling, and renewable path.
If you want YOUR GOVERNMENT to mandate a natural occurring gas on a theory with who knows what unintended consequences you will get a lot of resentment from the logical among us. If you want to truly reduce CO2 then let’s get serious about efficiency, recycling, and renewable energy and leave the theory where it belongs, in study at NOAH.
noz 1:20AM (2/09/2009)
Pollution collectors are far less effective than changing the process...and cheaper too in the mid-to-long term.
Reply
Julius 9:49AM (2/09/2009)
Ah - here we go:
"While Montana would simply adopt the standards set by California, state regulators would have to ensure that automakers meet the standard in the state based on sales."
This is what the automakers are worried about re: 50-state-variable regulations. If all states mandate a certain CO2 limit for light vehicles, then that would mandate different mixes of vehicles and engines based on local sales.
And arguably, if CO2 is necessarily a regulated pollutant, then it should be regulated re: gm/mile as all the other ones are. Otherwise, the regulation is less useful than an outright carbon tax in terms of reduction of CO2 emissions.
Reply
GoodCheer 10:28AM (2/09/2009)
I agree with you that a carbon tax, or cap-and-trade would be better than individual market, individual fuel regulations.
However, the argument that there could ever be 50 individual standards is bunk. There can, by law, only be two standards: Those of the EPA, and those of CARB.
CARB established standards before the formation of the EPA, so CA rules are grandfathered in as THE ONLY possible exception to federal rules. That's why you keep hearing about states adopting California's rules, not making up their own.
Carmakers already make vehicles for multiple standards. Canada, Europe and Japan all have different standards from the US, yet carmaker manage to make models that are sold in those places. California already has different standards for criteria pollutants (NOx, SOx, unburned hydrocarbons, particulates etc), yet carmakers manage to make models that are sold in there.
Opposition to the law from the carmakers is just like opposition to seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, crashworthiness standards, the last round of emissions restrictions, and everything else. It won't destroy the industry, it'll just raise the bar for everyone.
Julius 11:41PM (2/09/2009)
@ Goodcheer:
The problem phrase in the reg is this:
"The fleet average greenhouse gas exhaust mass emission values from passenger
cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles that are ***produced and delivered for sale in California*** each model year by a large volume manufacturer shall not exceed..."
So if Montanans accept this phraseology, then the local standard to be met will have to fit the sales mix of Montana, not California - hence the multi-state issue. That is, unless the other states that accept the CARB standards will do so by fitting their regs to California sales mixes.
If that happens, then the automakers would be in compliance by shipping low-CO2 vehicles to California only - a circumstance that doesn't make sense.
The big issue here isn't one of "each vehicle will not produce more than XXX gm/mile of emission", it's one of "each automaker's FLEET SOLD IN OUR STATE will produce on average less than XXX gm/mile", something that is better averaged over the country, not over individual states.
An example of this is Subaru. Imagine if Subaru sells less than 60,000 cars in California annually (they tend to be more popular in snow belt states). Then Subaru won't be held to the standard, and is free to conform to the (lower) US EPA standard. Conversely, Honda might take a hit on its Acura TSX's w/ AWD if too many are sold in California, even though the line is generally fuel-efficient.
So much sales-engineering would have to happen to force compliance with individual fleet sales averages, something that can be difficult to achieve in practice.
Throwback 1:28PM (2/09/2009)
What law says there can only be 2 standards EPA and CARB? Once one state is allowed to regulate emmissions, all states will be allowed to regulate by passing laws based on vehicle sales. That is why one standard is the better way to go.
Reply
GoodCheer 2:59PM (2/09/2009)
"What law says there can only be 2 standards EPA and CARB?"
The Clean Air Act
mike!!ekiM 7:43PM (2/09/2009)
Australian Forest Fires, another example of Global Warming and the Taleb Distribution:
Insurance company Allianz estimates that industry-insured losses from the fires could top 500 million Australian dollars (325 million US dollars).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taleb_Distribution
No matter how much money the oil and coal industry make delaying a solution to global warming, it will all be lost by the Black Swan of Global Warming. Global Drought, food shortages, acidic oceans, and destroyed economies.
MMGW farce, it's time to sell your Coal stock and put your money into a solution to the problem, if it's not too late.
California, is the first of the 48 states to be hardest hit by the effects of global warming, it's only a matter of time before it starts to clobber the other 47 just as hard.
Reply
MMGW farce 9:43PM (2/09/2009)
This is exactly the attitude that I am talking about. You degrade me because I have not bought into the MMGW THEORY. This is the same line of thought that religious zealots used to burn lots of people at the stake. This MMGW “religion” has caused people to throw out their objectivity and believe what ever they have been told by the latest Hollywood documentary.
I am probably doing more about CO2 reduction than 90% of Americans and I don’t even believe in MMGW, it is because I practice efficiency. This is my point, you all can get the same CO2 reducing effect easier and faster with the rational argument that it is patriotic to be efficient, recycle and push renewable energy (not corn ethanol) rather than pissing people off by degrading their intelligence because they do not share your belief in the theory.
And by the way, what has happened localized in California over a short period of a few years not prove that MMGW exists. It is called GLOBAL WARMING not California warming and it happens over many decades or a century or more.
mike!!ekiM 10:52PM (2/09/2009)
How can you write Wacko paragraphs 1 and 3, and sane paragraph 2?
There is no similarity between religion and science. I base my religious beliefs on faith and my scientific beliefs on science, from public sources and public papers I can review. From sources who don't hide their funding.
Man Made Global Warming is Burning up Australia Today. It was burning up California forests just months ago. It isn't going to stop, nor does it care, if you BELIEVE.