Hasta la vista, Baby?
California to Sue Over Auto Emissions – AP: The state’s attorney general said Monday that he would sue the Environmental Protection Agency in an attempt to force it to decide whether to let California and 11 other states impose stricter standards on certain vehicle emissions.
The lawsuit, expected to be filed Wednesday in federal court in Washington, D.C., comes 22 months after California first asked the EPA to let the state impose tougher regulations on emissions of greenhouse gases from cars, pickup trucks and sports utility vehicles.
California wants to implement a 2002 state law that would require automakers to begin making vehicles that emit fewer greenhouse gas emissions by model year 2009. It would cut emissions by about a quarter by the year 2030. But the law can take effect only if the EPA grants the state a waiver under the Clean Air Act.
I think it’s just fucking wonderful that not only does the EPA refuse to do their damn job, they won’t even let the states do it for them. What a fucking crock!! And, I’ve said so in no uncertain terms, albeit more formally, in email to them on several occasions.
Ok… I don’t get it… why would a state need to get a waiver to go above and beyond the requirements?
Power struggle it seems. The EPA probably doesn’t want to lose its power and authority because some states want to strongarm them.
#3, Guyver;
Not a power struggle. This is simply corporations that don’t want states being able to enact state laws that are tougher than federal laws. They don’t want the inconvenience, nor do they want to pay for lobbyists at all levels of government. With only one agency to please, life is easier for the mega-corps.
A state “strongarming” the EPA would mean the state has vowed not to follow EPA policies or is trying to get the EPA to change enforcement. A state passing tougher laws is not preventing the EPA from enforcing what’s under the EPA’s jurisdiction.
And, #1: You’re spot on…
This is the result of a Federal government with too much power. That CA even has to bring this to court is ridiculous.
We need greenhouse gases. Global warming is going to save a lot more lives than it takes. That’s why some people are against it.
what i love is how neo-cons only favor states’ rights when the states want what they want
as soon as the states want better health care for their children, or cleaner air standards, they quickly become monarchists.
i swear, neo-cons are the biggest pack of liars and shameless hucksters ever to blight our great nation, and the people who follow them are simply thankful to be spoon-fed a nice collection of rationalizations for the morally untenable and reprehensible positions that they hold.
money is the root of all evil and at the root of the neo-con movement is a blind greedy lust for the acquisition of money at any cost, without any regard for anyone or anything else.
listen long enough to any neo-con talk and eventually they will tell you its always about money — it comes before even god to them.
p.s. are the real conservatives ever going to take back the GOP and kick out the neo-con extremists who have hijacked and ruined their fine party?
i think political conservativism in general, based on simple values, respect, and restraint is honorable
#4 – Mega-Corps, isn’t that what William Edgars called them? You are 100% right, lobbyist like one stop shopping. Easier to grease one Congress then worry about 50 state legislatures.
So is it an issue of control as to why California has to get a waiver to go above and beyond what the EPA requires? I’m reading a lot about how neocons suck but nothing in the way of a substantive answer.
#10;
Read #4.
Wow you complain about mega-corps, but it’s not mom and pop guys building cars. It’s not like car companies can build for just one market. California emissions rules are likely to be forced on the whole country, which is not something that the EPA should allow.
Of course, the amount of CO2 emitted by California cars doesn’t affect air quality in California either.
Why doesn’t California just put in new emissions test rules, placing the burden on the car owners?
So I guess now neo-cons are defined by global warming? I guess that makes Pat Buchanan a neo-con now!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/staticarticles/article58279.html
#12 – MikeN,
it’s not mom and pop guys building cars.
http://www.teslamotors.com
California emissions rules are likely to be forced on the whole country
Huh??!!? California rules are offensive to car companies because they don’t like making different cars for different states. So, they bitch to the government to be allowed to continue to build the same low quality, low fuel efficiency, enormous piles of crap that no one wants rather than just building good cars in the first place.
Actually I’m all for CA having this authority. The states should be competing with each other for residents, factories. CA can do this and raise their cost of living while lowering their competitiveness and hopefully damaging their economy. I’m all for it.
#16 – HMS Pinafore,
Actually, it would be an interesting experiment. I bet it would help their economy. Most things that make people want to live somewhere do help. I’m all for it too.
Stupid California. You can’t regulate the emissions. But, you might be in luck. Is there anything preventing PRC (People’s Republic of California) from enacting something similar to CAFE? Raise the fuel economy, lower the CO2 emissions. Yes, it really, really, is that simple.
Burn less fuel, create less CO2. Reason #24332 to drive a diesel. But I digress.
#18 – (People’s Republic of California)
whatever…
California is a pretty conservative state in reality… but keep blowing your hatred of Berkley and your ignorance about Hollywood out of proportion because that serves your agenda so well.
#19 – Dammit! I hardly ever drink soda and you just made me fill my sinuses. My brother lives in CA. He would beg to differ with you.
Personally, needing to get you neighbor’s approval to take down a tree on your own lot is not something I would call conservative. That’s just one typical example out of hundreds.
#17 – the things they do in CA definitely make people want to live somewhere – as in somewhere else, hence the migration to Colorado in recent years.
FYI, the car manufacturers had special emission packages for California cars for several decades, and produced “49 state cars” and “California cars”. I don’t know if this is still true, as the improvements in engine technology and stricter laws in other states may have made the point moot.
But of course CO2 is another thing altogether. You really have to burn less fuel to reduce CO2, and that means lighter cars, smaller engines, and alternative technologies rather than just tuning tweeks and such.
Oh, and Global….my governor can beat up your governor!
#18 stupid conservatives — always ready to slag california and their rich tradition of electing GOP governors, like um, RONALD FREAKING REAGAN
damn, i don’t even know what to say — are you really that stupid? realty? it’s hard to imagine someone being so woefully ignorant of their own political party’s history
WTF?
>piles of crap that no one wants
Actually it’s the result of the mandates that people don’t want. That’s why they need a law to force these cars on people. Even Toyota is building bigger cars here.
#21 – “my governor can beat up your governor!”
Well yeah, now. Jesse against Arnie, now that would be fun to watch.
#10. to answer your question – there is a legal doctrine called ‘preemption.’ when the Feds have regulated a topic – say, auto emissions – courts will say that, absent some specific waiver by the Feds, States can no longer regulate that subject. this holds true even if the States are imposing higher standards than the Feds.
conservatives blather on about ‘Federalism,’ and respecting the power of the State governments. Bob Dole once even said he carried a copy of the 10th Amendment around in his breast pocket, close to his heart.
(I would have preferred the 1st or 2nd myself, but hey, whatever)
Anyway, this tends to fade in practice, where the Feds taking over a subject will favor the GOP’s favored constituency – big business. Note the GOP faithful lambasted Fred Thompson for opposing Federal preemption of lawsuits and his faithfully (traditional) conservative reply, “I think States themselves should set the limits for lawsuits in their courts.”
The GOP also tends to favor using the Federal government to preempt State ‘morals’ laws they do not favor, such as assisted suicide in Oregon or medical marijuana in any number of states. A cannabis clinic can be perfectly legal under CA law – permits and everything – and still get busted by the Feds. also, the GOP favors a constitutional amendment banning abortion, regardless of states that would keep it legal even absent Roe v. Wade (and there are plenty). this is consistent with the recent Federal law banning so-called ‘partial birth’ abortion, overriding the few State laws under which this is legal.
but accusing politicians is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500 …
#25. that last sentence should be “but accusing politicians of hypocrisy is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500 ….”
#7. As an atheist, I can assure you that god is waaaay down on my list of priorities, and money is pretty high up there. So is the environment, which is why I drive a hybrid (and save lots of cash by getting great gas mileage).