EPA Rejects California's Auto Emissions Waiver
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 12.20.07
Image courtesy of Vibragiel
Going against the better judgment of his agency's legal and technical staffs, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson shot down California's proposed auto emissions waiver, arguing that the recently enacted energy bill would do more to combat global warming than "a confusing patchwork of state rules." That, of course, is blatantly wrong: yes, it does contain renewable energy requirements but, as California state officials have pointed out, the waiver would require a mileage average of 36 mpg by 2016 - as opposed to the energy bill's 35 mpg by 2020.
What is most infuriating about Johnson's decision is that 16 other states, representing over half of the U.S. population, had either already adopted or pledged to adopt California's tailpipe emissions rules - flying in the face of his "patchwork of state rules" argument. This denial comes in the wake of decisions recently made by federal judges in Vermont and California to block carmakers' attempts to strike down state tailpipe regulations; no doubt the lobbying efforts of several major companies, including Ford and Chrysler, helped "influence" Johnson's decision.
In denying the waiver, Johnson chose to completely disregard the opinions of his staff who had recommended that he either approve it or authorize it for a trial period before reassessing it. For some context, California had heretofore never been denied a wave in the Clean Air Act's 37-year history; the landmark piece of legislation specifically authorizes states to set their own air pollution regulations as long as they get exemptions from the federal government.
So why the change now? According to Johnson, this waiver is "different" because climate change is a "global problem that requires a clear national solution," not one appropriate for individual states to take on. Fortunately, environmentalists and California legislators are confident that they will be able to get the decision repealed; notch yet another environmental success to the Bush record.
For a great analysis of Johnson's decision, read Grist's David Roberts' take here.
Via ::The Washington Post: EPA Chief Denies Calif. Limit on Auto Emissions (newspaper)
See also: ::Other States to Adopt California's Emissions Standards, Sue Pants Off EPA, ::EPA Petitioned to Limited CO2 Emissions from Ships
The U.S. gubbermint is the enemy of the earth, and the people who reside on it.
California simply needs to ignore the EPA's decision and implement its own car emissions standards. Let it go to the Supreme Court so that they can repeat once again what they have already said: global warming is a pollution problem and the EPA needs to get up off its ass and do something about it. I'd like to see industry try to buy off a Supreme Court justice.
Un....friggin.....unbelievable
Environmental Protection Agency
Does this mean their JOB is to protect the environment? You would think
There have been 50 requests to the EPA for waivers for stricter environmental laws in states in the last 40 years, all have been granted.
We have power in this, we pay their salary, numbers count!
Write the EPA, The Governator is going to sue, support that suit by flooding their office with letters.
Send a letter here:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
There is a link here, to send an email through Environmental Defense (http://action.environmentaldefense.org/campaign/EPA_decwaiver/w68ewgi21775jtei?),
or email EPA administrators here:
THIS IS THE MAIN PERSON TO CONTACT:
Contact Information: Jennifer Wood, (202) 564-4355 / wood.jennifer@epa.gov
The second, a person in charge of public comment, Jean Harding, harding.jean@epa.gov
Un....friggin.....unbelievable
Environmental Protection Agency
Does this mean their JOB is to protect the environment? You would think
There have been 50 requests to the EPA for waivers for stricter environmental laws in states in the last 40 years, all have been granted.
We have power in this, we pay their salary, numbers count!
Write the EPA, The Governator is going to sue, support that suit by flooding their office with letters.
Send a letter here:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
There is a link here, to send an email through Environmental Defense (http://action.environmentaldefense.org/campaign/EPA_decwaiver/w68ewgi21775jtei?),
or email EPA administrators here:
THIS IS THE MAIN PERSON TO CONTACT:
Contact Information: Jennifer Wood, (202) 564-4355 / wood.jennifer@epa.gov
The second, a person in charge of public comment, Jean Harding, harding.jean@epa.gov
With a population of over 33 million -- at least 12% of the US population, perhaps much higher if all persons living there were counted. Even with a very shaky economy, they have an output greater than many so-called 1st world nations. My goodness, you have to wonder when the Second Civil (fill in the blank) will start.
CA has set many standards, both legal and technical, led the way on many social issues and stands as the yardstick for what many people aspire to in their lives. And some bureaucrat has the brass to turn down this request. Tell me it ain’t so Toto..
It seems Bush mutated the EPA into an anti-environmental agency. I would be very much interested in a in-depth article about how he did this. For example, which personal changes etc.
The "Starve the Beast" bunch have gone out of their way to pander to the oil and coal industries since Reagan. With AWOL and Buckshot in the White House they have just accomplished more in two terms than they normally could have in ten terms. When they finally leave office, they will have left a swath of destruction unlike that of any other in history.
As far as they are concerned, the EPA should be history, or at the very least (due to their love of Orwellian titles) be renamed "Vanguard of Defense for our Precious Environment". The NeoCons do like their doublespeak.
The conservatives' dilemma:
Are states rights to be respected, or is it more important to have low but "uniform" national standards that favor oil companies and makers of highly profitable but inefficient vehicles.
Stephen Johnson just gave us the answer to this perennial debate. Detroit wins.
Perhaps this may sound naive but can't California or any other state simply tax HIGHLY and YEARLY any cars that do not meet a certain MPG or emissions minimum? I believ they are within their rights and the EPA would have no say in this. I'm guessing it would acheive the same ends...and possibly faster. Presumably consumers would avoid those cars that would require high annual taxes and start making a change.
I don't live in California, and don't figure the federal government is going to do anything helpful in the near term. I have written my two favorite domestic automobile manufacturers and let them know that I'm not interested in buying anything that gets less than 50 combined mpg. (I want mileage equal to or better than a Prius.) When they ask what vehicles I am considering for my next purchase, I let them know I'm looking to buy or convert my own car to an EV, but would buy a reasonably priced plug-in hybrid if it came to the market anytime soon with 50 or more miles battery electric range.
Couldn't California enact a tax on new car sales based on EPA mileage estimates and accomplish the same goals? With mileage inversely proportional to CO2 emissions the tax would discourage the purchase of low mileage vehicles. Proceeds could be used to encourage conservation, purchase CO2 credits or provide rebates to purchasers of high mileage vehicles.
Finally!!, the government is finally pulling it's head out and not letting California and CARB to set the U.S. policy on emissions.
As stated, if this would have passed, it's possible that we would have had a different regulation for each state! ~ how stupid is that!!
I use to work in the auto industry (and do emission testing) and I can honestly say that about half the cost of each car is spent on stupid government regulations ~ like this one.