California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) had harsh words
for the federal government and President Bush on Thursday over their failure to
take global warming seriously enough. Gov. Schwarzenegger announced that
the state of California is pursuing major legal
action against the federal government.
The issue heated up when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rejected a
proposal by California, Wednesday. The Californian proposal requested to
be allowed a waiver so it could cut its own emissions at a faster rate than the
new Federal guidelines, signed
into law on Wednesday. California would need such a waiver to
override the national plan and pursue its own more aggressive cuts. EPA
chief Stephen Johnson announced the decision Wednesday, which drew a firestorm
of criticism from California's government.
President Bush on Thursday defended the move, arguing, "Is it more
effective to let each state make a decision as to how to proceed in curbing
greenhouse gases? Or is it more effective to have a national strategy?"
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger escalated the war of words with the Bush
administration, on Thursday holding a press conference, and saying of the
decision, "It's another example of the administration's failure to treat
global warming with the seriousness that it actually demands. Anything
less than aggressive action on the greatest environmental threat of all time is
The National plan signed into law calls for fuel efficiency to be raised 40
percent by 2020, up to 35 miles per gallon average. California's plan
calls for 30 percent emissions cuts by 2016 and an average fuel efficiency
increase to a whopping 43.7 miles per gallon for passenger
cars and some SUVs and trucks, and 26.9 MPG for large vehicles.
California's plan was gaining popularity nationwide, with 16 states adopting it
or pledging to.
Gov. Schwarzenegger expressed his frustration at lack of discipline in its
environmental policies. He vowed to whip the government into shape with
The lawsuit was launched Thursday with a 16-page complaint from the Californian
Attorney General Jerry Brown's office. Brown's representative announced
that Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and
Washington planned to join California in the suit against the feds.
Colorado, Florida and Utah wish to adopt California's plan but have not yet
pledged to support the suit.
President Bush and the governor of this nation's highest populous state have
long held an icy relationship due to the President's environmental policies and
refusal to fund embryonic
stem cell research. An aide described this divide, saying "Even
during the re-election campaign for the president, he would come to California
and the governor wouldn't always be there to greet him."
California holds special status under the Clean Air Act, as the only state that
can specially request the EPA to allow it to enact its own regulations.
However, the EPA does not have to approve these requests, as it demonstrated
Wednesday. As the suit heats up in coming months it should be an
interesting bipartisan battle over the issue as it is drudged through the
federal legal system.
quote: President Bush on Thursday defended the move, arguing, "Is it more effective to let each state make a decision as to how to proceed in curbing greenhouse gases? Or is it more effective to have a national strategy?"
quote: the Big 3 are already occurring because these companies can't design a car that anybody actually wants (on a mass scale).
quote: The freedom of the States to enact more stringent laws and regulations take the power out of the Washington Lobbyists and put it back in the hands of the populace of each state.
quote: The fact that the US Congress has been ineffectual at best and horribly negligent at worst for at least the past 7 years makes it even more important for States to actually be able to exercise their rights.
quote: Wow, are you freakin nuts or what? Of course they make cars that people want on a mass scale. The US is the #1 auto industry in the world - and thats who they cater to first. The point is not that they cannot make a car that anyone wants - its that they cannot create a car cheap enough to profit as much as foreign cars due to our extremely outrageous environmental manufacturing laws, labor & health costs, and land value.
quote: In the case of the auto industry - this would only work if every country had the same CAFE standards, same environmental regulations in terms of manufacturing & emmissions, and the same labor & health costs.Else, you are giving out freedoms to other countries because they have none or very minimal regulations.quote>I'm assuming you mean States where you say Countries? I think it's safe to say that if California forbids auto companies to sell cars in the State if they can't maintain some average fuel economy / CO2 emmissions standard across their entire line, the auto companies will change. Sure, Montana and Rhode Island may have issues trying to influence the directions of companies, but California and New York sure can.Regarding labor costs and health costs, it's on the shoulders of the Big 3 when they originally began working with the unions (I do have issues with unions, so don't assume I'm a union lover) and negotiating contracts that they now can't fulfill. quote: Thats one of the most stupid things I've heard today. So let me guess....because republicans held office for the last 7 years, thats why things havent been effective - in your eyes. It must be all those presidential Vetos...what are there in the last 7 years...7 or 8? And what did Clinton have...40+? For being someone that said he knows about government, it seems all you know is what you read on MediaMatters. I'm no rocket scientist, but my math (not to be confused with Karl Rove's math) counts from 2000 to 2007 in my 7 years, which means that I hold the democratically controlled congress in just as much fault as the republican controlled congress. The reason we didn't see any vetoes in the first 6 years of Bush's presidency (save for the stem cell veto during the republican rule) is because the republican controlled congress was on it's knees servicing the Bush administration. That's such a senseless point to try to make, mdoggs. For the record, I don't even know what MediaMatters is, though I will "confess" that I listen to NPR.
quote: Thats one of the most stupid things I've heard today. So let me guess....because republicans held office for the last 7 years, thats why things havent been effective - in your eyes. It must be all those presidential Vetos...what are there in the last 7 years...7 or 8? And what did Clinton have...40+? For being someone that said he knows about government, it seems all you know is what you read on MediaMatters.
quote: they cannot create a car cheap enough to profit as much as foreign cars due to our extremely outrageous environmental manufacturing laws, labor & health costs, and land value.
quote: The freedom of the States to enact more stringent laws and regulations take the power out of the Washington Lobbyists and put it back in the hands of the populace of each state.
quote: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
quote: Bush should let the states choose, the states that are worried of economic backlash can choose not to impose such laws, and the states that feel they can safely impose such laws can. (such as California)
quote: There is NO reason at all that the state governments should have any say in making independant changes like this
quote: GM builds cars called Holden in Aussie that get twice the fuel economy that they do here.
quote: Honestly, look at the candidates for the 2008 election, almost to a one they're going to increase government spending and reduce free trade in favor of protectionism.
quote: I can't stand Reagan's economic policies
quote: Yeah, and how about that OZONE hole over the antarctic that is going to END ALL LIFE on the earth. Oh, wait, it closed back up didn't it?
quote: You see we could adapt to global warming if it took 100,000 years or more. But adapting to something in a few hundred years is well, not easily possible.
quote: What President Bush is doing is an act of socialism, which is unconstitutional.
quote: This needs to be treated as a managable problem, not a solvable one.
quote: Renewable energy and conserving resources have other benefits. Energy independence ALONE is justification enough. Nevermind environmental impact like air quality.
quote: Energy independence ALONE is justification enough. Nevermind environmental impact like air quality.
quote: And of course, the average temperature difference on the various planets is only driven by their distance to the Sun (certainly not by the composition of the respective atmospheres) ... The temperature on the Earth is obviously not affected by the clouds cover or the aerosols ... it depends only on the latitude with no regional pattern because obviously it depends only on the Sun's distance and input, and the incidence angle of the radiation ... Gosh, how simple are climate sciences in fact!
quote: Why do all these global warming fanatics never look at what keeps us warm in the first place, the freaking sun.
quote: If California want's out of the united states just have the guts to do it.
quote: get back only about a quarter of the money they give to federal goverment.
quote: California by itself has the 6th largest budget in the world, just think of their population and their taxes.
quote: I don't like having slavery place back in by states that think they need it :P nor do I like the plan the government has sign. I don't like having to make excuses for GM and others that CAN'T produce cleaner vehicles and argue against others that can and will. If others can do it GM should step up and do it, unless they really want to stick with gas guzzling vehicles. In any case, you can't be complaining about others, foreign or not, taking over "American" jobs when the "American" companies doesn't seem to want to help anyone but themselves.
quote: Can we trade California for Canada?
quote: Um, why? Its like if someone asks if you would rather have them poop or pee on you. Both of them are extremely unwanted events...
quote: And the latest news is that over 400 scientists, many who are members of the UN IPCC, have voiced objections to the report saying mankind is the cause of global warming.
quote: Yup. We can hardly predict the weather tomorrow. Honestly. Who are these people kidding.
quote: But I see where you are trying to say. Unsure if I agree. Perhaps another example?
quote: Give a freaking break to the IPCC and Al Gore
quote: the American Geophysical Union (more than 30,000 members worldwide whose specialty is ... guess what!?), by the American Meteorological Society etc...
quote: In 2003, we also believed that past CO2 increases correlated well with temperature rise. We didn't have the resolution to see that those temperature rises predated the CO2 increase by several centuries. M. Asher
quote: From a detailed study of the last three glacial terminations in the Vostok ice core, Fischer et al. (1999) conclude that CO2 increases started 600 ± 400 years after the Antarctic warming. IPCC 2001
quote: However, considering the large uncertainty in the ages of the CO2 and ice (1,000 years or more if we consider the ice accumulation rate uncertainty), Petit et al. (1999) felt it premature to ascertain the sign of the phase relationship between CO2 and Antarctic temperature at the initiation of the terminations.
quote: In any event, CO2 changes parallel Antarctic temperature changes during deglaciations (Sowers and Bender, 1995; Blunier et al., 1997; Petit et al., 1999). This is consistent with a significant contribution of these greenhouse gases to the glacial-interglacial changes by amplifying the initial orbital forcing (Petit et al., 1999).
quote: However, considering the large uncertainty in the ages of the CO2 and ice (1,000 years or more if we consider the ice accumulation rate uncertainty), Petit et al. (1999) felt it premature to ascertain the sign of the phase relationship between CO2 and Antarctic temperature at the initiation of the terminations. In any event, CO2 changes parallel Antarctic temperature changes during deglaciations (Sowers and Bender, 1995; Blunier et al., 1997; Petit et al., 1999).
quote: Way to go, selective quoting! Let's complete the paragraph, shall we?
quote: And you believe they all voted on it? Point in fact, the AGU's (more correctly, the AIP, of which the AGU is part) positition statement was voted on a by a 42-member board in 2003.
quote: And what exactly did that position state? That man's influence on the climate was a "concern", and more research is needed to identify that concern.
quote: Regardless if it's ever proven that man is the cause of global warming, isn't it a noble pursuit for man to behave as if it is and try to improve on how we live and how we coexist with nature? If I lived in Los Angeles I think the smog alone would be something I'd hope myself and others would feel compelled to eliminate.
quote: Conservation of our natural resources and consideration of our fellow man are noble ideals. Do we really need "proof" before we act? It's much easier to be proactive than reactive.
quote: It's funny to me that on this issue it's Liberals that wish to Conserve and Conservatives that wish to consume.
quote: So you want over 300 million Americans, let alone the rest of the globe, to change their lifestyles so that it suits you or matches your beliefs, or meets what you deem as "nobility"? What about those that say they are perfectly happy in life right now and see no reason to change. Do they have the right to not let you pursue your personal "nobility" with nature goals?
quote: Well, when you are going effect the entire global economy, countless jobs in power plants, auto industry, coal mining, etc....then YES - you had better damn well have PROOF WITHOUT A REASONABLE DOUBT why you are going to change it.
quote: Its really not funny at all. And the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" have nothing to do with conserving resources. "Conservatives" are named this way because they believe in being "fiscally conservative" - not wasting money for no reason ..... like spending trillions of dollars fighting a war on global warming that probably does not even exist and has no proof of being a man made problem if it does exist.
quote: All good things for America, right?
quote: Economic theory is just as strong as environmental theory,
quote: Look at Flint, Michigan and the current US housing market, for example. These economies crashed due to what? Changes in people's mindsets or consumer needs, possibly?
quote: Or spending trillions on a war in Iraq with no proof that there was a legitimate problem and no plan to actually succeed. While it takes "PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT" to try to change the way we view our impact on the environment, all it takes are a couple of aluminum tubes and some shady intelligence to justify going to war! You're speaking in contradictions, mdoggs.
quote: But didn't you drive a H1 Hummer until a few years ago?
quote: So what? Was he supposed to known before the scientists that GW was likely related to human activities?
quote: And nearly a 45mpg standard would require everyone to either drive a hybrid or a tiny 4 cylinder diesel. Sorry but it ain't gonna happen.
quote: California just needs to shut up.
quote: The majority of people have shown that MPG is not their primary concern.
quote: If I want to drive a 400hp V8 I should be able to.
quote: That's been starting to change as the price of gas keeps getting higher and higher.
quote: That means that automakers can still produce gas-guzzling vehicles if they want, so long as they balance it out with vehicles that exceed the target average and/or through a pricing structure that encourages more people to buy the fuel efficient model than the muscle-car model.
quote: That seems fair, as people who would rather drive a powerful but inefficient car are still free to do so, and the extra money they pay for the privilege can go to offset the damage caused by the extra pollution that results.
quote: but Middle Eastern oil dependence and pollution are not debatable - both are direct effects of petroleum usage - whether it's in your car, truck, or ag equipment.
quote: We're there for one reason: National Security. We REQUIRE petroleum to survive - without it our society would crumble. Reduce the need for said fossil fuels and we can get the F*** out of the Middle East.
quote: Actually, thats not true. Dependance on oil is an obvious fact - but that could be offset by the environmentalist stepping aside and letting the US search for oil on its own land. CO2 is not a proven pollutant, in fact, most scientists think otherwise.
quote: I hope you realize National Security and the requirement of oil are two different things. We haven't stolen any oil, and we continue to purchase it from the same places we did prior to the war.
quote: Its not the rest of the US's fault that California has such a high population and its people have to deal with the downside of that.
quote: Hydrocarbons and CO2 are two byproducts of petroleum based internal combustion engines. Last I checked, both are widely accepted as pollutants. So you think that digging up more oil is the answer instead of making our current method of delivery and usage more efficient? Thank God you're not my congressman.
quote: Those of you that do not live in CA are the ones that need to STFU - you don't have to deal with the poor air quality that so many Californians have to deal with. When your kids schools don't let them go outside for recess or play after school sports and there's a 50% childhood asthma rate in central California and YOU had to deal with it, you'd probably change your condescending, apathetic tune.
quote: I applaud California for having the balls and fortitude to call GW and his big business cronie backers to task.
quote: Why? The people of California are already some of the most wasteful in thier use of gasoline and energy of those in the entire country... and they aren't changing thier own laws and behaviours. Look around to see those that drive more than 50 miles a day or drive at speeds greater than 70mph.
quote: For example, let California reduce the speed on all roads to 45 miles per hour. It will lower congenstion (40-50 miles per hour is maximum through put on most roads) and significantly reduce fuel consumption per mile traveled. I think California can also do this to almost all roads without affecting anyone else in the country. This will probably reduce fuel consumption more then this desire to raise the CAFE standard.
quote: Also, spend significantly more on public transit and actual choose to USE it. For instance, I think in LA, almost 1 million people drive to work alone in a car. Compared to .15 million that use public transit and .2 million that carpool and you get the picture.
quote: Great, so California's want to set their own standards that they will demolish when they can no longer buy thier favorite cars rather than actively changing things they can control on a personal and state level without involving massive wasting of government money on silly fueds with the EPA and central government.
quote: That popping sound is your head being pulled out of your pro-UAW asshole. California drives the economy far more than the UAW does. I'd smack you but shit splatters.