backtop

Science California Sues Federal Government Over CO2
Jason Mick (Blog) - December 21, 2007 2:13 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 157 comment(s) - last by matriarch wolf.. on Feb 27 at 3:10 PM

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger held a press conference in Sacramento Thursday to announce his plans to sue the national government.  (Source: Rich Pedroncelli / AP)
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California try to force the U.S. government to terminate greenhouse gases with a big suit

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 inexcusable."

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 legal action.

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.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Bush
By Some1ne on 12/21/2007 2:52:57 PM , Rating: 4
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?"


His argument doesn't make any sense. It's clearly most effective to let each state make their own decision, with the provision that any legislation enacted at the state-level must be at least as stringent as the legislation applied at the national level. In such a case, you'd be guaranteed to at least achieve the federally mandated goal, and depending upon what the states decided to do, you may even exceed it by a wide margin.

It's win-win if states are allowed to elect to exceed the federal requirements, and the president/his administration are probably just pandering to corporate interests more than anything else (like they usually do) in their efforts to block the California plans.




RE: Bush
By jbartabas on 12/21/2007 3:18:55 PM , Rating: 3
I have a very superficial knowledge of American politics but, isn't the conservative president supposed to think that big centralized government is much less efficient that local governments?? :-D


RE: Bush
By mdogs444 on 12/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Bush
By tdawg on 12/21/2007 4:11:10 PM , Rating: 5
Some of these "outrageous" standards are already being met in other countries. Job losses with the Big 3 are already occurring because these companies can't design a car that anybody actually wants (on a mass scale). As these car companies die, due to their inability to adapt to market forces and consumer desires, foreign companies will take up residence in the United States and supply auto workers with jobs, companies such as Subaru, Kia, and I think Hyundai, all have US assembly plants that give jobs to many Americans.

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. 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.


RE: Bush
By mdogs444 on 12/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: Bush
By tdawg on 12/21/2007 4:53:28 PM , Rating: 3
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.


The success of the US auto industry, as with any industry, is the ability to sustain profits and make shareholders money, right? Ford's doing a great job of that. You can't honestly look at the Big 3 and say, "Hey, they're doing a hell of a job!" Even with import tarrifs and transport costs of the foreign auto manufacturers, they are doing much better in catering to the desires of the populace as a whole.

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.


RE: Bush
By G2cool on 12/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: Bush
By zombiexl on 12/21/2007 6:06:13 PM , Rating: 4
Are you serious? Do you vote?

2000 was the election year. The president doesnt take office until the following Jan (Bush took office a little later due to people who were too stupid to vote being allowed to vote in florida). That means in 2008 he will have been there for 7 years. If he was already in office 8 years he would be working on his ninth year.


RE: Bush
By LogicallyGenius on 12/21/2007 11:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
He wants to TERMINATE the power of Local Govt.
Clearly he is working for the secret govt that has also appointed BUSH, what a drama.


RE: Bush
By erikejw on 12/22/2007 12:04:53 AM , Rating: 4
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?"


I thought that was the problem. US have no strategy at all or should I say the strategy is to ignore it.


RE: Bush
By camped69 on 12/26/2007 10:56:34 AM , Rating: 2
You mean the delay due to the vote fraud perpetrated on the American people by baby bush's little brother?? WTF?


RE: Bush
By ElFenix on 12/31/2007 12:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
bush did not take office later than usual.


RE: Bush
By FastLaneTX on 12/21/2007 7:10:03 PM , Rating: 5
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.

You would have a point there, except those "foreign" car companies are making their cars in the US. The Camry and Accord, the best selling cars in America for the last decade or so, are made here, for instance. In contrast, more and more "American" cars are being made in Mexico and Canada. The highest-paid auto workers in the country are at a Mercedes plant, and the second highest-paid are at a Toyota plant.


RE: Bush
By tmouse on 12/26/2007 10:04:52 AM , Rating: 2
Actually the cars are assembled in the US. All of the foreign car makers use a minumn of 75% to around 90% parts imported from other countries, so the cheap labor rate and no enviormental production laws arguments still apply.


RE: Bush
By eye smite on 12/21/2007 10:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter if they're republican, democrat, or independent, politicians can't save us from themselves. This isn't a country for the people, it's a country for the Corporations. There's no profit in using different fuel, but I say down the tube with the big 3 and the oil companies if they don't find a way to change and fast. Get rid of them.


RE: Bush
By matriarch wolf on 2/27/2008 3:10:33 PM , Rating: 2
too true


RE: Bush
By Alexstarfire on 12/22/2007 1:02:44 AM , Rating: 5
The only thing the US is #1 at is owning the most cars and being the most wasteful. I guess you don't realize that even if Toyota and all the other Japanese car manufacturers made all of there cars in Japan that there land value is MUCH higher than most of the US.

I guess you also forgot that the imported cars still have adhere to the standards in the US. I don't see Toyota cars getting banned from driving in California, now do I? Must have also forgotten that the US has the lowest MPG average out of every country in the world.