Obama orders review of California emissions bid
Update 10:30 a.m. PST: Added new information, including comments from Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio).
President Obama on Monday signed an executive order directing the Environmental Protection Agency to immediately review its denial of California's request to set auto emissions standards stricter than the national standards, saying, "the days of Washington dragging its heels are over."
Obama commended California for trying to forge tougher fuel efficiency standards and said, "Instead of standing as a partner, Washington stood in their way."
The president also said new fuel efficiency standards should be implemented so car manufacturers can apply them to 2011 models.
"Our goal is to help American automakers prepare for the future by building the cars of tomorrow," he said.
Noting the recently announced layoffs by Microsoft, Sprint Nextel, and other major companies, Obama said urgent action is needed to pursue energy independence.
He urged Congress to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The energy provisions of the bill, he said, will create jobs for 460,000 Americans.
"America will not be held hostage to dwindling resources, hostile regimes, and a warming planet," he said. "Now is the time to make tough choices."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, called Obama's energy plans a "long overdue step for energy independence and the environment." His committee approved the energy-related portions of the so-called "stimulus" package last week, though the vote fell largely down party lines.
Republicans today were no less wary of the president's plans for stricter emissions regulations.
"I am fearful that today's action will begin the process of setting the American auto industry back even further," said Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio). "The federal government should not be piling on an industry already hurting in a time like this."
Voinovich sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, which will convene Tuesday to review portions of the economic package, as will the Senate Finance Committee. Senate Democrats are hoping to pass their version of the bill by February 6 or 7, while House Democrats intend to vote on their version this week. The aim is to get the bill on Obama's desk before Congress breaks for Presidents Day.
Stephanie Condon is a staff writer for CNET News focused on the intersection of technology and politics. She is based in Washington, D.C. E-mail Stephanie. 
Instead, it would be easier and cheaper for both consumers and manufacturers if stricter emissions and fuel efficiency standards were uniformly applied across the nation. I think the Obama Administration needs to consider what it means to have a patch work of rules and regulations, if it means that one part of the nation is allowed to pollute more than the other.
I'm not sure why energy standards are considered a state-based issue. Nor do I understand why energy efficiency is considered a liberal or conservative issue. It certainly should not be!
If this gets rid of companies that are slow, bloated and innovative, we will all be better off.
Just wondering, what do you consider to be "slow and bloated"?
Are you really ok with putting millions of people out of a job in this economy because their company doesn't fit YOUR standards? Are you willing to lose YOUR job because it might not fit within YOUR standards? Are you ok with putting the strain of all of these laid off people on our already strained unemployment system?
I don't like supporting large, cold corporations, but I am disgusted by the tasteless ignorance shoveled out by morons like you who only think of yourselves and your small-brained world, and I don't agree with putting millions out of a job so that "the good guys" can take over and eventually become the big, cold, uncaring corporations that they really are.
The only real ones at fault here are the U.S. Automakers who saw this coming (they must have, the rest of us did) and thought it a wiser move to pay lobbyists and lawyers to fight against it instead of investing in research to secure their rightful place in the future.
True creativity is not a blank piece of paper, it's one that's already got something on it that you need to work with or around.
In the end, this is a marketing gamble. California said "improve" and the car manufacturers said "We can't (won't)."
The wacko's in California (or is it Mexifornia now?) seem to want to control the entire country.
All they have to do is meet the regulations for the strictest state and all are met.
They don't have to produce a model with differing emission standards.
There is no downside to polluting less. Even if you are a member of the flat earth society and shun established science, you can at least accept that less pollution is always better. Even if global warming is not caused by man, is there a problem with polluting less?
Making cars for the most stringent standards and selling them to all markets would decrease the safety and increase the price of vehicles for everyone in the country.
That's a pretty ignorant and near-sighted comment you made there.
Auto companies have the ability to make cars run cleaner, they have the ability to make these cars popular and attractive to the people of this world.
Their problem with making their cars run cleaner? Well, the technology takes some time to produce, and every "green" alternative to running a gasoline-only car has SERIOUS drawbacks (and sometimes might hurt the environment in the long run! [pro tip: who's going to oversee the recycling of the giant batteries used on electric-only and electric hybrid vehicles when the batteries go dead?]) to power and performance. And you have to wonder if these companies weren't getting a kickback from the oil conglomerates (or senators/representatives with ties to them) to produce oil-needy vehicles! There's also the problem that even if we make our CARS run cleaner, we will still need our coal and gas -burning electric generators to run the rest of our country [especially if we start flooding the market with chargeable electric cars], and then these new cars and these electric generators are still going to need oil, grease, and other lubricants for any moving part or for heat conductance!
SUVs....they have reasons for staying and reasons for being booted out the door. A lot of their functionality can be reproduced in a decent hatchback/station wagon/ crossover, with less gas usage and a lot more safety features piled on.
The major problem in forcing auto companies to make these changes...is that the "costs" will be placed upon the consumers and the auto workers.
Right, the folks driving the SUVs survive. /Because they kill the folks in the smaller cars./
If everybody drove SUVs, there would be no safety benefit. And if everybody drove small cars, there would be no increase in deaths. The only issue I can see is getting run into by a semi. And, frankly, if you get run into by a semi, you're dead no matter /what/ you?re driving. (For the record, I?m actually in favor of cutting down on long-haul trucking as well ? replacing it with more energy-efficient trains.)
---
You can get in touch with me on my IRC channel at irc://irc.dal.net/#geekpolitics or via the redirect page which will be up soon at http://channels.dal.net/geekpolitics/redirect.html
I don't agree with everything that the "global warming" theory has to say, but I do know that oil is not a resouce that will replenish itself fast enough to keep up with our current hunger for it...and we shouldn't be relying on these human-rights viloating countries for their black gold. We Amercans should be putting money and time towards liberating ourselves from supporting OLPEC.
But just because you didn't get George Bush part 3 doesn't mean that Obama is going to make America a socialist country and all our freedoms of choice will be taken away.
Having US automakers make better cars should be viewed as an opportunity not as additional burden. They will be more compettitive compared to foreigh cars.
Too bad that senator from my state Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), does not realize that.
- by open-mind January 28, 2009 12:54 PM PST
- What do you call it when government tells industry what products to make?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(23 Comments)Hint: It's not capitalism.
In a capitalist society, government would help create demand for fuel efficient cars by offering an income-tax credit to consumers that buy one. Then just let supply/demand do the work.