January 3, 2008 5:01 AM PST

California sues EPA over denial of waiver

EPA taken to court over its decision to prevent California from adopting its own emissions standards for cars and trucks.
The New York Times

The story "California sues EPA over denial of waiver" published January 3, 2008 at 5:01 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.

28 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
What a joke!
Here you have a state trying to legislate federal matters, and all based upon a bunch of left-wing liberals ideas about global warming. Moreover, it looks like Schwarteneggar was a wolf in sheep's clothing by siding with these liberal idiots. The idea that global warming is being caused by CO2 is pure conjecture, unproven and now apparently a bunch of hooey. God, what next will come from these fringe lunatics? Cow flatulence and the banning of beef? I can see it coming, lol.
Posted by WJeansonne (480 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Federal matters
I realize you are a mental midget but maybe you could point out where emission standards are the responsibility of the federal government?

You can't?

That means that it is a state matter.

If California wants higher standards then it is their right to do so.

Your neo-con posturing and illogic doesn't change that fact.

However, I am glad that you are here to disprove a scientific fact. You must be an authority indeed to have no other outlet post anonymous slams against the scientific community.
Posted by The_Decider (3097 comments )
Link Flag
What a joke!
Here you have a state trying to legislate federal matters, and all based upon a bunch of left-wing liberals ideas about global warming. Moreover, it looks like Schwarteneggar was a wolf in sheep's clothing by siding with these liberal idiots. The idea that global warming is being caused by CO2 is pure conjecture, unproven and now apparently a bunch of hooey. God, what next will come from these fringe lunatics? Cow flatulence and the banning of beef? I can see it coming, lol.
Posted by WJeansonne (480 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Federal matters
I realize you are a mental midget but maybe you could point out where emission standards are the responsibility of the federal government?

You can't?

That means that it is a state matter.

If California wants higher standards then it is their right to do so.

Your neo-con posturing and illogic doesn't change that fact.

However, I am glad that you are here to disprove a scientific fact. You must be an authority indeed to have no other outlet post anonymous slams against the scientific community.
Posted by The_Decider (3097 comments )
Link Flag
What happened to State's Rights?
The country's founders had it right when they gave states a clear method of enacting their own laws to supersede federal rulings. This design was put into place to help minimize the influence of federal corruption.
Posted by RainCaster (164 comments )
Reply Link Flag
State Regs - Power over the People
I'm conserned with individual rights. California politicans fall over themselves to impose more regulations - power grabbing wacko's try to pass it off as being for the common good. What happened to the US Constitution that was created to limit the federal or states authority to impose upon the freedom of individuals.
Posted by arpjoe (8 comments )
Link Flag
What happened to State's Rights?
The country's founders had it right when they gave states a clear method of enacting their own laws to supersede federal rulings. This design was put into place to help minimize the influence of federal corruption.
Posted by RainCaster (164 comments )
Reply Link Flag
State Regs - Power over the People
I'm conserned with individual rights. California politicans fall over themselves to impose more regulations - power grabbing wacko's try to pass it off as being for the common good. What happened to the US Constitution that was created to limit the federal or states authority to impose upon the freedom of individuals.
Posted by arpjoe (8 comments )
Link Flag
joke...
You apparent lack of awareness regarding environmental issues is the real joke, but not so funny. Air quality is not about what side you are on politically and is not about liberal wing nuts versus conservative heroes. You are silly for even making such a comment.
Posted by shera89 (19 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Global Warming?
Seems that Golbal Warming is called a scam by a significant number of scientists whose area of study is environmental issues. California EPA may be jumping the gun for a solution to a problem that does not really exist.
Posted by arpjoe (8 comments )
Link Flag
joke...
You apparent lack of awareness regarding environmental issues is the real joke, but not so funny. Air quality is not about what side you are on politically and is not about liberal wing nuts versus conservative heroes. You are silly for even making such a comment.
Posted by shera89 (19 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Global Warming?
Seems that Golbal Warming is called a scam by a significant number of scientists whose area of study is environmental issues. California EPA may be jumping the gun for a solution to a problem that does not really exist.
Posted by arpjoe (8 comments )
Link Flag
California EPA
Name calling dosen't help. What I don't understand is why the EPA would care if Californians wanted to have their own standards. I can see why it would be important to have federal standards on things like the design of railroad tracks, or power lines, etc.. But what is the problem if California has different air polutions standards? Their might be an increased cost for items/design/manufacturing but if they want to pay for it: why not?
Posted by spothannah (145 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Here is the problem.
If California is allowed to set their own standards, then all the other states could set their own standards. Potentially, 50 different standards. One regulating emissions, one demanding higher mpg, one demanding hydrogen fuel vehicles another electric and so on. The auto industry (if there was one left) would have to respond by changing their infrastructure to accommodate all of the new requirements. How much would a car cost then? $250,000? Maybe. Then interstate commerce would cease. It would go something like "no you can't drive that carbon-emitting diesel fueled semi through our state, we have laws." As you can see, that Pandora's box is better left unopened.
Posted by suyts (824 comments )
Link Flag
California EPA
Name calling dosen't help. What I don't understand is why the EPA would care if Californians wanted to have their own standards. I can see why it would be important to have federal standards on things like the design of railroad tracks, or power lines, etc.. But what is the problem if California has different air polutions standards? Their might be an increased cost for items/design/manufacturing but if they want to pay for it: why not?
Posted by spothannah (145 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Here is the problem.
If California is allowed to set their own standards, then all the other states could set their own standards. Potentially, 50 different standards. One regulating emissions, one demanding higher mpg, one demanding hydrogen fuel vehicles another electric and so on. The auto industry (if there was one left) would have to respond by changing their infrastructure to accommodate all of the new requirements. How much would a car cost then? $250,000? Maybe. Then interstate commerce would cease. It would go something like "no you can't drive that carbon-emitting diesel fueled semi through our state, we have laws." As you can see, that Pandora's box is better left unopened.
Posted by suyts (824 comments )
Link Flag
Your argument makes sense, but...
the law is the law. That's what the simpletons (i.e. the TheDecider and Suyts) below fail to understand. The California legislature is trying to overthrow federal laws simply because it doesn't like the Bush Administration. And as the Bush Administration spokesman said it's a flagrant flip at the federal government. Put simply it's a rogue administration in California and its all about politics here and of course latest stupid liberal fad--global warming.

I suggest liberals read this article on how the climate is actually cooling--not warming. That might learn a thing or two in the process.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,320431,00.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,320431,00.html</a>
Posted by WJeansonne (480 comments )
Reply Link Flag
?????
Where did I ever give the impression that I didn't know it was law? Please read one of my above post.
Posted by suyts (824 comments )
Link Flag
Your argument makes sense, but...
the law is the law. That's what the simpletons (i.e. the TheDecider and Suyts) below fail to understand. The California legislature is trying to overthrow federal laws simply because it doesn't like the Bush Administration. And as the Bush Administration spokesman said it's a flagrant flip at the federal government. Put simply it's a rogue administration in California and its all about politics here and of course latest stupid liberal fad--global warming.

I suggest liberals read this article on how the climate is actually cooling--not warming. That might learn a thing or two in the process.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,320431,00.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,320431,00.html</a>
Posted by WJeansonne (480 comments )
Reply Link Flag
?????
Where did I ever give the impression that I didn't know it was law? Please read one of my above post.
Posted by suyts (824 comments )
Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.