EPA says 17 states can't set emission rules for cars

Energy bill signed into law by Bush pre-empts standards set by states, EPA says. Automakers applaud, environmental groups vow to sue.
The New York Times

The story "EPA says 17 states can't set emission rules for cars" published December 20, 2007 at 6:10 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.

[the_piano_man]

What are these people thinking?

What in the heck is our government thinking? I cannot believe this. The corporations have us (and the government people) believing that a green economy will cause jobs to go away! What a joke. How many jobs have been moved offshore already and we don't have anything near a green economy? Give me a break. A green economy will CREATE jobs - you fools. The problem is we have to get off our collective lazy &###@# behinds and learn new skills. Maybe go back to school. (Oh my God we can't do that we'd be like kids - GET OVER IT - get your behind back to school and learn how to stop poisoning your next generations' water and air).

We are fighting a war to promote democracy (Remember? Just like the one in Vietnam) that is really a war for oil and many people have lost their lives. Our air is filled with pollutants causing asthma and cancer (on a foggy morning wipe off your car windshield with a white cloth and see how it turns black - really try it - we all are breathing that crap every single day). Our water is polluted in many places and filled with chemicals like bromates that are cancer causing substances. We need our oil reserves for DEFENSE not offense. We got our first heads up in 1973 during the oil embargo. That was 34 years ago. Basically nothing was done. And nothing was learned. How sad.

[factuality]

What are you thinking?

Wow, what a rambling, off-topic, panic-filled comment!

What does reducing automotive CO2 emissions have to do with "stop poisoning your next generations' water and air"? CO2 isn't poisoning those! I mean, if I exhale (I think you realize humans exhale CO2) while standing next to you, am I poisoning you?

Also, we've got this stuff called "dirt" that lies around on and next to roads. When you wipe off your windshield on a foggy morning with a white cloth, that's mainly what shows up on the cloth - dirt.

You say "our water is polluted in many places and filled with chemicals like bromates that are cancer causing substances". What the heck does that have to do with automotive CO2 emissions?

Similarly, what the heck do our oil reservers have to do with CO2 emissions?

Here's a question for you...what is the point of the new laws California wants to pass? The intent is to "help curb global warming" - save the world stuff, ya know. Do you realize that if California's proposed laws were put into effect (in California and the 16 other states) it would have an imperceptible effet on "global warming". So I ask you, what's the point?

[freeman92011]

Arnold Speaks

Our good governor states in the article that the EPA is blocking tens of millions of peoples? will. Let's think about this...If ten's of millions of people want very high mileage then why haven't the automakers produced such cars/trucks already. I?ll give you a hint: IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE. Cost equals resources so they are not efficient. Not being efficient means they are NOT good for the environment. The TRUTH is a select few of environmentalist want to control the rest of us who are NOT willing to pay for such fuel minimization.

[oxtail01]

We don't need your "hint" - get real!

Since you haven't heard, US automakers don't push fuel efficient cars because they don't make as much money on them as with huge SUVs and trucks. The TRUTH is that the US cars makers have done a brilliant job of brain washing weaklings like you! Please , check out some of the fuel efficient cars - they're way cheaper then the monstrocities being pushed by US automakers.

[rubicante]

Re: Arnold Speaks

Well, the discussion is about driving smaller cars, not more expensive cars. Last I checked a Honda Civic was less expensive than any truck on the market. Anyway, your argument sounds like a logical construct you've created so you don't have to really think about the issue. It's not even really about greenhouse gases -- remember smog? It's also important to recognize that not all environmentalists are whacko left-wingers.

Your argument "cost equals resources so they are not efficient" is not true. I don't know what gave you this idea. Devaluation or inflation of the dollar is not bad for the environment.

[wiscojason]

Flawed logic

"If ten's of millions of people want very high mileage then why haven't the automakers produced such cars/trucks already."

Actually, they have. (Ever hear of the Prius?) Just because US automakers haven't done a thing doesn't mean it's not being done elsewhere.



"Cost equals resources so they are not efficient."

This is such a patently false statement that it's hard to rebut. (I can't argue with logic like *that*!)

Cost = What the manufacturer spent producing a good.
Price = the highest price the market will bear.
Profit,Loss = the difference between cost and price.

Basic Capitalism, Economics 101. The price set by the manufacturer is always going to be the highest price the market will bear, regardless of cost. The reason SUVs are pushed and efficiency is not is because it is more costly to produce a fuel efficient vehicle, therefore the profit margin is lower. In other words, US automakers are much more concerned with making money than they are with the health and well being of this country or any other. That's not necessarily a bad thing, however market forces will eventually change their minds for them. (i.e. people will start to care, and thus spend their money differently and US automakers will have to change their ways or suffer the fate of every company that cannot maintain marketshare: they will die.) The gray area in that argument is the old paradox: Do companies advertise the goods that people want or do people want the goods that companies advertise? When it comes to unknown new products it seems that advertising controls buying. As products become ubiquitous to the market that trend reverses and companies scramble to advertise that they too are selling that new product that everyone wants.


"Not being efficient means they are NOT good for the environment."
This also makes no sense whatsoever but it's predicated on the previous statement that also was a fallacy so all logical connections break down from there. Not being economically efficient has no relation at all to whether something is "good" or "bad" for the environment. Natural resources, although related to, are not the same thing as financial resources.

"The TRUTH is a select few of environmentalist want to control the rest of us who are NOT willing to pay for such fuel minimization."

I'd be interested in meeting some of these select few environmentalists. What is their motivation? They can't be the owners of Toyota because their efforts would create more competition in the market place, therefore lowering prices, and thus profits, for their company. They can't be the US automakers because they obviously don't want emissions standards. So tell me, who are these diabolical people, spending trillions of dollars to mislead the entire worlds population into believing in a phony climate crisis? What do they stand to gain?

[bigduke]

Too expensive to make cars???

Our 2 year old Prius is far ahead of any proposed standard. And the price premium was about the tax credit we got (not available for this make now) for the purchase of a FUEL EFFICIENT automobile.

If Toyota can mass produce such a car why can't the heavy iron mongers of Detroit come close?


duke

[DrColes]

Political propaganda is NOT science

Political propaganda is NOT science. UK court says Gore is a fraud. August 2007 Update: Man-made Catastrophic Global Warming Not True. Unfortunately, Hansen is a political hack of George Soros. Further, flawed NASA Global Warming data paid for by George Soros. In order to be an intelligent reader you must have a basic knowledge. Please do your own homework; a starting point http://www.InteliOrg.com/ Remember CONSENSUS is NEVER science it?s always a POLITICAL STATEMENT (a Party Line).

[wiscojason]

Court decisions aren't statements of fact

A UK court decision disputing some data in a movie by an ex vice president doesn't override overwhelming data and consensus in the scientific community about the effects of carbon solids in the Earth's atmosphere. Peer reviewed journals and newsletters and publications of the scientific community are squarely on the side of evidence; carbon solids in the atmosphere trap warmth close to the Earth, which causes the atmosphere to warm, which trickles down into all sorts of changes, known and unknown as of yet, for the planet. Propaganda fighting propaganda is still just propaganda...

[rubicante]

Re: Political propaganda is NOT science

Unless you have a graduate degree in environmental science, I suggest keeping your opinion to yourself. It's pretty arrogant to think that you know better than the entire scientific community.

[wiscojason]

Big Government

I like how republicans always trot out the Big Government fear-mongering tactics... until it's a local issue that might disrupt business as usual for their corporate owners. Then all of a sudden a blanket federal program or policy is just what is needed. If they weren't such blind absolutists (according to their own propaganda) it wouldn't appear so strange. However, for people who berate our educational system endlessly for teaching relativism and situational ethics it appears as the absolute height of hypocrisy for them so engage in those exact same behaviors.

[freeman92011]

Big Business versus Big Government

Why do you fear big business but not fear big government. Our founding fathers feared big government...

[atomicblast2000]

Energy Bill Stupid

What the heck - this was the most retarded piece of legislation ever --- well maybe not ever but -- anyhow -- it: 1) took power from the states to best determine their emission rules and regulations and, 2) on top of this is set a mandate for 35mpg average on cars by the year 2020.

I don't know what planet these legislators live on but there are quite a few cars that exist at this very moment that meet these standards of 35mpg -- (mostly imports, and im not just talking about hybrids either) -- my 2001 VW Jetta diesel gets ave of 44mpg (the EPA sticker said 50MPG) what the heck! This MPG increase should take effect 2010 or sooner not 2020... for heavens sake if its the year 2020 and we still have cars (not trucks) that just get a lousy 35 mpg that would be a total shame - 10 years should at least get you to nearly double say say around 60+ mpg (there are some exotic cars that even today get this good of millage).

Second this legislation took power from the states to enact its own auto emission requirements from 17 states, (nearly all densely populated states) - if were ever going to try to cut back on the amount of natural resources we as a nation consume -- (last i recall it think the American population goes through 22 million barrels of oil a day) - and guess where all that $ goes - overseas, to countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc...

Hence the reason for our meddling in other countries like Iraq, you think if we really wanted to help people w would have helped the people in Darfur... (but then again theres no oil there...) this is going to be a hot topic in the coming election - this is just one more reason we need Ron Paul in there to reduce the power from the federal govt, get ti out of the hands of special interests, and corporations and return it to the states and the people. And until this but until power is restored to the people, which over the years has been stolen from us on both sides of the political spectrum (with unions, health care & defense companies being prime examples) - the American people will continue to be treated like dogs until the quest for greed and control ceases. So its time to face reality, and acknowledge that things have gone too far for some time now and there is little hope in the current system, which is why it is imperative for us not to divide the vote but to participate by running in local and state elections, changing the system from within by always voting to reduce the power of the federal government, and return power to the states and to the people. We are now outsiders, our country as been taken from us long ago - if you still you think you live in a nation of "we the people", and think that we live in a free country think again... our only real recourse in taking back out county is from within, and in working the system as best we can for the sake of freedom.


-- Go Ron Paul

[factuality]

mpg

You said: "my 2001 VW Jetta diesel gets ave of 44mpg".

That's great for you, but some people have large families that won't fit into a VW Jetta. They need a bigger vehicle like a van or SUV, which obviously will get less mpg than a Jetta.

Some people like driving a big luxury car with a powerful engine. Such a car will obviously get less mpg than a Jetta.

Some people drive big trucks because they need to haul heavy things around a lot. A big truck like this has a big engine, and will obviously get less mpg than a Jetta.

The 35 mpg standard is an average across a manufacturer's entire line of cars/trucks - some of which may get 20 mpg, some may get 30 mpg, some may get 40 mpg or more. So saying that the automakers should be able to get to 60+ mpg average in 10 years is pretty unrealistic.

[factuality]

false premise

Just because you throw more money at a problem doesn't mean you're going to arrive at a breakthrough.

[Schratboy]

State's rights?

That which isn't defined in the Constitution reverts to the states....Just another example of how bloated and off course we've allowed things to occur. Google Ron Paul for some insights.

[Gromit801]

Finally

All the way down here before someone finally realized what the real
problem is here, a violation of the 10th Amendment. Look for this
to get overturned in the Courts.

[Laserdisc]

And the flame war continues...

As for CO2 causing global warming... no one knows for sure. There's another theory that it's the sun causing dramatic climate change and that CO2 increase is the effect not the cause. Honestly, we just don't know BUT that's not to say we shouldn't reduce pollution. I am totally for reducing pollution whenever "feasibly" possible. States need their own emission standards because the pollution situation is different in every area. In a perfect world the EPA should collect all the emission standards from all States and select the toughest one to be the defacto standard for the nation. But what are the economic ramifications of implementing such a high standard for pollution emission?

[Phillep_H]

Sort of agree

I'll go with local control of pollution sources. We already have national laws that make great sense some places, but no sense at all in others.

100 chainsaws per square mile is bad, 1 chainsaw per 100 square miles does so little pollution it's not worth considering, yet we (in Alaska) have to live by the same federal regs as the Californians do.

[atmx2000]

CO2 vs other pollutants

Clearly, states or the EPA should take into account local pollution
levels when it directly effects human health. However, vehicle
CO2 emmissions per se have little effect on human health, as
the over all CO2 levels in the local environment do not increase
significantly from the levels they would be at without burning of
carbon fuels. Remeber, the pre-expiratory concentrations of
CO2 in ones lungs vastly exceed the atmospheric CO2 levels.

CO2, if it has any effects, acts at level greater than the local
environment. Any changes in CO2 output in California will be
diluted rapidly over the entire atmosphere of the earth. It's not
like California is going to end up with a significantly lower
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere given the naturally
large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is measure in
parts per 100, not parts per million like many of the regulated
exhaust emissions.

[inachu]

in 1991 I had a 40 mpg mitsubishi 2 door.

Wish i still had it.
40 mpg is easy to make.