California Sues EPA; Says State Law Greener, Cleaner Than Feds

[Zeno Swijtink]

https://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/...rnia-sues.html

California Sues EPA; Says State Law Greener, Cleaner Than Feds
By Brandon Keim January 02, 2008 | 2:56:46 PmCategories: Climate, Energy, Government, Travel

California today sued the federal Environmental Protection Agency today for preventing the state from reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its cars.

Passed in 2002, the Clean Car law requires cars sold in California to emit 30 percent fewer greenhouse gases by 2020. Because the law is stricter than federal Clean Air Act standards, California had to ask the EPA for permission. Such waivers are routinely granted for tailpipe emission laws, and federal courts recently supported California's rights to make such demands, but in late December the EPA refused.

The refusal affected not only California but 16 other states who have demanded similar car pollution cuts. Agency head Stephen Johnson said the refusal was intended to avoid a "confusing patchwork of state rules," and said that fuel efficiency standards contained in a recently-passed federal energy law would accomplish comparable greenhouse gas cuts.

But in a conference call held today, California Air Resources Board chairwoman Mary Nichols said Johnson's arguments were misleading and inaccurate. "There's no such thing as a patchwork of emissions standards," she said. "There is a national Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard, and there's the California greenhouse gas emissions standards, which is the one we're seeking to enforce."

Nichols said that California's emissions standards will reduce annual CO2 emissions by 32.4 million tons in 2020, compared to savings of 18.9 million tons by the federal fuel efficiency standards. Cumulatively, California's laws will keep 58 million tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere between 2009 and 2016, while federal standards will save just 20 million tons. If the other 16 states follow California's lead, said Nichols, they will together save 60 percent more greenhouse gases than would fuel efficiency improvements alone.

The House Oversight and Government Reform committee is investigating the EPA's decision, which appears to have been influenced by pressure from Vice President Dick Cheney and the automobile industry. Johnson allegedly denied California's petition over the recommendations of his legal and scientific advisors.

"It doesn't have any foundation in law or fact," said Nichols of the EPA's refusal.

Update: Fifteen other states have joined California in the lawsuit: Massachusetts, Arizona, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Connecticut and Washington. Five environmental nonprofit groups -- the Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense, International Center for Technology Assessment, Natural Resources Defense Counsel and the Sierra Club -- have also filed their own lawsuit against the EPA.

Said Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal in a press release, "This administration is running on empty legally and morally. The EPA’s New Year’s resolution should be Face the Truth. Do your job or get out of the way, is what we say to the EPA. We will not accept no as an answer from do-nothing federal environmental officials when our public health and planet’s future are at stake. Top EPA officials are blocking responsible state steps against intolerable auto pollution, adding insult to injury and defying the law, common sense, science and their own staff."

--

NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use," without permission of the copyright owner. For more information go to: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

[OrchardDweller]

This is another example of the federal government interfering with state issues, just like they did with medical marijuana.

[Braggi]

This is another example of the federal government interfering with state issues, just like they did with medical marijuana.

This is another example of the Feds not doing their jobs and the State having to fill in the gaps.

This also exposes the biggest flaw in "free market" thinking. The car makers haven't done much to improve fuel economy or pollution standards except when governments have forced them to. The free market tends to fall to the lowest standards they can get away with. We would hope for better, but history has not shown that most corporations will rise to the challenge, and consumers are forced to buy what is available rather than what they would prefer to buy.

-Jeff

[OrchardDweller]

This is another example of the Feds not doing their jobs and the State having to fill in the gaps.

Right, so take the power away from the Feds and bring power back to the state and local level.

This also exposes the biggest flaw in "free market" thinking. The car makers haven't done much to improve fuel economy or pollution standards except when governments have forced them to. The free market tends to fall to the lowest standards they can get away with. We would hope for better, but history has not shown that most corporations will rise to the challenge, and consumers are forced to buy what is available rather than what they would prefer to buy.

That's because the govt is involved, not to mention the corporations who lobby them. Think about how much better things would be if the actual consumer was the one being lobbied and we eliminiated the middle man.

[Braggi]

...Think about how much better things would be if the actual consumer was the one being lobbied and we eliminiated the middle man.

Bose makes some of the crummiest sounding stereo equipment in the world yet it's also the most popular brand. That doesn't speak well for the consumer. "W" was "reelected." Need I say more?

If we let the consumers make all regulatory decisions we'd all be living in a sewer.

We live in a representative republic which is far superior to a democracy where mob mentality makes the rules.

It is the rights of individuals which trump the opinions of the majority in our country. That becomes dangerous when an individual starts doing stupid things that harm others. That's where law and regulation comes in, including laws regulating issues that don't respect state boundaries, like safety, pollution and fuel economy of vehicles.

There is a place for law and regulation and mobs usually make poor decisions. There is no problem with well crafted and implemented Federal law. The problem is finding well crafted and implemented Federal law.

Generally speaking I support states' rights. However, when it comes to personal rights, such as the right to medical treatments, or rights of privacy, I opt for Federal trumping state AS LONG AS the Federal rights are more broad than state.

In the case of automobile regulation, I applaud the intent of California (and other states) in the attempt to improve fuel economy. However, it really is pretty impractical, which is the Fed's position. But then, I think the Feds are in criminal collusion with the auto industry, which is the real root of the problem.

-Jeff