One of the less publicized reasons the White House said it will veto the new Energy Bill: the legislation fails to sort out who controls fuel economy standards. It's become an urgent issue since California lawmakers decided CO2– produced in direct proportion to a vehicle's fuel efficiency– is a "greenhouse gas," and thus a pollutant. Hisotrically, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has waived their federal mandate to set air pollution standards, allowing the state to set their own. So when California decided that CO2 was tailpipe poison, they asked the EPA to set a national CO2 standard or get the Hell out of the way. The EPA said hang on, give us a minute, we'll get back to you. California said time's up and filed suit against the feds. As USA Today reports, a California federal judge has now ruled in California's favor, green lighting the state's efforts to set a combined car and light truck fuel economy standard of 43.7 miles per gallon by 2016, with all other trucks to average 26.9 mpg. The move completely usurps the role of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is in charge of monitoring and enforcing federal fuel economy standards. Needless to say, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers is sure to appeal the court's decision, taking it all the way to the Supreme Court if needs be. Now do you see why the White House wants Congress to clear up this jurisdictional bun fight? I mean, jeez.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I’m all for states’ rights, but this goes above and beyond recognizing the sovereignty of the state. Individual states should not be setting national policy, no matter how slow they feel the Federal government is moving.
Don’t be fooled into thinking that California is only concerned with setting environmental policies only for their state. They know that whatever policy they enact, other states will follow their standards. This unnecessarily usurps the powers of the Federal government.
Not only is this irksome in a general philosophical way but it is seriously legally questionable.
Another Federal court dealt with exactly the same issue in 2005. Vermont tried to do then what California is trying to do now. The Vermont federal court said that the state government was way out of line. This California court isn’t procedurally bound by that decision, but they blatantly ignored it.
“The [California] court acknowledges that the court in [Vermont] reached a conclusion … that was essentially opposite this court’s conclusion.”
Way to go rogue, CA.
Anyone who lives in an urban US area should be thankful that California has been the driving force in getting automakers to clean up exhaust emissions.
That being said, air pollution (whether CO2, methane, particulates or whatever) is now an international problem and needs to be addressed as such.
Re: states’ rights — I’ve found that peoples’ support for ‘states rights’ grows in direct proportion to their opposition to a particular federal policy and wanes when individual state governments start doing things they don’t like.
@Eric_Stephens:
I agree with you for the most part. But state legislatures have been even more prone to corruption than the U.S. Congress.
@Eric_Stepans
I don’t want this to be an international issue. That’s how you end up with crap like Kyoto. Everyone vs. the U.S. Fantastic. And no one else wants to be the one to tell China and India that they will eventually be the biggest polluters, so start being green now. Noooo, because you’ll be “stunting their economic growth” or somesuch bull. I don’t care. They’re still a third of the world’s population.
I don’t think that individual states really want to set their own policies but feel complelled to due to the inability of the federal government to act in a timely manner. This should be a wake up call for the feds.
Sad but typical of this administration – they preach states rights except when it doesn’t suit them. Californians have every right to regulate what kind of vehicles can be sold in their state. If the feds want to overturn that liberty then we may as well call our country a federal republic rather than a union of states.
Another gem from Eric_Stepans.
“Anyone who lives in an urban US area should be thankful that California has been the driving force in getting automakers to clean up exhaust emissions.”
Many of us are not thankful for California. As a matter of fact, many of us despise the arrogance of a post like this. The whole point of the article is to show that it is not the role of a California judge to mandate a policy that is handled by the NHTSA.
“I don’t want this to be an international issue. That’s how you end up with crap like Kyoto. Everyone vs. the U.S. Fantastic.”
I do agree with you. The Kyoto Protocol is crap. What other country would be against a global redistribution of our wealth?
Needless to say when a state judge intervenes with a federal agency, this is bait for the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile I think the automakers should call California’s bluff and only sell whatever they have that is California-compliant in California, and devote their real efforts to the remaining 49 states. That would be kind of funny. Californians don’t like American cars anyway do they?
Eric:
Anyone who lives in an urban US area should be thankful that California has been the driving force in getting automakers to clean up exhaust emissions.
Apparently they’re not — considering how the majority of the population continues to reveal their preference by buying trucks, SUVs, minicans, and muscle cars. You have an opinion, but there are 300 million other out people here who strangely have their own, and there self-evidently is not some groundswell of demand among the teeming millions to cut emissions OR maximize fuel economy.
The people of California are happy to drive high mileage vehicles.
Federal Government Obstructionists: please get the hell out of the way.
@California-Haters:
Got $22.2 trillion in your pocket to pay for your “freedom”? See slide #14 of this little gem.
http://www.pnl.gov/aisu/pubs/garbc15.pdf
As for those opposed to internationalizing efforts to control air pollution, I hope you don’t live on the US West Coast where particulate pollution from coal-fired electrical plants in China is showing up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/04/pollution-from-chinas-co_n_71060.html
Yes, the Kyoto Protocol was/is flawed. But it was supposed to be the start of a process, not a finished end product.
We need similar processes addressing all forms of pollution or it won’t matter what California, Vermont or even the United States does.
Autoblog says the California judge threw out the automakers’ suit against CARB, not that he supported CARB’s suit against the automakers. Which is correct?
@Stephan Wilkinson
According to the LA Times, it was the automakers/auto dealers who filed suit against CARB:
http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-autos13dec13,0,5175362.story
CARB has sued the EPA because under the Clean Air Act, California can legally regulate air pollution (which CA government claims CO2 is) separately from federal regs, but the EPA has to issue a waiver in order for this to happen.
I find it mind-boggling difficult to understand how governments can be so far behind the curve on technology when it comes to the computer revolution and the Internet, and yet be so far ahead of science when it comes to climate and mankind’s influence on global warming.
Hisotrically – or would that be hysterically?
Well Eric, as long as you have a PowerPoint from a government bureaucrat justifying his budget with fantastically exaggerated claims, who can argue?
Wow if something as relatively trivial health-wise as the Clean Air act has made us $22 trillion in cold hard cash in 35 years, just think if you added up all the other things that really save and extended lives, like agricultural productivity, health care advances, seat belts and drunk driving laws. It must add up to quadrillions, thousands of times the U.S. GDP!
Well. Human life is priceless…
@Kevin – If you can provide more accurate numbers as to how much lung disease, etc. the Clean Air Act and CARB regulations have prevented since the 1960s, I would be happy to look at them.
Just because that number may not be $22.2 trillion does not automatically imply that it is zero.
Even if you assume the government estimate is off by a factor of 10, that’s still a 420% return on investment.
Having suffered through my share of Stage 2 smog alerts growing up in the San Fernando Valley, I was extremely glad to see car exhausts get cleaned up.
@Eric_Stepans
Yes, the Kyoto Protocol was/is flawed. But it was supposed to be the start of a process, not a finished end product.
And that’s the scary part. Kyoto costs billions upon billions of dollars (yen, euro, whatever) and that’s just to start! Once all the low-hanging fruit is gone emissions-wise, how much more money will this boondoggle cost American citizens over time? Trillions? Quadrillions? And still without China or India having to take part?
The people of California are happy to drive high mileage vehicles. Federal Government Obstructionists: please get the hell out of the way.
I’m among the people of California, though not native to the state. I see no evidence that the people of California are “happy to drive high mileage vehicles” in any proportion greater than anywhere else in the US. Large SUVs continue to sell in middle class and up neighborhoods. Whatever they’re driving, most people aspire to tool in a 14mpg overweight German luxury car as soon as they can afford one. Camry, Accord and, yes, Civic and even Prius drivers routinely clock 90mph as soon as they find open road light on patrols. The planet’s largest unit & dollar volume Mercedes and Bentley dealers are in Orange County. The actual share occupied by high mileage vehicle buyers is scant.
All of this focus on personal transportation for carbon reduction is misdirected, stupid, silly and ultimately irrelevant. Putting aside the fact that CO2 is not a pollutant any more than oxygen, hydrogen, helium or nitrogen are, if one believes climate change is induced by man’s combustive activities then tailpipe CO2 reduction is merely a posturing gesture.
As the LA Times points out today in an article reporting that the EU is considering boycotting the US-sponsored climate conference in Hawaii, converting the entire US fleet of passenger cars to Prius would save merely 337 million metric tons of emission of CO2 to the atmosphere. Maybe that sounds like a lot because the word “million” appears there. Total 2005 carbon emissions from human combustion of fossil fuels is estimated at 28,000,000,000 metric tons. The UN-IPCC thinks (guesses, divines, intuits, coin flips) that we need to get that down to 14,000,000,000 metric tons. Hmmm…..that 50mpg car ain’t much help after all. Friends, the car you drive isn’t going to make a bean’s difference to the planet’s prevailing climate in 2100 or beyond. Oh, and that other great feel-good initiative, mercury-poisioning compact fluorescent lightbulbs will save 88 metric tons if *every* American were forced by his government to replace 5 incandescents with CFBs.
Bheh. I’ve written many times here what’s wrong with the argument that climate change is my fault and yours. That argument can’t be won or lost in a blog. So I’ll suspend disbelief and go with the alarmist. That’s how I know people on the other side are both ignorant and not serious. PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION IS NOT THE PLACE TO GAIN GROUND ON CARBON CURTAILMENT!!!
2,142,000,000 metric tons of carbon reduction can be found by replacing the US’ coal and oil burning power plants with nuclear, wind, solar, wave, geothermal and other non-fossil sources. Not going to happen? Nope, but it does mean that carbon sequestering can yield most or all of the same reduction. We can get started on that right now. Massive subsidy of rooftop residential & commercial solar can begin right now. Large scale solar farms can be funded or incentivized right now. Why aren’t climate alarmists focusing their political leverage on this area of real, sub-decade opportunity?
4,341,000,000 metric tons of carbon reduction can be realized by taking same measures in China. 791,000,000 metric tons more doing same in India.
Still short, and methane hasn’t been accounted for. You might want to take a look at the myriad reasons to remain skeptical of the “science” and the motives behind climate alarm.
Remind yourself that Mars, Uranus and Earth are all in a state of “global warming” simultaneously, and please count the power plant and vehicle emissions on Mars and Uranus. Remind yourself the the climate alarmists’ reference year of 1850 corresponds to the end of the last multi-century global cooling period. Remind yourself that our climate was warmer over a millenium ago when there was too little human presence to register. Remind yourself that no matter how this turns out, the automobile is getting progressively more efficient and less environmentally intrusive via irreversible trends already extant in its development.
California’s state government is posturing, bullying and should be resisted by its own citizens as well as the other 49 states on this issue. Meanwhile I’m fixin’ to keep my XLR-V a long time; maybe pick up a Shelby GT500 and a used Lightning F150 just in case….
Phil
“I’m all for states’ rights, but this goes above and beyond recognizing the sovereignty of the state. Individual states should not be setting national policy, no matter how slow they feel the Federal government is moving.”
Wow, talk about speaking out of both sides of the mouth. California is setting California policy. If other states choose to follow that is their business. California is not forcing any other state to do anything. If another state chooses to follow that is said state’s right.
California was the first place in the US to have ANY regulation of automotive emissions. The federal government got into the act later and when they did the federal law carved out an exception to continue to allow California to set it’s own, tougher standards. Much later federal law was amended to give each state the right to adopt California’s policies if they so chose.
Federal fuel economy regulations haven’t tightened in almost 20 years. Gee, no wonder the voters and government of California figured it was time to blaze forward on their own once again. No company is being forced to do business in California. Anyone who wants to opt out of the California new vehicle sales business is welcome to do so.
California has no ability, unlike the feds, to force any other state to do anything. Those who choose to follow it’s lead do so of their own accord. That seems pretty fundamental to the concept of state’s rights.
“Needless to say when a state judge intervenes with a federal agency, this is bait for the Supreme Court.” Needless to say, you are confused. U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii made the ruling in question. Yes the courthouse is in Fresno, but it is Federal District Court, not a state court and not a state judge.
I should perhaps also say that California’s pioneering efforts on particulates and compounds addressed real pollutants, real consequences to pollution; vastly improved local conditions and the entire country benefited from both California’s carve-out and its contribution to national standards. On that initiative in the 1960s, science and politics were sound. Today’s leaders are not similarly grounded.
Phil
In the 1950’s the US automakers testified to congress and basically said, “gee our engineers are too stupid to build safer cars” but the Europeans just started building safer cars. In the 1970’s the US automakers testified to congress and basically said, “gee our engineers are too stupid to build lower emission and better fuel economy cars” but the Japanese just started building lower emission and better fuel economy cars. Of course US engineers were not stupid but that is what our auto industry implied.
Thank heaven for California for cutting through the crap and forcing the lazy US auto industry leaders to shape up.
Every little bit helps.
Well, since our federal government is supposed to be one of enumerated powers, none of which is to bother their tiny little brains about CO2 emissions, this is probably an issue better left to the states in the first place.
Regardless of what can be said about California, and despite our spectacular nature and weather, there are some pretty hard upper bounds on the craziness even our politico’s can get away with before the tax base funding their vanity simply packs up and leaves. When the feds get involved, leaving is no longer much of an option. That, in and of itself, is reason enough to prefer controversial regulation to be done at the state, rather than federal level.
Close all the dealerships in CA and put them on the other side of the border in neighboring states. This seems to work for all the fireworks superstores and Oriental “massage” parlors on the border between Indiana and Michigan.
Phil Ressler,
By the year 2050 the world needs to cut back greenhouse gas emissions to almost nothing.
That means pretty much everything needs to get off carbon or become carbon neutral, including vehicles.
There are indications this is achievable and affordable with the help of new technology and determined government action.
In the Bay Area the Prius is now the #1 selling vehicle, a nice first step.
By the year 2050 the world needs to cut back greenhouse gas emissions to almost nothing.
Not only does nothing suggest cutting to “almost nothing” is necessary, but it won’t happen either. Even the questionable IPCC is only asking for a 50% slash from 2005 level. The data I cited shows that the Prius will not meaningfully change the picture even if it won 100% market share.
In the Bay Area the Prius is now the #1 selling vehicle, a nice first step.
Environmentally, this is a feel-good gesture consistent with the Bay area’s cultural self-image. It’s symbolic and unserious if the buyers believe their purchase has meaningful impact. Now, if someone says they want to buy a high-mileage vehicle to reduce US oil imports, reduce particulate and compounds pollution locally….knock yourself out.
That means pretty much everything needs to get off carbon or become carbon neutral, including vehicles.
There are emerging studies indicating a long global cooling period beginning within 2 or 3 decades, with the research independently reaching that conclusion on three continents. Certainly these researchers are considered isolated dissidents now. Or they see through the existing FUD. Just understand there’s a handful of scientists in Russia, China and the US who are in effect saying….hold on, you might need man’s greenhouse contribution after all.
Phil