Newspapers on both coasts are reporting that Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) chief Stephen L. Johnson ignored his own staff's unanimous recommendations when he refused to allow California to set its own CO2 tailpipe emissions standards. The EPA ruling means that California– and all the states that adopted The Golden State's air quality standards– will not be able to trump the new fuel economy mandates [almost] specified in the Energy Bill. "The decision set in motion a legal battle that EPA's lawyers expect to lose and demonstrated the Bush administration's determination to oppose any mandatory measures specifically targeted at curbing global warming pollution," the Washington Post proclaimed, sweeping aside the 1000-page Energy Bill's CO2-diminishing provisions. The LA Times was quick to jump on the "we wuz robbed" bandwagon. "The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ignored his staff's written findings in denying California's request for a waiver to implement its landmark law to slash greenhouse gases from vehicles, sources inside and outside the agency told The Times on Thursday." Just in case the EPA's opponents need more goading, the Times also reported that "In a PowerPoint presentation prepared for the administrator, aides wrote that if Johnson denied the waiver and California sued, 'EPA likely to lose suit.'" While Johnson's reasoning is sound– better a national standard than a patchwork of state regulations– the environmentalists are screaming blue murder. This one will run and run.,
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
The EPA mandated cars with NOx, CO and unburned HCs reduced to next to nothing. Took decades, but cars are pretty clean. Whats left is making CO2 a pollutant. California has a sterling track record of successful mandates like this. Just ask the people who drive the 10% of the Cali fleet thats electric cars. The chances of a near or intermediate term change of this magnitude is about the same as the chance that the Kyoto signatories will actually reduce CO2 emissions – zero. In fact the US is far more successful than the euros in curbing the growth of CO2 emissions. After all, we have so much more to work with.
I’m just glad that there is some adult supervision of the EPA staff eco-warriors.
I thought that in a Democracy the voters have the ultimate power? The voters of California are highly supportive of the proposal. How is it Democratic for a bureaucrat in Washington to override the clear will of the people?
I gotta side with states’ rights on this one. So long as they do not negatively affect the choices in other states (i.e. nationwide fleet averages) or stop disagreeable, visiting cars at the border (several constitutional problems with that one) then they should be able to demand higher standards.
As a citizen of one of the goofy states, you have a duty to get off your butt and stop them if you want to stay there and drive a CO2 emitting car. When the feds get away with this sort of thing, it is much worse for the country than putting up with the hassles of multiple state regulations.
California is a major drag on this country politically, so if they want to be guinea pigs for lower emissions, I say let them.
I find it hard to believe that the people who support these state specific greenhouse gas regs have any real feel for what it takes to accomplish these goals. The Cliff Notes version of the issue is “greenhouse gases are bad, we need to do whatever it takes to solve this problem, let’s motivate those lazy auto companies”. Hell, why stop at 43mpg by 2016? I’m sure that if their proposed standard was 80mpg by 2012, large numbers of citizens would support this because as we all know, the auto companies can just snap their fingers and make it happen. Maybe we should allow one state to go ahead with these regs. When the citizens realize that a new Honda Civic suddenly costs $32,000 or that a contractor can no longer buy the new pickup he needs in his state, maybe then will some common sense be brought to this issue.
Agree with Landcrusher – regardless of what you think of California’s ideas, this is a union of states and not a federal republic. If we let the feds interefere with the states on this issue then who know what may be next.
My question is if the original CAFE standards had never been passed, would the Detroit 3 have even made cars like the escort cavalier and neon?
Maybe they would be even more behind the times.
@Landcrusher:
“California is a major drag on this country politically, so if they want to be guinea pigs for
lower emissions, I say let them.”
How is that statement not trolling?
If it wasn’t for CA and the rest of the “goofy states” that actually pay the bills there wouldn’t be any of the Federal Cheese that the Midwest and South in particular are so fond of.
Add this to off topic comments in other threads about “watermelons”, NPR and Bill Clinton and “my BS detector went off”.
If only California would focus on the major pollution they create – their “entertainment” industry.
Now there are some really noxious emissions that damages the children. And after all, isn’t everything we do “for the children”?
Labrat’s argument boils down the idea that voters are idiots and need bureaucrats to protect them from themselves. Not very Democratic, eh?
Constitutionally the feds are on very shaky ground here. The constitution does not have any provisions which authorize a federal agency to stop an individual state’s policy simply because said political appointee thinks the state’s idea is bad.
Typically Republicans are all for state’s rights when it comes to their favorite causes, but run the other way if corporate interests are in any way opposed.
jthorner,
I agree with you on the states rights thing and Republicans. They need to be more consistent there.
Hal,
Sorry, but I am not intending to troll, which is good since if I were, my results would be abysmal. Besides that, California is the subject of the story we are commenting on.
Having lived in California, I can tell you that there is just WAY to much government lunacy there. Also, a significant proportion of the natives recognize it and joke about it. Perhaps “goofy” was a bad term to use, but they are definitely different. California has been dragging this country too far left for a long time, I would like to see it stop. They are enablers of bigger and bigger government.
As for who pays the bills, I can remember when Cali was by far one of the biggest reciever states so if they are now a loser, so what. I would be happy to see the cheese stop rolling. Tell me how I can do more to help.
Lastly, I don’t recall talking about watermelons, but the NPR thing and Bill Clinton were totally on topic. The comedy community, which leans rather far to port, has made both the NPR voice, and the Clinton tells part of the lexicon. Give me some right wing examples and I will endeavor to moderate next time.
PS Depending on methodology, you can make almost any list you want on who is paying and receiving the most, so pay close attention to how a list is made before you believe it.
There is actually not much difference between California and Federal rules.
California: trucks 27 MPG, cars 43 MPG
Federal: 35 MPG overall
However, if ‘EPA likely to lose suit’ is true, Bush is showing a bit of bad government (again). Having lawsuits between states and the feds is a low point of politics.
The ‘patchwork’ argument is silly: having 2 standards in a country as big as the US shouldn’t be a problem.
EJ,
You have a good point. We have had two sets of rules before (Cali, and the rest). All the manufacturers need to do is continue that system. One set of cars to meet the most stringent standard, another set for the federal standard.
That is still TWO.
Besides, even if there were 50 sets of rules, the automakers do not have to supply cars to any state they don’t want to make them for.
I applauses the EPA ruling to strike down CA’s bid to determined it’s own emission standard. Ca do not need anymore rules and regulations then it already has. A big round of applause for the EPA.
Buncha Federalists here. What is different about California being allowed to tighten up emissions on EPA-recognized pollutants and this instance of trying to invent a new pollutant to regulate? How did the EPA get the constitutional standing to regulate the pollutants they do and what bearing does that have on state level regulation of CO2? Maybe the lawblogs will have some explanations.
Practically, California’s regulations affect a huge market and do drag the rest of us along, for better or worse. I’d rather they didn’t, thanks.
Administrator Johnson’s refusal was probably pointless because of the following logic chain:
—A federal judge has ruled that CO2 is a pollutant for purposes of the Clean Air act.
—The Clean Air Act also specifically states that California may regulate air pollutants differently than the federal government. Other states may adopt either the California or the federal standards, but may not devise their own.
—Since the Clean Air Act was passed, the EPA has always issued California any waivers that it has sought (hence the lack of diesel-engine cars in California for the past few years).
So, unless a higher federal court rules that CO2 is not a pollutant or the Clean Air Act is amended, California will very likely win its lawsuit against the EPA.
“Eric_Stepans” let me try to get this straight. The clean air act states that CA can regulate it’s emissions differently then the rest of the country. Now purpose is to regulate emission because of heavy CO2. But then again, car companies like VW came out with bio-diesel engine vehicles that suppose to be environmental friendly but CA wouldn’t allow such vehicle in the state….now the the heck I’m I missing here?????
“But then again, car companies like VW came out with bio-diesel engine vehicles that suppose to be environmental friendly but CA wouldn’t allow such vehicle in the state….now the the heck I’m I missing here?????”
California has tighter particulate emissions standards than do the feds or Europe, but no tighter for diesels than for gasoline engines. The technical problem has been in trying to make diesels which meet these standards. Surely you realize that soot particle emissions are more of a problem from diesel engines than from gasoline one.
VW, Mercedes and Honda have all said that they will soon have diesel engines on the market which meet California’s requirements, at which time we can expect to see them sold in CA. CA didn’t outlaw diesel cars, it simply said that they would no longer get a free pass on particulate emissions.
Also, no car company is selling “Bio-diesel” specific engines.
Excuse me, but this ruling doesn’t just affect California. It affects a total of 18 states who are adopting more stringent clean air regulations.
I’m a resident of Connecticut and I worked hard with public interest groups to get that legislation passed, and this is a serious slap in the face from the federal government and a disgrace to democracy. Then again, when was the last time the Bush administration followed the will of citizens?
Pistonheads may want to continue driving heavy CO2 emitters, but the vast majority of people simply want the cleanest environment for themselves, their children, grandchildren, etc. You’re in the minority.
Arguments that a Civic will cost $32,000 and such are totally absurd and sound like something the auto lobby might come up with. There are tons of PZEV’s out there that you would never pick out from a standard car:
List of non-hybrid PZEV’s
In addition, even with existing technology if you gave the Civic or Corolla a smaller engine and some weight reduction it would easily reach 43mpg. Note that the Insight is able to do 70+ mpg mainly because of its light weight, aerodynamics, and small engine.
As for people who need trucks for work, there are obviously legislative ways to allow them to continue driving trucks while limiting those who don’t need one. Simply a different license (also an important safety precaution IMO) would dissuade many people from buying trucks unnecessarily.
Coupdetat,
(Nice Tag)
As you likely read above, I am sure the decision will not stand, and I too am disappointed with the Administration on this one.
What I would love to hear from you are either your personal thoughts, or what you think most of the people who pushed for higher standards were thinking on a number of issues related to this.
Did you guys pass a seperate set of standards, or adopt the California ones? Were there thoughts about how the automakers might react or support your new standards?
What do you think the likely solutions will be? Less horsepower? Smaller cars? Do you think it will impact safety?
Most importantly, from your reference to pistonheads, I wonder if there is any concern about the lost enjoyment by the minority of people who enjoy driving performance oriented cars? Was it discussed? Were people apathetic or adverse to pistonheads? Did any of them think that their avocation could be the next one attacked by the majority? (I ask this because the Bush administration’s FAA has been doing a lot to gut general aviation, which is my avocation, and we are such a small minority that we have a REALLY hard time fighting to keep the skies free, airports open, and the industry itself in business. I would love a perspective from a group pushing legislation like this.)
Lastly, while I agree that people who do not need large SUV’s can be dissuaded by adding the hassle of a seperate license, did anyone think about the cost of implementing that system?
Thanks.
I’m not coupdetat, but let me take a crack at a few of those questions.
“Did you guys pass a seperate set of standards, or adopt the California ones? ”
First, a little history. California regulated automotive emissions before there was any federal action on the issue back in the 1960s. When the feds got into the game they declared that only the federal government would be able to set emissions standards, but provided a loophole for California to continue going it’s own way. At some later point, I forget exactly when, federal law was ammended to allow any state to choose whether to follow California’s tighter standards or to stick with the more lax federal rules. Several states such as New York, Connecticut and others now use some of all of California’s tighter standards by their own choice.
“Most importantly, from your reference to pistonheads, I wonder if there is any concern about the lost enjoyment by the minority of people who enjoy driving performance oriented cars?”
A small, light efficient car is in many ways more fun to drive than any gas guzzling monster. Perhaps you are not old enough to remember when the original Mini first went racing and showed it’s tiny tailpipe to vehicles twice it’s size and power. I happen to have an old 1986 Fiat X1/9 I keep around just for fun. I’ve driven a lot of cars over the years, and none beats that little Fiat in the fun to drive category. Performance oriented need not mean fuel thirsty.
J,
Thanks for the history on the Cali regs. I didn’t know about that. It will be interesting to see if the original claim that the EPA would control the standards holds up in court. It should not.
As for lighter is better, I am with you. I have no interest in a Corvette. My 3 series was never as fun as my Miata, but alas, I am too old to get into one anymore (I am almost 6’3″ in the morning, and still 6’2″ by the evening!).
Still, there are plenty of people who have bought heavier, higher HP cars and enjoy them. I don’t know how to balance the majority who don’t want a Viper with those who do, but I am against voting them down because they are a minority. If you let all the fun get voted out by people who disapprove aided by a vast, apathetic majority, then we will eventually not be able to buy thread to use in needlepoint (at least not dyed thread). In fact, I can see how RF could easily be told to close up shop because we all “waste” electricity in our enjoyment of this site.
Everything fun in life is wasteful or useless in someone elses opinion. I have said it before – there is no valid differentiation between need and want in a capitalist society. At some point capitalism turns into fascism when enough property rights are eroded. I am not saying that these particular regulations cross that line, but I am wondering if anyone questioned where the line might be.
After all, the CO2 thing is still not a scientific fact, merely a consensus of scientific belief. The two are quite different, otherwise we likely would still be sterilizing people with a number of genetic problems (though there might be few left).
“Still, there are plenty of people who have bought heavier, higher HP cars and enjoy them. I don’t know how to balance the majority who don’t want a Viper with those who do, but I am against voting them down because they are a minority.”
I guess the question is one of when does the fun of the minority impose an undue burden on the rest of the people. A good argument could be made that if the average fuel economy of the US vehicle fleet were 30% better than it now is that the reduction in demand would result in a large reduction in the price of fuel. Thus the Viper owner who is willing to pay whatever it takes to feed his/her 10 mpg habit is also perhaps causing the Cobalt owner to have to spend more for fuel because high demand is driving up the per unit cost of fuel for everyone. Obviously one Viper or Expedition driver doesn’t have that kind of demand influence, but take as a whole the fuel consumption rates of the vehicle fleet certainly have a big effect on demand, and thus on price.
J,
“I guess the question is one of when does the fun of the minority impose an undue burden on the rest of the people.”
That is the $64k question, I agree. But my problem is that it is not the question that seems to be asked anymore. The question now seems to be: “Why should I put up with ANY inconvenience at all because those people want to waste time and money in immoral, unwise, or uninteresting activities.” Or even, “I hate that activity, why can’t we get rid of it”. The latter being the case where a vocal minority gets the go ahead with the aid of mostly apathetic majority.
I believe the pollution question is indeed a moral question, and one that is valid to use to regulate away the Viper if it’s really an issue. Then all you have to do is decide that the CO2 really is an important issue, and regulate away.
However, once you claim CO2 pollution as a reason to regulate, you have opened Pandora’s Box. How can we subsidize air travel, sports events, and other fuel burning activities that government often gets involved in? (BTW, notice you are regulating away the Nascar fan’s ability to drive a big V8 powered car while subsidizing the local football team who travels in several jets and whose events create tons upon tons of CO2. Presumably, you are doubly wrong for using the Nascar fan’s money to do this).
As for your supply and demand example – Ack! The reality is that capitalism demands that you NOT use this kind of logic to discourage uses of scarce resources other than to tax them. That example is precisely fascist. Might as well ration gas. You must have been trying to play Devil’s Avocado.
“That example is precisely fascist.”
For some reason the charge of fascism seems to be popular these days when one person doesn’t like another person’s views. However, bringing up the fact that demand for scarce resources drives up the cost for everyone is not fascist, and labeling a person’s thoughts fascist is tantamount to calling the person (in this case me) a fascist.
The current Wikipedia definition of fascism is a pretty good one: “Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state or party. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and religious attributes.”
You seem to be saying that government regulation of pollution for the common good is appropriate, but that government regulation of fuel economy and/or CO2 emissions is ipso facto fascism. I disagree most strongly. Classical capitalism ignores all externalities, and no currently active nominally capitalist system operates in anything approaching that manner. Government managed, taxpayer funded health care certainly isn’t a capitalist idea, but even in the US that is exactly what we already have for everyone aged 65 and over.
So please, argue against fuel economy or CO2 emissions regulations if you like, but don’t call me a fascist for pointing out certain realities. If the SUV boom hadn’t happened (it was not handed down on stone tablets) then it is highly likely that gasoline in the US would be cheaper today than it is. Thus I am paying more to fuel my Honda because so many people are driving Hummers and Porsches than I otherwise would be.
I for one am tired of the argument that everyone has the divine right to buy and do whatever they want without regard to how they effect anyone else. Buy a Hummer and put the poor slob in a Chevy Aveo at risk, tough luck for the slob. I’ve Got Mine seems to be a common attitude in modern times. Forgetting the government’s role for a moment, what about decency and regard for your fellow man?
The limits of personal freedom morally come down to when the exercise of that personal freedom impedes the same right to freedom of another. Where those limits are or should be for any given situation is open to great debate, but the issue cannot be avoided.
Thanks to those who provided history and background on California’s special regulatory status. I think Landcrusher is right about regulating CO2. It is not a pollutant the way NOx, SOx, unburned HCs and CO are. There was and still is general agreement about all of those. Despite the best efforts of the AGW proponents to suppress all dissent about about CO2 as a cause of GW, its an inconvenient truth that many climate scientists do oppose the notion as unsupported by the facts. To me, AGW looks like Lysenkoism redux – “science” in service to politics and politicians looking for more power. But a Federal judge has ruled CO2 a pollutant and when is a member of the Federal government wrong? Except for those perpetual motion machines the patent office allowed to slip through.
J,
You are right that fascist carries too much (incorrect) weight these days, and I disagree with Wiki on definition. I certainly did not intend to call you a fascist, and I know better from your many posts. That is why I thought perhaps you were just playing devils advocate. I apologize for my poorly worded remark.
My working definition of fascism is a system where people and corporations maintain control of property in name only because the state maintains the right to redirect resources at it’s whim. Where I really disagree with Wiki is how they use the term state or party. A more meaningful definition would be “for the people.” That is what is always claimed. The fact that a one party system is the result of fascism should also not be part of the definition for it is also misleading (it is not a stated requirement to have one party, it’s just that all the other parties inevitably are oppressed or murdered).
Which gets down to the hair we are splitting. While there may be a moral reason not to drive an H2 with a lift kit for no reason other than style, it’s not against the law. The rub comes when you start to make laws to limit choice. It is EXTREMELY hard to get that right without causing harm. There are people around my part of the Gulf Coast who could not safely use much of their land if they could not use a lifted truck. Period. (well, maybe a helicopter would work).
Now, if you can get a well crafted law that works then you can usually pass it (though mostly these things get passed as a result of some bad news, so they aren’t well crafted but instead are rushed without diligence).
The result is your example. The state has gotten so much control of healthcare that it is no longer operating under a capitalist system. The socialized system has good short term benefits, and is loved by big government because the real down side is reduced innovation. Since the governed have no idea what innovations they are losing out on, they don’t see the cost.
One more quick note on capitalism, and back to cars and pollution. So we are not talking past each other, I never refer to classical capitalism as anything other than laissez faire. The reason is that laissez faire really isn’t capitalism. Without certain rights and protections you really don’t have a free market. If too few people have such powerful positions in the market, the market isn’t free. The market will cease to properly determine values, and as a result, will cease to properly direct resources towards their best use.
Now, CO2. The problem with CO2 is that it’s not really decided in science yet. Let’s discuss about pollution (in general rather than just CO2) and economy.
Pollution is a sticky bit because, as you say, it tramples on others rights. Limiting emmissions is a proper function of government. Better yet, efficiently taxing them would be a wonderful place for government. I am not one hundred percent against mandating efficiency in order to limit emmissions. The real world sometimes makes things like this the better way to go because they are simple. A car that gets 50mpg almost always emits less than one that gets 25mpg. So long as this is the case, then mandating efficiency may make sense. I think there are better ways though. We agree in concept, but not in execution perhaps.
Economics is where we got off track. To me, the bottom line is that to limit the use of a resource for the purpose of controlling the price is exactly what I call fascism. Nominally, the refiner owns his gasoline, but in reality, the state limits to whom and how much he can sell. Nominally, the driver can use his bank account, but in reality, the state says how he can use it. Fascism. That is the reality of it.
The reality of today may be that to properly label the end result of an idea can be an insult to the proposer, but I do not subscribe to that because I believe the whole PC movement is a pile of dung. I strive to be civil. The PC movement is quite uncivil for it hypocritically recommends that we label a person with prejudice (racial or otherwise) without regard to their intent.
I believe your intent was not to end the free market, but to propose an idea that you thought would have good consequences – we all use up less of a scarce resource thus reducing pollution while saving ourselves money. Unfortunately, I jumped straight to the end of the argument while using language that has become tainted. I use the term fascism because socialism has come to have no meaning, and because I want others to know the real, not unlikely consequences of some of these schemes to make the planet a better place.
I hope you understand now, that I certainly was not trying to label you as a fascist, and I value your thoughts. I hope to trade many posts with you in the future, and that has given me a good idea.
Perhaps we should try shunning. When you see a lifted H2 all shined up, and obviously not ever headed to or from a place of grit and grime, perhaps the best results would come from a good shunning. If enough people did it, I suspect it would work pretty well. Don’t give any condescending shakes of the head, just shun’em. Think of all the trees saved by avoiding the legislature.
It’s interesting here: One can read this story as an environmental protection story or a constitutional powers story. I read it as a constitutional powers story.
The EPA Chief is not sworn to protect the environment but to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America; including statute authorized by Congress and the President (or Congress’ override of a President’s veto); regulations constructed and implemented by the Executive; and decisions of the Judiciary on matters that relate to reasonably construed interstate environmental conditions.
The “new” 2007 CAFE standard laws were not effectively law at the time the EPA Chief arrived at his decision. Rather, the EPA Chief is required to uphold law that relates to environment across State lines at the time of the decision within the time-frame the law requires him to make the decision. This law also requires him to stop States infringing on other States’ rights to regulate their environment; residents of other States rights to engage in free and open commerce; or the Federal government to regulate interstate commerce.
It seems that the waiver was rejected on the grounds that California in its desire to regulate tailpipe CO2 is affecting other States’ rights, people who do not reside in California, and interstate commerce: An unconstitutional trifecta.
If California wanted to show leadership in the GHG issue it has all of the powers it needs within State purview to regulate CO2 emissions inside of current and proposed Federal law. E.g., CO2 footprint taxes based on vehicle ownership, “speed-camera” technology that tickets CO2 emitters on-the-road, taxes on fuel consumption at the pump, and taxes based on vehicle usage over-the-road. This includes taxing visiting vehicles by way of a “congestion” charge a-la what London UK has implemented.
I read the articles and thought that the staff of the EPA urging the waiver were not upholding the Constitution but were promulgating an ideology not authorized by Congress. Rather wisely, EPA Chief Johnson ignored the ideologues and enforced Constitutional separation of powers between States and the Federal government.
Of course, California can reapply for a waiver based on the 2007 CAFE law when the regulations are implemented in 2008/2009. Mind you, if the CO2 emission regulation clauses are in what is known as a “committee report” instead of the text of the statute, it won’t be implemented. The current Administration’s strictly constructionist view is that the “committee report” isn’t literal text in a statute as defined by the Constitution and won’t be implemented by the Executive at all. (Still have to read up on where the CO2 emission regulation clauses are found.)
Of course, in 2009 the next Administration will arrive and who knows what will happen. And of course, California can sue to get the waiver and take its chances. Though, once California gets out of the heavily liberal Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals it faces a rather constructionist Supreme Court and I don’t think California will find success there.
“It seems that the waiver was rejected on the grounds that California in its desire to regulate tailpipe CO2 is affecting other States’ rights, people who do not reside in California, and interstate commerce: An unconstitutional trifecta.”
How exactly does the California CO2 law affect other States’ rights, people who do not reside in California or limit interstate commerce?
Landcrusher, I appreciate your response. Your definition of fascism is interesting, but I still would discourage it’s use in political debate due to it’s close identification with the Nazis and the horrors they perpetuated. Perhaps in a limited scholarly debate context it might be useful, but in a popular forum it is more inflammatory than it is descriptive, just as the “import bigots” term of another TTAC conversation was.
That said, I don’t have any philosophical problem with the government mandating minimum fuel economy standards for vehicles even though doing so limits personal choices to a greater or lesser degree. I used to think that a high fuel tax would be the best way of improving fuel economy, but the real problem with that method is that it puts an undue burden on those least able to pay. Secondarily, it puts more cash in the pockets of the government, and they don’t have a good track record for spending wisely.
I also don’t have a philosophical problem with the FDA requiring demonstrated safety and effectiveness of drugs, even though that limits personal choices. In fact, I think the FDA is falling down on the job by letting so much junk onto the market under the cover of being “nutritional supplements”.
Like it or not, it is still the case that excess demand by customer A causes higher prices for customer B. Making that observation is not tantamount to a call for price controls. Thankfully we haven’t seen wage and price controls tried in the US for several decades now. I still shudder when I recall Nixon’s wage and price freezes. Hard to believe he was considered a conservative.
Maybe there’s some merit to having emissions legislation vary from state to state. The roads, climates and commutes vary so greatly between, say, Wyoming, Florida and New Jersey. So do the impacts of various pollutants. In LA or Phoenix, it’s hot and sunny enough to cook NOX into smog year-round, but not so much in the northern rural states where lower CO2-producing cars might show more benefit.
Meanwhile, I’m not upset that TDIs weren’t sold in the CARB states. Nowadays you find about as many used TDIs available there as elsewhere.
jthorner @13:48 asked:
“How exactly does the California CO2 law affect other States’ rights, people who do not reside in California or limit interstate commerce?”
Simple: California waiver was a cynical attempt to exceed a State’s authority on many levels. California requested the Federal waiver to regulate vehicle miles-per-gallon more stringently than CAFE standards as a proxy of managing CO2 emissions as a “pollutant”.
First, vehicle MPG is regulated Federally under the authority of the Interstate Commerce clause. California infringes on Federal powers when it requires an MPG different to Federal standards. Believe it or not, there isn’t a Federal authority for establishing waiver of MPG — even in the 2007 CAFE legislation.
Second, (also Interstate Commerce related) the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA may treat CO2 as a pollutant. However, the Executive branch doesn’t have latitude to implement the Supreme Court’s decision and has signaled Congress to send it legislation that implements the Court’s ruling. Without specific Federal regulation of CO2 as a pollutant California really has nothing that it can request waiver from. The problem with regulating CO2 federally as a pollutant is that the EPA will regulate all sources of CO2: tailpipes, power plants, manufacturing, including a home’s natural gas burning furnace. For that matter, under federal CO2 regulation a forest fire will need to be regulated.
Third, regarding infringing on another State’s rights: California’s attempt to regulate a non-domiciled automotive industry infringes on a foreign State’s jurisdiction to regulate industry domiciled within that foreign State’s jurisdiction. California can regulate any automotive industry domiciled within the State of California; or can make a uni- or multi-lateral agreement with a foreign State — say, Michigan — that they will mutually regulate each others domiciled automotive industry’s tailpipe emission; or can do so under Federal authority. What California can’t do is unilaterally regulating Michigan engine manufacturers to produce a product that meets California’s requirements in order for the engine to be sold in California, absent Federal legislation permitting the practice.
Lastly, the vehicle MPG proxy for CO2 emissions infringes on the Constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of movement of people between the States. So, “Joe” lives in a State that doesn’t have California’s vehicle CO2 emission regulation — say, Kentucky — but Joe’s vehicle is legal by Kentucky’s standards. Now, Joe wants to take up a new job in California. If California prohibited Joe’s entry by prohibiting his vehicle’s entry due to tailpipe emissions — though legal in Kentucky — then California infringes on Joe’s civil rights.
Again, if California wanted to show leadership it could regulate CO2 emissions quite easily by its power to tax California residents commercial activities and regulation of domiciled industry.
Out of all that I got 2 states rights issues.
1. Domiciled industry regulation. That’s an interesting take on interstate commerce, you sound like a lawyer. However, it is obvious that all sorts of states tax other state’s industries, so there is no sense at all in this sort of legal interpretation.
Even if your argument stood, California could simply use a tax scheme to get their wishes. Don’t tell me they can’t because there are all sorts of special taxes out there, and besides all that, California has car factories.
2. I like your moving man theory. That one might stick. However, there are end runs that Cali will likely find and use. Taxation would be a likely one. Simply letting those cars in would be another. I believe they let people moving in bring their cars under the old california emmissions rule, and the law stood up for a long time.
As much as I disagree that CO2 has been shown to be a dangerous emmission, I think Cali has a perfect right to say what cars can be sold within its borders.
All the claims of the federal government to have power unto itself only exist until they are successfully challenged. If it ain’t an amendment, it’s really just a provisional law.
Landcrusher @13:25
“[…] California could simply use a tax scheme to get their wishes. Don’t tell me they can’t because there are all sorts of special taxes out there, and besides all that, California has car factories.”
Please note on balance I agree with you — and I made the point in both posts — that California has the power of taxation of resident Californians to regulate CO2 emissions. This power avoids all of the problems with avoiding infringing on Federal powers, regulating emissions different than Federal regulations, avoiding regulating non-domiciled industry, and incorporating moving man.
Of course, Californians will probably not appreciate paying (my guess) 100% to 300% more for energy than any other State under a emissions taxation scheme. But, that is a problem that only the voters of California can cure.
Ah, but let’s get creative, after all, we are playing the part of the Cali legislature.
CO2 Tax levies in new automobiles:
Under X amount of CO2 = $0
Over X = $15,000
Actually, apply any amount you want. The power to tax is the power to rule.
Once again, the majority will vote for it. The actual rich (aka the powerful), will not care. The upper middle class will not get some of their toys.
The result: More and more older cars will end up being kept on the road, same as all schemes which increase taxes on auto purchases. Also, more poor people die, because they are the ones who primarily drive the older, less safe cars.
The one idea that we’re all dancing around is externalities. There are certain things that we don’t directly pay for, but have effects down the road that impact others in a bad way. Pollution, wasting resources, and lower purchasing power appear to the big three here.
The free market folks believe that people will simply stop buying the pollution spewing vehicles once the free market compels them to do so. Unfortunately, externalities have little or any direct effect on the one making the decision. Hence that won’t work.
The pro-California folks believe that people will simply follow California’s role in due time as it relates to these new regulations (that really is the motus operandi). Unfortunately, that has limitations as well since politicians on both sides of the proverbial fence tend to flock together instead of listening to others. Some will seek it, many will fight it, and not much will really get done.
That’s why I believe both sides of the fence should simply walk away from their positions and embrace the Vladamir Putin way. He will determine what is right for the country. Anyone who disagrees will soon find themselves on a long-term vacation in some of the less hospitable parts of the world (like Fresno). The press will glorify the decision, dissent will be squashed, bribes will help certain government officials become more efficient (and rich!), and the world will go on believing that we are headed in the right direction.
Then again, George Bush is no Boris Yeltsin… but why quibble over the small things in life. What’s that about voting? On this issue? Educating the public? Naaahhhh!!!!
Steven Lang @ 02:08
Gulag Fresno… Snicker.
Speaking as a freemarket person, I believe you mischaracterize our position.
I would recommend that you make the externalities affect the buyer through taxes on pollution. The simplest way to do this is through regulating clean engines while taxing fuel. That results in a fairly even tax for per pound of pollution with minimal bureaucratic inefficiency and legislative corruption.
The idea that this is unfair to the poor is ridiculous. We all use the air the same, and we all are paying out huge bucks for mass transit. It is a capitalist society, so fairness is about opportunity, not results. If we feel the need to be more than fair, we can further subsidize mass transit with some of the fuel tax revenues.
Voting is fair enough. Educating the public is a great idea so long as you realize it will have little effect on behavior, but might influence the vote. Which side’s facts will you educate the public with?