What happened to "states rights?"

[TexasTiger 12,965]

By Michael Gardner

COPLEY NEWS SERVICE

December 20, 2007

SACRAMENTO – The Bush administration sided with automakers yesterday, thwarting a California law to regulate tailpipe emissions as part of an aggressive campaign to slow global warming.

The ruling by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is a setback for California and more than a dozen other states planning to limit greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.

Advertisement

The federal government had never before blocked California's efforts to enact tougher air quality rules. The move is certain to trigger a wave of litigation.

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson defended his decision, saying the energy bill signed by President Bush yesterday will result in reduced emissions linked to global warming.

“The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution – not a confusing patchwork of state rules,” Johnson said in a conference call with reporters. “I believe this is a better approach.”

The federal legislation includes a 40 percent leap in fuel economy standards for cars, SUVs and small trucks, which means they will have to meet a fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The measure also calls for increased use of renewable fuels. Johnson said it will result in the greatest reduction of greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming in the nation's history.

However, he could not provide specific reduction estimates.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said yesterday that California had to sue to force the EPA just to act on the waiver, and he vowed further legal action to overturn Johnson's decision.

“It is disappointing that the federal government is standing in our way and ignoring the will of tens of millions of people across the nation. We will continue to fight this battle,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement.

California and its allies contend that action by the states will lead to more greenhouse gas reductions more quickly.

If every state were allowed to enact the standards, greenhouse gas emissions would be cut by the equivalent of taking 22 million cars off the road, saving 11 billion gallons of gas every year, state officials say.

Under the Clean Air Act, California is allowed to impose tougher standards than the federal government requires as long as the state receives a waiver from the EPA. The agency has honored 40 requests by California and has never denied a waiver – until now.

[CCTAU 3,336]

I agree. Until the states violate the constitution of the US, they should be allowed to kill ALL commerce in their state. Let them set tougher codes. Businesses and manufacturers will move somewhere else. The feds need to stay out of it.

But don't blame this on Bush. The rights of states have been being usurped by the feds for years. It's time we got them back. Vote republican for president. Preferably one that believes in smaller government. At least you have a choice there. NO dim believes that... EVAR.

[Tiger Al 0]

But don't blame this on Bush...Vote republican for president.

Isn't the current president a republican?

[otterinbham 0]

But don't blame this on Bush...Vote republican for president.

Isn't the current president a republican?

He's a very strange breed of Republican: A Big Government advocate. This is exactly the nonsense that I can't understand anybody condoning. Will somebody, anybody help me understand what this presidency stands for?

[TexasTiger 12,965]

But don't blame this on Bush...Vote republican for president.

Isn't the current president a republican?

He's a very strange breed of Republican: A Big Government advocate. This is exactly the nonsense that I can't understand anybody condoning. Will somebody, anybody help me understand what this presidency stands for?

The only consistent principle I can discern is that it's biggest backers have been rewarded financially. Other than that, I don't think George has a guiding governing philosophy.

[AFTiger 282]

States Rights

Mortally wounded by Lincoln

Killed by Roosevelt

Buried by Johnson

That creek (navigable waterway) in your back yard is the why California cannot set emission standards for the rest of us.

[saniflush 0]

States rights began going away 142 years ago.

[Tiger Al 0]

That creek (navigable waterway) in your back yard is the why California cannot set emission standards for the rest of us.

I don't think California was trying to set emission standards for the rest of us.

[TexasTiger 12,965]

I agree. Until the states violate the constitution of the US, they should be allowed to kill ALL commerce in their state. Let them set tougher codes. Businesses and manufacturers will move somewhere else. The feds need to stay out of it.

But don't blame this on Bush. The rights of states have been being usurped by the feds for years. It's time we got them back. Vote republican for president. Preferably one that believes in smaller government. At least you have a choice there. NO dim believes that... EVAR.

California has a bigger economy that most countries. Most manufacturers will cater to their requirements if they can't get around it. Now if Montana decided to have the highest standards in the land, they'd be back on horseback.

THIS ONE is on Bush. Sorry to break it to you, but that's his EPA. Voting Republican is hardly the answer. The Terry Schiavo case demonstrated once and for all that states' rights was just Republican rhetoric. The fact is that both parties support states doing what is consistent with the parties respective agendas and no more. I can't imagine a Dem EPA telling California they can't raise their emission standards. A Dem may interfere elsewhere in regulation, but not this one.

[AFTiger 282]

I agree. Until the states violate the constitution of the US, they should be allowed to kill ALL commerce in their state. Let them set tougher codes. Businesses and manufacturers will move somewhere else. The feds need to stay out of it.

But don't blame this on Bush. The rights of states have been being usurped by the feds for years. It's time we got them back. Vote republican for president. Preferably one that believes in smaller government. At least you have a choice there. NO dim believes that... EVAR.

California has a bigger economy that most countries. Most manufacturers will cater to their requirements if they can't get around it. Now if Montana decided to have the highest standards in the land, they'd be back on horseback.

THIS ONE is on Bush. Sorry to break it to you, but that's his EPA. Voting Republican is hardly the answer. The Terry Schiavo case demonstrated once and for all that states' rights was just Republican rhetoric. The fact is that both parties support states doing what is consistent with the parties respective agendas and no more. I can't imagine a Dem EPA telling California they can't raise their emission standards. A Dem may interfere elsewhere in regulation, but not this one.

But a Dem EPA changed the rules on the Southern Company and declared leagal repairs to power generating stations as upgrqdes and illegaly tried to force the utilities into a higher standard. Voting Dem is never ther answer.