California to sue fed over blocking emissions plan

darkcrow

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/20/california.emissions/

CNN) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger plans to sue the federal government over its decision not to allow a California plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, he announced Thursday.


California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says Thursday the state will sue the federal government.

Environmental Protection Agency chief Stephen Johnson announced the decision Wednesday, refusing the state's request for a waiver that would have allowed it to cut emissions faster than a new federal plan the president signed into law Wednesday.

"It's another example of the administration's failure to treat global warming with the seriousness that it actually demands," the governor said at a news conference Thursday.

Bush on Thursday defended the decision of his EPA administrator.

"Is it more effective to let each state make a decision as to how to proceed in curbing greenhouse gases? Or is it more effective to have a national strategy?" he said.

Citing the new energy law -- which sets a fuel economy standard for the whole country -- Bush said Johnson "made a decision based upon the fact that we passed a piece of legislation that enables us to have a national strategy."

But Schwarzenegger said he would like to set a higher standard for California. "Anything less than aggressive action on the greatest environmental threat of all time is inexcusable," he said. Watch Schwarzenegger slam the Bush administration for denying California the waiver »

Don't Miss
EPA denies tighter emissions goals
Bush signs energy bill
The new federal law will increase fuel efficiency standards by 40 percent by 2020, requiring automakers to bring their fleets to an average of 35 miles per gallon.

The California plan, however, would cut emissions by nearly 30 percent by 2016, raising fuel efficiency standards in the state to 43.7 miles per gallon for passenger cars and some SUVs and trucks, while larger vehicles would need to reach 26.9 mpg by that year.

In all, 16 states had either adopted California's tough standards or announced plans to do so.

A top aide to Schwarzenegger said the governor has been frustrated with the White House over emissions standards, and was very exasperated after a February meeting with Johnson.

EPA officials say they went the extra mile with Schwarzenegger, even taking the unusual step of holding a second hearing in California on emissions. They say they're sorry he's upset, but they believe a national standard on emissions is going to be more effective.

A White House official would only react to Schwarzenegger's frustration by saying the administration "looks forward to working with him on a variety of issues."

In the ebb-and-flow relationship between Schwarzenegger and Bush, sources close to the governor say this is a low point.

"It's never been a warm, throw-your-arms-around-the-shoulders kind of relationship," said former Schwarzenegger adviser Joel Fox. "Even during the re-election campaign for the president, he would come to California and the governor wouldn't always be there to greet him."

Fox said Schwarzenegger and Bush have cooperated on issues like immigration, but the two have differed on several issues, including stem cell research funding, the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program and climate change.


"He's got a pretty strong personality, the governor has, and wants to get things done. If the federal government is one of those obstacles, then he'll run that tank he has over it. It's not particularly anything personal, I think."

Schwarzenegger is much closer -- personally and politically -- to the president's father, former President George H.W. Bush, another aide said. E-mail to a friend

From CNN's Brian Todd and Dugald McConnell.

DriftingByTheStorm

Yet MORE proof that the Federal Government is NOT the answer. Whether it be environmental protection or otherwise, the Federal Government SUCKS A FAT ROD.

Uncle Leo

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Yet MORE proof that the Federal Government is NOT the answer. Whether it be environmental protection or otherwise, the Federal Government SUCKS A FAT ROD.

Is that proof that the Federal government sucks or that the current administration sucks? Had Al Gore been recognized as the winner in 2000 and still been president now, this would not be occuring.

This must actually be a tough issue for the Paul crew. State's rights vs. the lack of will for any environmental regulation. Liberatarianism, if I am not mistaken DOES prefer state's rights, but also would not want that state hainv things like environmental protection initiatives that would take away any rights of the polluters. That may not acutally be your take...you may be all for state environmental regulations. But I think, and correct me if I am wrong, that true libertarianism (or "pure" libertarianism) would be just as upset at California as at the Feds over this.

As a side note, it is absolutely appaling that that the administrator of the Environmental PROTECTION Agency would not let a state go above and beyond. You can call me out as someone that likes a stronger federal governemnt, I should be all for this. But the decision is horrible.

Uncle Leo

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Yet MORE proof that the Federal Government is NOT the answer. Whether it be environmental protection or otherwise, the Federal Government SUCKS A FAT ROD.

California knows it's environmental protection needs better than the US Government...

But I am just curious how the Paul crew feels about the following:

-The Topeka Board of Education knew better than the federal government whether the schools should be integrated.
-Southern states knew better than the federal government whether schools, such as Ole Miss should be integrated.
-Souther states knew better than the federal government whether its blacks should be slaves.

SilverSeed

And I thought repubs were about state rights... What's odd is that for a long time CA has had more stringent pollution laws. I wonder why all of a sudden that's an issue with the EPA?

farfromglorified

Uncle Leo wrote:

California knows it's environmental protection needs better than the US Government...

Hehe...be careful with that logic.

But I am just curious how the Paul crew feels about the following:

-The Topeka Board of Education knew better than the federal government whether the schools should be integrated.
-Southern states knew better than the federal government whether schools, such as Ole Miss should be integrated.
-Souther states knew better than the federal government whether its blacks should be slaves.

Talk about missing the point on many levels. First, the federal government has as much slavery and segregationist blood on its hands as do the states. The federal government also believed that blacks should be slaves and schools should be separate for much longer than many states did. Secondly, the end of slavery and segregation were partly brought about by Constitutional Amendments which require the direct involvement of the states.

Just because you stand for states rights does not necessarily mean you think the federal government should not exist. Typically it simply means that you believe the federal government should operate within its Constitutional boundaries. Want to expand the federal government? Fine. Just be sure you expand its Constitutional mandate first. Otherwise, you end up in ridiculous situations like this.

Uncle Leo

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...be careful with that logic.
First, the federal government has as much slavery and segregationist blood on its hands as do the states. The federal government also believed that blacks should be slaves and schools should be separate for much longer than many states did.

I did not miss the point as much as you think. The fact that some states were ahead of the federal curve is not relevant to the question of whether or not it was bad that the federal govenment dragged others into equality kicking and screaming. The question is whether or not that act is bad.

And any constitutional change was rolled over said southern states. And whether or not the Constitution was the impetus may impact the legal questions, but does not detract from the philosohical question of whether federal rules on segrating minorities, etc. is appropriate.

farfromglorified

Uncle Leo wrote:

I did not miss the point as much as you think. The fact that some states were ahead of the federal curve is not relevant to the question of whether or not it was bad that the federal govenment dragged others into equality kicking and screaming. The question is whether or not that act is bad.

Your question already assumes its answer. Obviously the act is "good" in that it helped contribute to an end to slavery and segregration. However, that doesn't mean the act was proper, appropriate or even necessary to accomplish the same ends.

And any constitutional change was rolled over said southern states. And whether or not the Constitution was the impetus may impact the legal questions, but does not detract from the philosohical question of whether federal rules on segrating minorities, etc. is appropriate.

The federal government definitely has a role in upholding equal Constitutional rights for all citizens. It is very appropriate for them to get involved in protecting the rights it gaurantees. But if a right is not gauranteed in that document, the federal government must expand its mandate before it acts. If it doesn't, you'll simply find it acting in completely inappropriate directions.

This is no different than giving an 8 year-old a shotgun. If, in the first day he has it, he saves a woman from being raped, everyone can proclaim "it's good we gave him that gun". However, if he goes on a shooting rampage the next day, suddenly it doesn't look so wise, huh? When expanding the power of a body, one should always measure that expansion not by how much good it allows the body to do, but rather how much bad it allows the body to do.

Cosmo

SilverSeed wrote:

And I thought repubs were about state rights... What's odd is that for a long time CA has had more stringent pollution laws. I wonder why all of a sudden that's an issue with the EPA?

...
A: Auto makers and gasoline companies.
...
Car makers will have to conform to California's regulations for sale in this state. This would be for both emissions controls and fuel economy. This requires both auto makes and gas companies to come up with a functioning product 4 years before the Federal regulations kick in.

DriftingByTheStorm

Cosmo wrote:

...
A: Auto makers and gasoline companies.
...
Car makers will have to conform to California's regulations for sale in this state. This would be for both emissions controls and fuel economy. This requires both auto makes and gas companies to come up with a functioning product 4 years before the Federal regulations kick in.

Thank GOD we have the EPA to protect Automakers and Oil Companies!

The Emissions Protection Agency
???

DriftingByTheStorm

Uncle Leo wrote:

Is that proof that the Federal government sucks or that the current administration sucks? Had Al Gore been recognized as the winner in 2000 and still been president now, this would not be occuring.

I think FFG answered the rest of your questions pretty spot on.

My response to the above is that, just like FFG said about another piece of your argument, just because a BAD policy produces real good, or is acted on by a good leader in one instance does not make the policy on the whole a good policy.

Sure, Gore would have been better in this instance (i assume), but what about the next president?

Either way, the policy of allowing the Federal Government to decided on things which are not within its constitutional mandate is of concern, especialy since it usualy proves itself at inept in such broad powers.

Also, Gore would probably be using his powers to enact broad ranging subsidies for all sorts of things, including corn ethanol (which is a horribly stupid choice for fuel).
I have a HUGE problem with subsidies in general, and we SURE as fuck don't want them deciding what our "new alternative" fuel source will be.

:(

LET THE MARKETS DECIDE
LET THE PEOPLE REGULATE
LET THE FEDERAL GOV DO WHAT IT DOES BEST
(NOT MUCH!)

RolandTD20Kdrummer

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

the Federal Government SUCKS A FAT ROD.

What does Larry Craig have to do with this?

I think Arnold and Bush should fight it out like real men..bush can bring Condi as well.

Uncle Leo

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

LET THE MARKETS DECIDE
LET THE PEOPLE REGULATE
LET THE FEDERAL GOV DO WHAT IT DOES BEST
(NOT MUCH!)

So is this Fed vs. State or Market vs. Government.

Arnold, then, is no better than W?

By the way, I'll tell you the alternative fuel of the market's choice...NONE. The market only cares about convenience.

Will the people regulate or will the corportations regulate?

DriftingByTheStorm

Uncle Leo wrote:

So is this Fed vs. State or Market vs. Government.

Arnold, then, is no better than W?

By the way, I'll tell you the alternative fuel of the market's choice...NONE. The market only cares about convenience.

Will the people regulate or will the corportations regulate?

Wow.
Now we're getting somewhere in this discussion.


Hmm. Where to start, lets see.

Well, Arnold vs. Bush? Yikes! Arnold by a bicept or two, for sure. But both are only singular men in positions of power.

Beyond that my head goes spinning with visions of murky waters.

State\Fed vs. Market\Gov'nt , sigh.
I guess it's both. I mean, it is both. I'm just not sure how i am supposed to proceed here.

State and Market should always be allowed precedence over Fed and Government repsectively and in general terms. Obviously there may be some areas where the people wish to relinquish some leeway to their elected bodies, and times when the people collectively as the states wish to relinquish some leeway to the federal ruling bodies. However, in yielding any such perogative over to either government, the people should always be aware acute of the ineffeciency and inherent succeptibility to abuse any such deference to politics is apt to entail.

That being said, the manner in which things are currently being done not only skirt the stated rules, therefore so as to bring their entire status in to questionable light, but futher -- said manner of operations is one that leads so much to be desired as to make one wonder if the people should begin to rethink their "decision" to relinquish such rights to the central government.

Here we are talking about a "decision" which may or arguably may not have been deliberately made by "the people". A decision which may have been coerced from the people by the central government or allowed to slip away from the people through neglect (or both). The rights refered to in the former paragraph are ALL those rights found in the 10th Ammendment, which are all "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States" which "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I'm not trying to get all flashy with the constitution.
I am merely stating that it is explicit in our most supreme document of written law that ALL powers\rights which were not SPECIFICALY ascribed to the federal government were made to be given directly to the people, or to the people via their collective will as "the state".

Perhaps, in light of demonstrated inability of the federal government to handle any of such duties commisioned by its employers, said owners should reconsider their perhaps ill appointed delegation of whichever such functions they find their executives in which to be deficient.

In making such reconsiderations, the people should attempt to balance any fear of "reverting" to self-rule and the whimsy of the naked market with the cold realization that there is a reason they are in the position of even making such second analysis.

Uncle Leo wrote:

The market only cares about convenience.

This is perhaps the most truthful statement in your response, and i agree 100%.
However, "the market" is only a tool. This is roughly equivilant to saying "a gun doesn't care who is on the other end of the barrel."

It is people who must work to consider their actions.
If they can not come to an agreement on terms mutualy acceptable at a purely local level, why is one to assume that the situation will be remedied when carried thousands of miles away to the national level? I argue that more often than not, such distant and removed arbitration only serves to distort and further propogate the very contentious matter which it purports to resolve.

Am i reaching anyone with this line of reasoning?