Environmental Protection Agency Chief defended his refusal to support the State of California’s waver to regulate automobile emissions.
From the NY Times Article:
Defending his refusal to let California set limits on the greenhouse gas emissions of automobiles, the head of the Environmental Protection Agencyclimate change posed no “compelling and extraordinary” risk to the state. insisted before a Senate committee Thursday that
Describing such change as “not unique to” and “not exclusive to California,” the agency’s administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, called it “a global problem requiring a global solution or, at least at a minimum, a national solution.”
That is what has bothered me with regard to the Bush Administration’s activities regarding climate change. In many ways, it pays only lip service to global warming, but does nothing very progressive. But moreso, it seems to trounce on very traditional Republican policy in the process.
I’d like to claim a political conspiracy regarding this, but I’ve never seen any Democrat or Republican scheme like this.
California, as with any U.S. State, has a level of sovereignty with it. Republican doctrine is a strong supporter of this type of system (Federalism) . So why create a conflict when California, governed by a Republican Governor, openly wants to regulate itself? Further, the EPA won a supreme court decision last year allowing for regulation of auto air emissions. Why, then, would the EPA stand in the way of another sovereign government in attempts to regulate it?
That’s like a Democratic president lowering taxes and lengthening prison sentences. I just don’t get it. This is all a twisted perversion of all of my political stereotypes.
Then we still have the global warning doubters:
Appearing before the committee, Mr. Johnson was confronted with a hostile panel of senators, most of them Democrats. The only Republican present, Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, questioned whether human activity was an important cause of global warming and disputed the idea that there was a consensus among scientists that this was the case.
Doubting gravity because you don’t understand it doesn’t make your doubts legitimate – you’re just stupid. To this day, scientists don’t even understand gravity – but in spite of their stupidity, airplane engineers design accordingly.
I wish I had something smart and insightful to say about this. The EPA Chief is no publically-elected official and shouldn’t impeding those who are for his own apparent political agenda. Oklahoma Senator James Inhove is no scientist and shouldn’t be using doubt of science as a reason to impede a States’ right to govern itself.
This is…unbelievable.
And much like all other Bush-appointed officials, Stephen Johnson has memory loss when it comes to matters of accountability:
The chairwoman of the committee, Senator Barbara Boxer of California, has been in a dispute with the environmental agency over access to its records, to determine whether Mr. Johnson overruled his staff in blocking state action on global warming.
Mr. Johnson said he could not recall whether the briefing papers prepared by his staff had included a recommendation. He denied having been pressured by the White House to protect the car industry.
This is an embarrassment.
3 Comments
Yeah. You will see Republicans asking for federal control and Democrats arguing for state’s rights whenever it happens to fit them on the underlying issue. The ultimate issue is all that really matters. . . the principles are ideological tools to be whipped out whenever convenient . . .
Whether you agree with it or not, it is important to have a single national standard. California has contributed to pollution and energy inefficiencies over the years because the auto manufacturers have, by and large, declined to bring in technologies which were not “50 State” technologies. The new generation of “clean diesels” promises 30% to 40% greater fuel economy that the same vehicles using current gasoline engines. Sometimes the savings are even greater. All this is at risk if California and other states are allowed to institute localized regulation.
The first, and undoubtedly most important, step in reducing our dependence upon foreign oil is to improve the efficiency of our transport systems.
Ethanol, most particularly corn based ethanol, is not the answer. Certainly not in the very short term where improved efficiency can be achieved within the next two model years of automobile production.
Congress should remove the EPA’s authority to grant waivers such as the one sought by California.
Thor – your argument is very correct. But I think there are three points that change the premise upon which your argument is based.
1. Fuel economy is not actually a strong lever to green house gas emission. California’s CARB (California Air Resources Board) ratings are a direct evaluation of emissions. For example, cars built in the 80’s generally had better fuel economy than today’s cars, but they polluted more. So the “clean diesels” you speak of do get better fuel economy – as all diesels tend to – but they are clean because they were designed to meet high CARB emissions standards. That’s the only reason why they’re popular today.
So the end result is that more efficient engines have a stronger lever on GHG emissions than CAFE alone. High CAFE and low CARB doesn’t help much in the long run. High CARB standards with high CAFE is the best solution for everyone.
So if the industry follows your suggestion, there is no reason for the auto companies to design cars that have lower GHG emissions.
The EPA’s refusal to grant California’s waiver is based on their belief that CAFE standards are a better driver for emissions – even though they have no data to prove it (just their attitude). CARB and California have technical data to show that it is not.
2. You also imply that it is in the auto companies’ best interest to have one standard. That’s true, but they don’t operate by one standard as it is. All the big players – GM, Toyota, Ford – operate in almost every country on the planet each with their own standards. If there are 10 or 12 different standards in the U.S. they would be more than able to handle it.
You notice that none of the auto makers flinched at the higher CAFE standard increase. You would think they would have had a fit if it really mattered to them.
As it stands, they all tend to design for California anyways – they may offer other options in other states on given models that may not align with the California ratings. But overall, the auto makers design by California’s CARB ratings (you should have a little CARB rating sticker on one of your rear windows).
3. The head of the EPA isn’t a public official; Each individual state in the union has a level of sovereignty. I personally find it inappropriate for such an agency to stand in the way of a sovereign state’s ability to govern itself.
And as an aside, ethanol is a perfectly fine fuel – it doesn’t really work with our current infrastructure obviously. But Ford and GM both showed some great ethanol-specific technologies. As for the supply chain issue, that’s something that I’m confident can be solved.