Submitted by Factchecker on Thu, 12/20/2007 - 15:56.
Only in the up=down world that is the Bush administration do weaker rules against greenhouse gases produce "significant reductions that are more effective than a state-by-state approach." Aside from several other facts, such as no one saying anything about this having to be an either-or approach for all the other states that do not want to participate, I suppose the EPA's denial of California's request to limit GHG outside of the federal government might be the best approach to fighting a problem the administration never has taken seriously.
And when rubber hits the road, conservatives again prove they aren't so eager to allow (let alone support) states' rights.
UPDATE: These people never change. They never learn.
"California met every criteria . . . on the merits. The same criteria we have used for the last 40 years on all the other waivers," said an EPA staffer. "We told him [EPA chief Johnson who ignored his technical staff] that. All the briefings we have given him laid out the facts."
a national strategy toward climate change is more effective than a state-by-state approach
California has been a leader in trying to curb negative environmental impacts. They enact laws and slowly the rest of the country follows. Someone has to start the ball rolling.
Submitted by Factchecker on Thu, 12/20/2007 - 16:53.
...an either-or approach for all the other states...
Should have been less fuzzy about the false implications made by the Bushies. In some instances, there would be either-or (Cal. or federal) mandate conflicts, but only with the effect of further reducing GHG. But the focus of the two rule sets are fundamentally different; the Cal. request is not an opt out direct substitution of the new rules under the Energy bill. Those would still have to be met by all states as a minimum. There's no reason not to allow the states to go further, though.
...They enact laws and slowly the rest of the country follows...
I agree. That's what this is about. The car makers lost the CAFE fight, but they have the Bushies' ears to keep from making cleaner cars that dictate what they sell nationwide.
a national strategy toward climate change is more effective than a state-by-state approach
California has been a leader in trying to curb negative environmental impacts. They enact laws and slowly the rest of the country follows. Someone has to start the ball rolling.
States rights! States rights!
Should have been less fuzzy about the false implications made by the Bushies. In some instances, there would be either-or (Cal. or federal) mandate conflicts, but only with the effect of further reducing GHG. But the focus of the two rule sets are fundamentally different; the Cal. request is not an opt out direct substitution of the new rules under the Energy bill. Those would still have to be met by all states as a minimum. There's no reason not to allow the states to go further, though.
I agree. That's what this is about. The car makers lost the CAFE fight, but they have the Bushies' ears to keep from making cleaner cars that dictate what they sell nationwide.