Bush Secretly Undermines State Efforts to Curb Global Warming
Bush Secretly Undermines State Efforts to Curb Global Warming
With the Bush administration asleep at the wheel, states have been forced to take the lead in combating global warming. Last year California adopted rules which “will require a 30 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions from cars and light trucks by 2016, a target that will most likely be met by big increases in fuel efficiency.”
The approach is gaining popularity. The New York Times reported last Sunday:
The Bush administration hates the California plan, and industry has challenged it in court. But George Pataki of New York and other Eastern governors have pledged to emulate it — which means the states may end up carrying a ball that Congress dropped. That would not be a bad thing at all.
Yesterday, the Bush administration released new federal fuel efficiency standards. (Not surprisingly, the standards will do little to increase fuel efficiency and may actually encourage automakers to produce bigger, more inefficient vehicles.)
Buried on page 150 of the draft rule is a provision that would totally undermine state efforts to curb CO2 emissions:
[A] state may not impose a legal requirement relating to fuel economy, whether by statute, regulation or otherwise, that conflicts with this rule. A state law that seeks to reduce motor vehicle carbon dioxide emissions is both expressly and impliedly preempted.
In other words, no state can have a fuel efficiency rule any different than the federal government. So much for state’s rights.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
46 Responses to “Bush Secretly Undermines State Efforts to Curb Global Warming”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
BushCo is only concerned with the right to hypocrisy.
August 24th, 2005 at 4:32 pmIs this bush’s idea of a world on fire.This so called leader must hate the earth that he bike upon. I guess he must have a really big Bubble going in that little greedy brain of his.
August 24th, 2005 at 4:42 pmHow can you directly state that something is impliedly preempted? Don’t you have to just imply that it’s preempted?
Sheesh, I’m glad I’m not a lawyer.
August 24th, 2005 at 4:47 pmYeah, that’s a real elegant turn of a phrase isn’t it?
August 24th, 2005 at 4:50 pmNo wonder they so desperately need to have Robert’s confirmed. I almost can’t wait to see the Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of this–what 10th Amendment??? Sorry, not in this reality of ours.
August 24th, 2005 at 5:00 pmSimply unbelievable. I can’t wait for the states to start suing the folks in DC.
August 24th, 2005 at 5:06 pmYeah, I’m thinking the lawsuits will be pretty
August 24th, 2005 at 5:13 pminteresting.
No wonder the auto companies were so happy.
Isn’t this like BUsh clean air act which allows pollutors to pollute even more so long as they buy the required credits from factories that pollute less than the limit?
It basically told states that they have no right to set their own pollution control laws. A factory can pollute all they want, no matter what the state says, because they have federal pollution credits.
Nice.
August 24th, 2005 at 5:23 pmYou might think some principled republican (don’t laugh now)
would object to this sort of thing, wouldn’t you?
I guess that answers itself doesn’t it?
It seems the entire GOP program is run by deceit.
– Laws that do they opposite as they say
– Fake rationales for war,
– Untrue smears
– Fake reasons for rich guy tax cuts
– Changing the way long-term measures are made to
skew the results
– Fake color charts to scare people
– Saying huge debt is not a problem
It goes on and on.
A whole platform of deceit.
August 24th, 2005 at 5:33 pmLess big government is the Republican platform right?
August 24th, 2005 at 5:34 pmMakes sense in Bizarro World USA.
The new Republican slogan of 2006/2008:
August 24th, 2005 at 5:36 pm“INSULTING YOUR INTELLIGENCE DAILY”
afterthought, I’m not saying I’m principled but I don’t agree with this policy. I think each state should be able to determine its own fuel efficiency standards. Might cause some problems for the automakers but they’ll figure it out.
And Skid, Bush’s big government approach is what I find really unappealing about him.
August 24th, 2005 at 5:42 pmI know, Skid. Less government, state’s rights and fiscal responsibility were their mantras. They have abandoned every single one.
August 24th, 2005 at 5:42 pmI agree P&P. That’s why I am not affiliated with the party.
August 24th, 2005 at 5:45 pmIf Terry Schiavo were made of crude oil, Bush would have unplugged her years ago and given the mining rights to Lee Raymond for Christmas.
August 24th, 2005 at 6:17 pmHey, CC, I think you can go ahead and say that you’re principled–after all, you’re not affiliated with the party (is that where the “Concerned” comes in?) Yes, I’m a liberal, but I’m a registered Independent so that I’m not totally affiliated with all Democrats. I have to admit that there actually ARE good and bad people on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, most of them are bad.
August 24th, 2005 at 6:23 pmHaha, “impliedly.” I think they meant “implicitly”.
August 24th, 2005 at 6:35 pmAs I posted before, it just completely amazes me how drunks can have moments of clarity, yet the American public seems to have yet to experience such an awakening as a whole or majority. There’s always hope at least, and voices willing to say it.
August 24th, 2005 at 6:50 pmWhat did you expect? Daddy wants to get top dollar for the oil he is stealing. Hilary will fix it if we can wait that long.
August 24th, 2005 at 6:58 pmActually we are really doing DUHbya dirty. He is just like that other ventriloquist’s dummy: a mouth that moves but nothing comes out but an echo from his boss and a head of wood with no space for a brain. DUHbya is not smart enough to think up all this stuff and too dumb to realize he is being used. He has a problem, however. Everybody laughed at Charlie McCarthy because they loved him. Everybody who has ever had an original thought laughs at DUHbya because he has never had one. Maybe we should start calling him Kaw-Liga after Marty Robbins’ “poor old wooden head.” Poor old DUHbya, he don’t know what he missed cause his head is made out of knotty pine. You young’uns got some research to do.
August 24th, 2005 at 7:12 pm#20Clyde,
I’ll never be able to listen to Hank Williams’ version of Kaw-Liga the same again.
August 24th, 2005 at 8:45 pmInteresting trend isn’t it? There are states (Georgia for one, IIRC) that have passed laws forbiding cities or counties from imposing higher minimum wage levels than the state sets in its minimum wage law, this in a blatent effort to prevent the passage of “living wage” ordinances at the local level. Now the feds want to prempt state regulations on CO2 pollution. I think that they may not be able to get away with it unless there is a federal law passed by Congress and not just an executive branch regulation, but I am not sure about that (IANAL). Such a law, in any case, would be covered under the interstate commerce clause: there is no way it will fall under the “all other” of the 9th or 10th amendments.
It used to be, and to some extent still is, the case that such Federal premption was directed at raising the floor, so to speak, as in the civil rights act, voting rights act, &c. Now it seems that the intent is to lower the ceiling, to prevent states from trying to do better (lower the boom? :-)
August 24th, 2005 at 9:14 pmHilary aint gonna fix shit. shes just another establishment figure head.aint no revolution gonna come from a Hilary presidency. if she was as radically liberal as the righties like to paint her as, i would be excited that maybe some things will change, but really, Hilary is a lot less liberal than you think.
August 24th, 2005 at 9:17 pm[…] Think Progress » Bush Secretly Undermines State Efforts to Curb Global Warming […]
August 24th, 2005 at 9:33 pmThe Bushevichs will submarine state’s efforts at fuel efficiency and consumption reforms the same way it stepped in to quash the California medical marijuana laws…IT KNOWS BEST and state’s rights be damned… they have way too many friends in Big Oil to ever let a state like Kaleefornya get in their way…
August 24th, 2005 at 9:44 pm#12, CC I understand where you are going with that one, but fuel prices and emissions are really a national policy issue IMHO. One of the problems today is that states are enacting different clean fuels initiatives, which means different additives in the fuels and so on. This gives the refiners a real headache (I know a lot of people don’t care for the refiners with their profit margins) having to blend different fuels for different states. They parley this headache into higher prices at the pumps because this creates artificial bottlenecks in the fuel supply which can unfortunately be exploited, Enron-style, by the refiners and marketers.
I would advocate that the federal government shut that down before it starts and avoid distorting the supply with legislative barriers. 60% of oil consumed in this country is used for pushing metal around the roads - how do you get a smack addict of smack? That’s the problem. The Busheviks have done zippo to help the addicts and everything to help the pushers and nothing to solve the ‘drug’ problem.
The usual suspects, the ‘fascist scumbag’ name calling people in this site ask for ideas from Democrats - well here’s an idea to think about, if not get behind: http://www.apolloalliance.org/
August 24th, 2005 at 10:35 pmportly wrote
“The Bushevichs will submarine state’s efforts at fuel efficiency and consumption reforms the same way it stepped in to quash the California medical marijuana laws…IT KNOWS BEST and state’s rights be damned”
I agree that rulling was totaly bogus, kind of like the Kleo one. What ever happened to Federalism?
Thats why we need more strict constructionalist on the court.
August 24th, 2005 at 10:37 pm#21
Skid,
If you read my post on the next thread you will probably swear off the Kingston Trio too.
My apologies! I can send you a Burl Ives CD if that will help.
August 24th, 2005 at 10:47 pm#8: voluntary pollution limits are mostly a joke, I think. There is only one angle to it that makes some sense, but only for some pollutants and only if the penalty imposed by the market is strong enough. By this I mean the fact that energy costs are so high for hevay comsumers of power in industry, like say paper/pulp industry or refiners, that it makes sense to them to cut energy costs with some application of good practice or technology and by doing so, burn less fuel to waste less fuel and cause more emissions.
I also think that emissions trading are a good idea, depending on the pollutant and depending on how the market is set up and regulated - nobody wants a gamable system. CO2, probably OK. Mercury, bad idea. How would you like the market deciding whether or not, your local power plant spat out more or less mercury into your suburb…?
August 24th, 2005 at 11:00 pmWhoops, for ‘more emissions’ I meant ‘less emissions’ and this is good because industry has a commercial and a public perception benefit. But some level of punitive regulation is absolutely necessary, because corporations are only amoral piles of money trying to be bigger amoral piles of money in the end.
A word on the Busheviks on Superfund. Bush killed Superfund, the most successful and innovative way of dealing with legacy industrial pollution. Between killing Superfund and stuffing ‘Clean Air Act’ (take a bow Orwell) down Amurka’s throat, the Chimp has set back the environmental progress kicked off by Tricky Dick under duress at the dawn of the 1970s.
August 24th, 2005 at 11:08 pmI think I have a workaround that could help - - kind of like emission credits, but put the tax burden on those who choose to buy vehicles that don’t meet standards.
August 24th, 2005 at 11:36 pmBush does not care about global warming, and he definately does not care about raising emmisions standards. And he will not admit that the two have anything to do with one another. What does he care about? Oil, money, and anything that will get him more oil and more money.
August 24th, 2005 at 11:57 pmTurning car licensing tax into a ’sin tax’. Works for me - up until now, it’s mostly been based on supporting transportation and highways.
August 25th, 2005 at 12:02 amThis BushCo move will only make foreign vehicles more attractive to the American consumer. I hope the states sue DC over this bullshit.
August 25th, 2005 at 12:02 amProles rise up!
August 25th, 2005 at 12:03 amStuff You Should Read
Does your state wants tougher vehicle emission standards? Guess again!
August 25th, 2005 at 1:55 amSoon, Detroit will be GIVING the SUVs away.
August 25th, 2005 at 9:30 amNothing down, Zero interest, no payments ’til 2010!!
Oh…and a tax break if you commit.
UNTHINKING TANK [Jonathan H. Adler]
Judd Legum of Think Progress is upset about the Bush Administration’s new fuel economy standards. As if he’s uncovered something sinister in the rules, he writes “Buried on page 150 of the draft rule is a provision that would totally undermine state efforts to curb CO2 emissions.” What Legum does not mention is that preemption is written into the federal law authorizing federal fuel economy rules in the first place. Indeed, the very next paragraph after the one Legum quotes makes this clear:
Our statute contains a broad preemption provision making clear the need for a uniform, federal system: “When an average fuel economy standard prescribed under this chapter is in effect, a State or a political subdivision of a State may not adopt or enforce a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards or average fuel economy standards for automobiles covered by an average fuel economy standard under this chapter.” 49 U.S.C. 32919(a). Since the way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is to improve fuel economy, a state regulation seeking to reduce those emissions is a “regulation related to fuel economy standards or average fuel economy standards.â€
This interpretation of federal law is not new, and hardly had to be “buried” in the rule. It’s been explicit administration policy for quite some time — and is based upon a fairly straight-forward interpretation of existing federal law.
August 29th, 2005 at 11:00 amPosted at 06:56 PM
Take alook at letter “I” on page 155 of the proposed executive order…………children are not adversely affected???? Hmmmm, I’m thinking that since this is something that we’ll be leaving our children to deal with, this will definetly be affecting the children for years to come.
Do we really have to go through all the garbage listed just to give our input on this to the NTSB??? (Hey, I’m more than willing to DO something about this crap, but I’m still alittle green on how to go about doing something - as opposed to just griping about it)
August 30th, 2005 at 11:23 amT-Mobile Ringtones
T-Mobile Ringtones
December 23rd, 2005 at 4:12 pmsuv
suv
December 27th, 2005 at 12:26 pmipod mini
ipod mini
December 30th, 2005 at 8:38 pmwedding ring
wedding rings
January 1st, 2006 at 12:59 pmFree Texas Hold Um…
Do I spell it right? Free Texas Hold Um…
January 8th, 2006 at 12:48 pmfree cell phone ringtones…
Let it ring: Cell Phone Ringtones…
January 9th, 2006 at 12:47 pmWhy the f**k did we vote GW back into office again?
January 13th, 2006 at 6:52 pm