Comments on: Bush Secretly Undermines State Efforts to Curb Global Warming

By: Left-Winger

Left-Winger — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:52:34 +0000

Why the f**k did we vote GW back into office again?

By: Free Cell Phone Ringtones

Free Cell Phone Ringtones — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 17:47:01 +0000

free cell phone ringtones…

Let it ring: Cell Phone Ringtones…

By: Free Texas Hold Um

Free Texas Hold Um — Sun, 08 Jan 2006 17:48:27 +0000

Free Texas Hold Um…

Do I spell it right? Free Texas Hold Um…

By: wedding ring

wedding ring — Sun, 01 Jan 2006 17:59:40 +0000

wedding ring

wedding rings

By: ipod mini

ipod mini — Sat, 31 Dec 2005 01:38:04 +0000

ipod mini

ipod mini

By: suv

suv — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:26:00 +0000

suv

suv

By: T-Mobile Ringtones

T-Mobile Ringtones — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:12:46 +0000

T-Mobile Ringtones

T-Mobile Ringtones

By: Emma

Emma — Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:23:36 +0000

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)

By: J

Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:00:46 +0000

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 â€œregulation 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.
Posted at 06:56 PM

By: Keith H.

Keith H. — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 13:30:22 +0000

Soon, Detroit will be GIVING the SUVs away.
Nothing down, Zero interest, no payments ’til 2010!!
Oh…and a tax break if you commit.

By: Electric-Escape.net

Electric-Escape.net — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 05:55:22 +0000

Stuff You Should Read

Does your state wants tougher vehicle emission standards? Guess again!

By: Mack MacKenzie

Mack MacKenzie — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:03:27 +0000

Proles rise up!

By: Mack MacKenzie

Mack MacKenzie — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:02:18 +0000

This BushCo move will only make foreign vehicles more attractive to the American consumer. I hope the states sue DC over this bullshit.

By: Terrytheturtle

Terrytheturtle — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:02:14 +0000

Turning car licensing tax into a ’sin tax’. Works for me – up until now, it’s mostly been based on supporting transportation and highways.

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 03:57:34 +0000

Bush 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.

By: Frank Lynch

Frank Lynch — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 03:36:12 +0000

I 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.

By: Terrytheturtle

Terrytheturtle — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 03:08:48 +0000

Whoops, 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.

By: Terrytheturtle

Terrytheturtle — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 03:00:48 +0000

#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…?

By: Clyde the Ripper

Clyde the Ripper — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:47:00 +0000

#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.

By: Eddie

Eddie — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:37:37 +0000

portly wrote

“The Bushevichs will submarine stateâ€™s efforts at fuel efficiency and consumption reforms the same way it stepped in to quash the California medical marijuana lawsâ€¦IT KNOWS BEST and stateâ€™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.