Comments on: EPA denies California waiver on tailpipe emissions. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/ Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:23:51 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: MiMiCcs http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/comment-page-1/#comment-4201462 MiMiCcs Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:40:03 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/#comment-4201462 Republicans started to stop being state rights advocates about the time of the Civil War, and the Republic was officially destroyed by a Democrat in 1913 with the Fed being created , creation of the Income tax and changes to how our Senators were elected; instead of being elected by the state legislature the critters were allowed to vote, and then they gave, gulp, she-critters the right to vote for the cute ones ( just joking, joking, joking). If California passes a tough law, manufacturers have a right not to sell product there or they wil sell it at a higher price. If Californians suffer as a result, the law changes. Thats what you call a free market. What happens though, is because California is such a big market, they meet their requirements, and the whole country benefits since in many cases it is not prudent to try separate product by each state, so they make the product to the toughest states requirements (actually, for the smaller states, thye usually ignore them). Frankly, just divide up the country into 10 regions and let FEMA run them, and do away with the states, thats probably the plan anyways. Congress is irrelevant, so let them stay home w/o wasting our money, then we won't need any lobbyists to bribe them and companies can earn more profit. Just elect the President every 4 years to be a decider on what country to invade next and give all of government functions to the big companies, which is essentially what we are doing anyways, isn't it. Republicans started to stop being state rights advocates about the time of the Civil War, and the Republic was officially destroyed by a Democrat in 1913 with the Fed being created , creation of the Income tax and changes to how our Senators were elected; instead of being elected by the state legislature the critters were allowed to vote, and then they gave, gulp, she-critters the right to vote for the cute ones ( just joking, joking, joking).

If California passes a tough law, manufacturers have a right not to sell product there or they wil sell it at a higher price. If Californians suffer as a result, the law changes. Thats what you call a free market. What happens though, is because California is such a big market, they meet their requirements, and the whole country benefits since in many cases it is not
prudent to try separate product by each state, so they make the product to the toughest states requirements (actually, for the smaller states, thye usually ignore them).

Frankly, just divide up the country into 10 regions and let FEMA run them, and do away with the states, thats probably the plan anyways. Congress is irrelevant, so let them stay home w/o wasting our money, then we won’t need any lobbyists to bribe them and companies can earn more profit. Just elect the President every 4 years to be a decider on what country to invade next and give all of government functions to the big companies, which is essentially what we are doing anyways, isn’t it.

]]> By: butaqa@yahoo.com http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/comment-page-1/#comment-4201015 butaqa@yahoo.com Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:46:40 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/#comment-4201015 Regardless of the EPA Decision, we as consumers need to be proactive by striving to meet or surpass California's tail pipe standards for 2009. What car models currently meet or surpass the new California standards? Regardless of the EPA Decision, we as consumers need to be proactive by striving to meet or surpass California’s tail pipe standards for 2009.

What car models currently meet or surpass the new California standards?

]]> By: shoeless http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/comment-page-1/#comment-4200092 shoeless Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:15:31 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/#comment-4200092 <em>I thought republicans were states rights advocates. Guess not. Comment by StratRat</em> No, the Republicans gave up any allusions to that false premise when they went to the Supreme Court in 2000 to stop the state of Florida from counting their votes. I thought republicans were states rights advocates. Guess not.

Comment by StratRat

No, the Republicans gave up any allusions to that false premise when they went to the Supreme Court in 2000 to stop the state of Florida from counting their votes.

]]> By: Doc Rock http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/comment-page-1/#comment-4199983 Doc Rock Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:40:20 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/#comment-4199983 And millions of Americans will continue to vote against their best interests, manipulated through hot-button-issue management plus a large dollop of opposition-voter-suppression. And millions of Americans will continue to vote against their best interests, manipulated through hot-button-issue management plus a large dollop of opposition-voter-suppression.

]]> By: Lora http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/comment-page-1/#comment-4199980 Lora Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:32:22 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/#comment-4199980 I really adore Henry Waxman and regret that I was redistricted out of his district. Not quite gerrymandering because I am still in a district with a Democrat Congressman, but few people can match Henry Waxman for integrity, gumption, etc. I really adore Henry Waxman and regret that I was redistricted out of his district. Not quite gerrymandering because I am still in a district with a Democrat Congressman, but few people can match Henry Waxman for integrity, gumption, etc.

]]> By: Sabyen91 http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/comment-page-1/#comment-4199859 Sabyen91 Thu, 20 Dec 2007 05:18:51 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/#comment-4199859 "Don’t get your panties in a bunch. The new CAFE legislation that the President just signed goes a long way towards what CA was trying to achieve, so it’s not like everything stays the same." Are you really that gullible or are you just evil? The Bushies have done this twice to Wisconsin so far. One, mercury levels in the water. Wisconsin wanted to restrict it further than the pro-pollution Republican feds but it wasn't allowed. Two, they overrode Wisconsin's excellent health program (Badgercare) for the working poor. I have not seen the feds "trying to achieve" anything close to these two programs. Grow up and read something. “Don’t get your panties in a bunch. The new CAFE legislation that the President just signed goes a long way towards what CA was trying to achieve, so it’s not like everything stays the same.”

Are you really that gullible or are you just evil? The Bushies have done this twice to Wisconsin so far. One, mercury levels in the water. Wisconsin wanted to restrict it further than the pro-pollution Republican feds but it wasn’t allowed. Two, they overrode Wisconsin’s excellent health program (Badgercare) for the working poor. I have not seen the feds “trying to achieve” anything close to these two programs. Grow up and read something.

]]> By: ForTruth http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/comment-page-1/#comment-4199832 ForTruth Thu, 20 Dec 2007 04:23:26 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/#comment-4199832 Jason you can always blame US healthcare costs for the US auto industry's problems. Jason you can always blame US healthcare costs for the US auto industry’s problems.

]]> By: Dave C http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/comment-page-1/#comment-4199825 Dave C Thu, 20 Dec 2007 04:07:50 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/#comment-4199825 <em>We’re No 2! We’re No 2! We’re No 2! Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — December 19, 2007 @ 10:26 pm</em> OT but considering where your healthcare ranking is, #2 in auto sales sounds pretty good. We’re No 2! We’re No 2! We’re No 2!

Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — December 19, 2007 @ 10:26 pm

OT but considering where your healthcare ranking is, #2 in auto sales sounds pretty good.

]]> By: pablo picasso http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/comment-page-1/#comment-4199823 pablo picasso Thu, 20 Dec 2007 04:06:19 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/#comment-4199823 ...was just reading about this actually :/ 42 USC 7543(b)(1) grants a waiver to states creating their own vehicle emission standards prior 3/30/1966...of which only CA was. Other states can adopt theirs as the only other option [42 USC 7507]. CA's standards must be "...in the aggregate, at least as protective of the public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards". Waiver can be denied if either: (b)(1)(A) determination of the State is arbitrary and capricious; (B) such State does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or"; inconsistent with 42 USC 7521(a)...basically the spirit of the federal emissions regulation. Challenge of this will likely be successful b/c this is nearly identical to MA v EPA [549 US 1438 (2007)]. Both use "shall" to require an EPA action. There, the EPA declared it wouldn't regulate CO2 emissions b/c it hadn't identified a causal connection to climate change. Promsingly, the court required a compelling reason why EPA wouldn't keep investigating. They couldn't, and lost. Here's a taste of that: §202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, which requires that the EPA“shall by regulation prescribe . . . standards applicable to the emis-sion of any air pollutant from any class . . . of new motor vehicles . . . which in [the EPA Administrator’s] judgment cause[s], or contrib-ute[s] to, air pollution . . . reasonably . . . anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” So the EPA will claim this time that it's confident there's no causal relationship b/w car emissions and climate change. Or possibly that climate change isn't a "compelling and extraordinary condition". I'm sure CA can show at least a single current condition to meet that threshold...such as species and coastline loss that can't be traditionally defended against. Oh, but i'm sure there's a 'war on christmas' that needs my attention ;/ …was just reading about this actually :/
42 USC 7543(b)(1) grants a waiver to states creating their own vehicle emission standards prior 3/30/1966…of which only CA was. Other states can adopt theirs as the only other option [42 USC 7507].
CA’s standards must be “…in the aggregate, at least as protective of the public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards”. Waiver can be denied if either: (b)(1)(A) determination of the State is arbitrary and capricious; (B) such State does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or”; inconsistent with 42 USC 7521(a)…basically the spirit of the federal emissions regulation.
Challenge of this will likely be successful b/c this is nearly identical to MA v EPA [549 US 1438 (2007)]. Both use “shall” to require an EPA action. There, the EPA declared it wouldn’t regulate CO2 emissions b/c it hadn’t identified a causal connection to climate change. Promsingly, the court required a compelling reason why EPA wouldn’t keep investigating. They couldn’t, and lost.
Here’s a taste of that:
§202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, which requires that the EPA“shall by regulation prescribe . . . standards applicable to the emis-sion of any air pollutant from any class . . . of new motor vehicles . . . which in [the EPA Administrator’s] judgment cause[s], or contrib-ute[s] to, air pollution . . . reasonably . . . anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,”

So the EPA will claim this time that it’s confident there’s no causal relationship b/w car emissions and climate change. Or possibly that climate change isn’t a “compelling and extraordinary condition”.
I’m sure CA can show at least a single current condition to meet that threshold…such as species and coastline loss that can’t be traditionally defended against.

Oh, but i’m sure there’s a ‘war on christmas’ that needs my attention ;/

]]> By: Roket http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/comment-page-1/#comment-4199810 Roket Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:31:09 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/#comment-4199810 Oh good. Another hearing. Let’s all watch Stephen Johnson get his ass reamed. Got popcorn? Oh good. Another hearing. Let’s all watch Stephen Johnson get his ass reamed. Got popcorn?

]]> By: The Republic of Stupidity http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/comment-page-1/#comment-4199805 The Republic of Stupidity Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:26:26 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/#comment-4199805 So Hendler sez, "Don't get yer panities in a bunch"... Funny, that's the first thing he thinks to say... project much, Jason? (Just asking...) **** Bottom line, US and foreign automakers can’t possibly be prepared to respond to the requirements of 50 different states. **** Gee, Jason, they were only given NINE years to reach the targets. And, mebbe, just mebbe, if CA's regulations had been allowed to go forward, the other states might have followed, so the poor auto makers would only have to match one set of requirements after all. **** Given that even a large state like CA only represents 10% of the total US market... **** Riiight... nice evasive, meaningless answer, seeing as that 10% of the auto market is concentrated in FAR LESS than 10% of the country, and the point of the regs was to make life better for the people living here, and not put a cruel and unusual burden on the poor auto makers. Sniff... snifff... **** auto companies simply can’t prepare their product development plans while various states try to fiddle with federal regulations. **** Meanwhile, the Japanese auto makers continue to kick the American auto makers' big, fat dumb*asses because they were willing to plan ahead and work on hybrids and bite the bullet on development costs. "Reported sales of hybrids in the US in November rose 82% year-on-year to reach 33,233 total units, representing 2.8% of all light-duty vehicles sold during the month. Total light-duty vehicle sales in the US dropped 1.6%." An 82% increase in hybrids while total sales dropped slightly shows a very encouraging trend. An 82% increase.... Whilst US makers are doing this (putting hybrids out), the Japanese still lead the parade. We're No 2! We're No 2! We're No 2! So Hendler sez, “Don’t get yer panities in a bunch”…

Funny, that’s the first thing he thinks to say… project much, Jason?

(Just asking…)

****
Bottom line, US and foreign automakers can’t possibly be prepared to respond to the requirements of 50 different states.

****
Gee, Jason, they were only given NINE years to reach the targets. And, mebbe, just mebbe, if CA’s regulations had been allowed to go forward, the other states might have followed, so the poor auto makers would only have to match one set of requirements after all.

****

Given that even a large state like CA only represents 10% of the total US market…

****

Riiight… nice evasive, meaningless answer, seeing as that 10% of the auto market is concentrated in FAR LESS than 10% of the country, and the point of the regs was to make life better for the people living here, and not put a cruel and unusual burden on the poor auto makers. Sniff… snifff…

****

auto companies simply can’t prepare their product development plans while various states try to fiddle with federal regulations.

****

Meanwhile, the Japanese auto makers continue to kick the American auto makers’ big, fat dumb*asses because they were willing to plan ahead and work on hybrids and bite the bullet on development costs.

“Reported sales of hybrids in the US in November rose 82% year-on-year to reach 33,233 total units, representing 2.8% of all light-duty vehicles sold during the month.
Total light-duty vehicle sales in the US dropped 1.6%.”
An 82% increase in hybrids while total sales dropped slightly shows a very encouraging trend.

An 82% increase….

Whilst US makers are doing this (putting hybrids out), the Japanese still lead the parade.

We’re No 2! We’re No 2! We’re No 2!

]]> By: tombaker http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/comment-page-1/#comment-4199797 tombaker Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:09:10 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/#comment-4199797 I demand to know why Nevar is bashing New Mexico. I demand to know why Nevar is bashing New Mexico.

]]> By: marlow http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/comment-page-1/#comment-4199790 marlow Thu, 20 Dec 2007 02:58:02 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/#comment-4199790 Just another day in the shrubs. Just another day in the shrubs.

]]> By: GL2814 http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/comment-page-1/#comment-4199769 GL2814 Thu, 20 Dec 2007 02:10:12 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/#comment-4199769 *BLEEP* THIS GAWDDAMNED WORTHLESS, REPUG DOMINATED, CORPORATE WHORE, SORRY EXCUSE FOR AN ADMINISTRATION!!!!!!! I have had it with a country <strong>of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation.</strong> *BLEEP* THIS GAWDDAMNED WORTHLESS, REPUG DOMINATED, CORPORATE WHORE, SORRY EXCUSE FOR AN ADMINISTRATION!!!!!!!

I have had it with a country of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation.

]]> By: Zooey http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/comment-page-1/#comment-4199765 Zooey Thu, 20 Dec 2007 02:05:08 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/#comment-4199765 Heh. Heh.

]]> By: Nevar http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/comment-page-1/#comment-4199761 Nevar Thu, 20 Dec 2007 02:03:13 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/#comment-4199761 Would that be considered a vegetative state? (Nahhhhh........ ;) Would that be considered a vegetative state?

(Nahhhhh…….. ;)

]]> By: Zooey http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/comment-page-1/#comment-4199759 Zooey Thu, 20 Dec 2007 02:00:54 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/#comment-4199759 What about a potato state...? ;) What about a potato state…? ;)

]]> By: Nevar http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/comment-page-1/#comment-4199756 Nevar Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:57:05 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/#comment-4199756 I guess living in a blessed state, as opposed to an enchanted state, can have literary effects. ;) I guess living in a blessed state, as opposed to an enchanted state, can have literary effects. ;)

]]> By: Bobwurst http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/comment-page-1/#comment-4199755 Bobwurst Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:55:51 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/#comment-4199755 re Jason, You're assuming there wasn't a secret signing statement that makes compliance voluntary and awards additional tax cuts to hummer drivers or oil executives... re Jason,
You’re assuming there wasn’t a secret signing statement that makes compliance voluntary and awards additional tax cuts to hummer drivers or oil executives…

]]> By: Nevar http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/comment-page-1/#comment-4199753 Nevar Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:52:32 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/12/19/epa-denies-california-waiver-on-tailpipe-emissions/#comment-4199753 Dang, wrong again..... Dang, wrong again…..

]]>