I'm back, for now. And I'll get back to my medical topics eventually, but as I'm currently taking Conservation Biology (as required for my major), I have some beef to deal with first. So, with that, let's get to my topic: the EPA and California.
First, a little background. The EPA is the Environmental Protection Agency. It was formed in 1970, among lots and lots of other environmental policies. It's goal is to "protect human health and the environment" by providing regulations for environmental laws made by Congress, providing funding for environmental research, and setting national standards for things like clear air, among other things.
Now, California made a proposal a few years back to require new vehicles sold in the state to cut their emissions 30 percent by 2016. They were the first state in the nation to propose such a law. Unfortunately, in order for it to become law in the state, under the Clear Air Act, they had to get a waiver from the EPA.
Well, the EPA rejected the bid. After Bush decided to make a law saying that autos had to have a fuel economy of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, California's proposal seemed pointless. Problem is, the California standard would require 43.7 miles per gallon (for passenger cars) by 2016. Quite a bit of a discrepancy. Apparently, many congressmen figured a nationwide approach would be better than a state-by-state approach.
And this decision doesn't just affect California. Many other states, including Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington have also adopted these emissions standards, with a few more states soon to follow.
So, what's California doing about it? Suing the EPA, of course.
And why not? If a law in a state meets the minimum federal standards, it should be allowed, should it not? And who are those who have anything to lose with this decision? The automakers and oil companies. Gee, I wonder who's influencing those politicians... Especially when other countries already have stricter fuel economy requirements (which is why American automakers are the ones with the low fuel economy, and the foreign cars are the ones with the high fuel economy).
What do you think about it all?
I agree with the EPA.
You cannot ask a company to increase it's standards that significantly for a single state. That's economically absurd, and would desperately affect the citizens of California. Rather than increasing their MPG, the companies would simply meet the federal mandate and not be able to supply cars to California, thereby denying the people of California new vehicles. This would be a real shame, and what state would choose to bring this upon it's citizens?
Sounds like California's got it's head up it's ass to me.
But it's no longer just California. It's more than a fifth of the country.
And many foreign vehicles already meet the standards, or will in the next 8 years.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Then perhaps it should be made a national law, as originally intended. Maybe a compromise is the best.
But suing the EPA is a stupid idea, in my opinion. The EPA is a useless political organization to start with, and can't actually accomplish what it has set out to do.
I'm tempted to agree that it's a useless organization, but it's one of the few government organizations we can sue, thanks to the laws set up in the 70's. If an NGO (or a state, in this case) thinks that the EPA did something that was not in the best interests of everyone involved, suing is a great way to force them to reevaluate the decision.
There was an article in the NYT the other day about some NGO suing over the proposed oil drilling in Alaska, because they didn't believe that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was accurate. If it's determined that the environment will be hurt too much, they can't drill.
Much better than having the government make a decision and everyone having to live with it whether you agree with it or not.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
It would be much more fun for the public to decide, "Hey, we're not going to take this shit anymore. We're not going to buy cars unless they are at least 50 MPG, and we're not going to spend $5.00/gallon for gas either." This would force both the fuel and the transportation industries to become reactive (rather than this false "proactive" that is really just a front) and actually give the people what they want.
The reality is, we have the technology and the ability to not be reliant on fossil fuels. It's just a question of consumers (not the government, because it's not the government's responsibility to get involved in industry) forcing private industry to give them what they want. Unfortunately, it's unlikely this will ever happen. We're not organized enough.
Industry apologists. We're certainly wrought with them.
Something economically absurd you say? You're a company like Ford Motors under General Motors and you don't adapt to the fuel economy's of other nations products. Your product gets left in the dust and cannot compete. People buy Toyota vehicles. Your CEO lays off thousands of American workers in an effort to maintain buoyancy.
California made a political/environmental move that will increase the sustainability of the company and have an extreme impact on the company b/c the state has a lotta consumers. And you think it will have an impact on its citizens? You're right. They're going to get their more efficient cars if it kills them. Have you seen Who Killed The Electric Car?
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly