Oct. 23, 2007

4 States To Sue For Tougher Emission Rules

California To File Federal Suit Against EPA, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Washington Will Join

  • Evening traffic crawls in San Diego, Calif., in January 2007. California has some of the strictest smog regulations. Photo

    Evening traffic crawls in San Diego, Calif., in January 2007. California has some of the strictest smog regulations.  (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty)

  • Photo Essay A Warming Effect

    A behind-the-scenes look at the 60 Minutes team's trip to Patagonia, Chile and Antarctica.

  • Special Report Arctic Adventure

    CBS News' Daniel Sieberg sets sail for the Arctic to learn more about climate change.

(CBS/AP)  California's attorney general is suing the EPA for stalling on a decision about whether to let California and 11 other states force car makers to produce cleaner vehicles.

The lawsuit is to be filed in federal court in Washington on Tuesday. It comes 22 months after California first asked the EPA to let the states impose tougher regulations on emissions of greenhouse gases from cars, pickups and SUV's.

"Unfortunately, the Bush administration has really had their head in the sand," California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. said Monday. "In this case, there has been an unreasonable delay."

California wants to implement a 2002 state law that would require automakers to begin making vehicles that emit fewer greenhouse gas emissions by model year 2009. It would cut emissions by about a quarter by the year 2030. But the law can only take effect if the EPA grants the state a waiver under the Clean Air Act.

Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Washington plan to join California's lawsuit against the EPA.

Eight other states - New York, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont - are ready to implement California's emissions standards if it gets the EPA waiver.

According to a new analysis by British climate scientists, the 25 percent reduction in a handful of U.S. states may be far too little, far too late.

CBS News reporter Vicki Barker says the report warns climate change will have a more devastating effect, and will have it much sooner than previously predicted.

According to an article in The Guardian, the United Nations' most recent prediction was that mankind had just eight years to act to stave off the worst effects of global warming. The experts behind the British study say there is less time than that.

Quote

I hope political leaders will act on this, because we need to do something fast.

Corinne Le Quere, Climate scientist
Corinne Le Quere, from the University of East Anglia and the British Antarctic Survey, told the Guardian: "It's bad news because the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has accelerated since 2000 in a way we did not expect."

Le Quere worried his findings might have an adverse effect on the policy makers with the power to legislate change. "My biggest worry is people are discouraged by this and do nothing. I hope political leaders will act on this, because we need to do something fast."

The report lays blame for the unexpectedly rapid rise in greenhouse gas levels to two key factors: China's booming, fossil-fuel-hungry economy, and a reduction in the amount of carbon pollution soaked up by the world's land and oceans.

© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Video and Galleries from SciTech

Add a Comment See all 24 Comments
by vtgrl1 October 23, 2007 8:38 AM PDT
So what is next? Will the EPA counter-sue California for the air pollution from the fires?
Reply to this comment
by missingamerica October 23, 2007 9:30 AM PDT
If global warming causes us to crash and burn, do you think the Bushies will feel any guilt at all for those decades of resisting the planet''s need for them to live up to their responsibilities?

Me, I think they''ll say something like "It is solar activity!" or "This comet that used to show up every 2000 years and cool us down with a massive sprinkle of ice water didn''t show up!" or "If the public hadn''t have wanted all of the electricity for those incubators for preemies this wouldn''t have happened!".

I.e., they''ll say "It is not our fault!" and then proceed to build massive habitats that are safely insulated from Earth''s atmosphere; habitats whose air conditioning needs are met by generating plants that vent their waste gases - be they carbon-centric or radioactive - back into Earth''s atmosphere.

And anyone will be able to go there - if they have the $250 million for a basic living unit or are willing to work in exchange for cleaned, cooled air.
Reply to this comment
by nothappyatall October 23, 2007 9:52 AM PDT
With all those wild fires burning it won''t matter, the pollution from those is worse.

"It would cut emissions by about a quarter by the year 2030. "

1/4 by 2030?? LOL too little WAY too late
Reply to this comment
by GuardBoy98 October 23, 2007 10:09 AM PDT
"With all those wild fires burning it won''''t matter, the pollution from those is worse."

How is that relevant? Besides, the wildfires are out of control because of our actions. Developing in dangerous areas ... interrupting the natural cycle ...
Reply to this comment
by whatevur October 23, 2007 10:23 AM PDT
Another Ice Age?

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html

Global Warming... Global Cooling... it is all just junk science. It is not that hard to understand... The earth actually goes through cycles in the climate.
Reply to this comment
by greensky1 October 23, 2007 10:31 AM PDT
Too bad humans aren''t causing global warming. I hate it when people talk about it like it''s real.
Go to
http://junkscience.com/
and talk the challenge that they have proposed. If you really think that humans are cauing global warming and you can prove it, they will give you over $100,000.
Me, I think humans aren''t causing it at all.
Reply to this comment
by underdog57-2009 October 23, 2007 10:46 AM PDT
Uh, according to government-sponsored scientists who depend on climate study grants to pay their mortgages, we have a crisis. Huh???

Gotta name for you: Dr. Robert Statler (''nuff said)

In order to meet California''s proposed requirements, cars will be made smaller and lighter. Can''t fight the laws of physics, folks.

Commercial vehicles will remain the sams size, however. More people will die horible, flaming deaths trapped in their little bitty Califirnia-spec cars. (physics again) This will not happen 50 years from now, or even 5 years from now. It will begin happening the day after fools start buying those cars (will anyone buy them?).

Real people, real deaths. How many people have died of global warming?

Oh, and when it happens, it''ll be George Bush''s fault.

..and China is opening two coal-fired power plants a week....
Reply to this comment
by underdog57-2009 October 23, 2007 10:50 AM PDT
oops, that was Dr. Robert Stadler

sorry
Reply to this comment
by rlubien October 23, 2007 10:59 AM PDT
Now Gov Moonbeam is the state''s AG. Heaven help CA. Why is it the states doing the suing have all the emission problems. The midwest has solved their emission problems by growing their fuel- ethanol; California doesn''t. Infact former CA Attorney General sued to keep ethanol fuel, a clean emission fuel that reduces greenhouse gases, out of CA. It''s time the 8 billion gallons of clean burning ethanol fuel produced in the corn belt was purchased by fellow states to reduce their own emissions that they complain about.
Reply to this comment
by mediapreachr October 23, 2007 12:09 PM PDT
California already has the strictest regulations on emissions.While we''re going to pay more for a smog check,those mexican trucks are being exempt.Yea,global economy deregulation-distract me while I''m being screwd over.
Reply to this comment
by thinkforonce October 23, 2007 12:15 PM PDT
I can''t believe someone has actually cited the "junkscience.com" website as a legitimate source of science on global warming. People will seemingly believe anything they read if it supports their predetermined opinions. Consider the source: Steven Milloy, the brains behind that site, is a paid lobbyist and PR shill for Phillip Morris and Exxon, both of whom have vested interests in creating a false "dispute" as to the science involved. Interestingly, Milloy is not a scientist and has no academic credentials as such, but holds himself out as such regularly. Check him out on sourcewatch.org if you really want to know if he''s a reliable source of information. Confident in your info now? Or are you still content to be a head-in-the-sand "conservative"?
Reply to this comment
by ihatespam4 October 23, 2007 12:27 PM PDT
What really smokes me is when people like Greensky1 point to websites that are controlled by Oil lobbying interests.

$ whois junkscience.com
[Querying whois.verisign-grs.com]

Registrant:
Steve Milloy
12309 Briarbush Lane
Potomac, MD 20854
US

Registrar: DOTSTER
Domain Name: JUNKSCIENCE.COM
Created on: 16-FEB-96
Expires on: 17-FEB-09
Last Updated on: 24-JUN-07

Administrative, Technical Contact:
Milloy, Steve stevenmilloy@yahoo.com
12309 Briarbush Lane
Potomac, MD 20854
US
301-259-9320
301-330-3440



Steven J. Milloy is a columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil and other corporations.

Milloy has spent much of his life as a lobbyist for major corporations and trade organisations which have poisioning or polluting problems. He originally ran NEPI (National Environmental Policy Institute) which was founded by Republican Rep Don Ritter (who tried to get tobacco industry funding) using oil and gas industry funding. NEPI was dedicated to transforming both the EPA and the FDA, and challenging the cost of Superfund toxic cleanups by these large corporations.

So let''s get real here and stop the phony strawman tactics. Some of us aren''t really quite as stupid as the the Corporate *** Steve Milloy''s of the world would have you think.
Reply to this comment
by shafteriffic October 23, 2007 12:48 PM PDT
The EPA should be disbanned. There never should have been anything like the EPA in the first place. Ralph Nader will burn in HELL for what he has done to the American people. The 2 greatest things man ever invented are in automobiles: internal combustion engine and climate control!
Reply to this comment
by bthrasher102 October 23, 2007 1:39 PM PDT
Let California change their laws. When it becomes too expensive to follow them, businesses will leave the state and go to other ones or more likely, other countries.
Reply to this comment
by DrColes October 23, 2007 1:43 PM PDT
State government displaying there stupidly and promoting junk science. UK court says Gore is a fraud. August 2007 Update: Man-made Catastrophic Global Warming Not True. Further, flawed NASA Global Warming data paid for by George Soros. In order to be an intelligent reader you must have a basic knowledge. Please do your own homework; a starting point http://www.InteliOrg.com/
Reply to this comment
by cepe10-2009 October 23, 2007 1:52 PM PDT
Milloy has a "Natural Science" degree - not sure what that is but it sounds like a soft science for dummies type of thing...lol He has not published anything that i can see in a peer reviewed journal. Basically he is a paid shill.
Reply to this comment
by nixiewoman October 23, 2007 3:52 PM PDT
What do we have to do? Wait until a democrate is president to get this approved?? WHEN is the great USA going to put a stop to letting corporations control the world?? When are we going to get our priorieties straight for our children''s children?
Reply to this comment
by nixiewoman October 23, 2007 3:57 PM PDT
To you fools who think the Earth produces it''s own green house gases in abundance...WE ARE!

6 million people on Earth and you think we have NOTHING to do with the pollution? You actually think the gases and pollution we produce will not have some effect?
You foolish ''head-in-the-sand'' conservatives. Get off the couch and take some responsiblity for your actions!
Reply to this comment
by nixiewoman October 23, 2007 3:59 PM PDT
I meant 6 Billion (of course)
Reply to this comment
by slipster01 October 23, 2007 5:39 PM PDT
how about the automakers stop shipping ANY cars to California? California wants lower-emmision cars, let them make their own.


problem solved!
Reply to this comment
by slipster01 October 23, 2007 5:39 PM PDT
how about the automakers stop shipping ANY cars to California? California wants lower-emmision cars, let them make their own.


problem solved!
Reply to this comment
by slipster01 October 23, 2007 5:39 PM PDT
how about the automakers stop shipping ANY cars to California? California wants lower-emmision cars, let them make their own.


problem solved!
Reply to this comment
by slipster01 October 23, 2007 5:39 PM PDT
how about the automakers stop shipping ANY cars to California? California wants lower-emmision cars, let them make their own.


problem solved!
Reply to this comment
by slipster01 October 23, 2007 5:39 PM PDT
how about the automakers stop shipping ANY cars to California? California wants lower-emmision cars, let them make their own.


problem solved!
Reply to this comment
See all 24 Comments
  • MOST POPULAR
  • Viewed
  • Commented
Latest News
Featured Blogs