Is EPA Playing Dirty With Clean Air Law?

Schwarzenegger, Others To Sue Agency Over Its Denial Of Stricter Auto Emissions Rules

(CBS/AP)  The old axiom goes, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way."

Critics are saying the Environmental Protection Agency has added another option: "Trip up."

Several states are now talking about suing the EPA because of its rejection of a strict auto emissions law set to be enacted by California and 16 other states, rules which would have required cleaner cars beginning two years from now.

Under the Clean Air Act, California is allowed to have stricter clean air laws than the federal government. Other states are also allowed to adopt California's stricter regulations than the federal rules.

With 10% of all car purchases in the U.S. made in California, the state represents a sizable market for U.S. and foreign car companies. And with other states signing on, the new emissions law would have covered approximately 45% of the U.S. auto market.

The law would cut pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and fuel consumption.

And California wasn't going it alone: 16 states were ready to adopt California's standards, including Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Washington.

However, the EPA had to agree to the new law by issuing a waiver. And the EPA said "no."

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson announced Wednesday that, without waiting for a finalized written statement by the agency's technical and legal staff, he had declined California's request.

Referring to the energy bill which Congress recently passed and which the president signed into law, Johnson said, "The Bush Administration is moving forward with a clear national solution - not a confusing patchwork of state rules - to reduce America’s climate footprint from vehicles."

It was the first time California had ever been denied a waiver when asking to enact clean air rules that were cleaner than federal rules.

Johnson said that, unlike other waivers issued in the past for pollutants impacting local and regional air quality, California's current request for emissions whose effects are "fundamentally global in nature" was rejected because it did not “meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.”

The Los Angeles Times now reports that Johnson overruled his own staff's findings in denying California's waiver, after agency staff had argued unanimously that the Golden State had met all of its requirements.

California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols was one source cited by the paper as saying EPA staff informed her that they had been overruled by Johnson.

The Los Angeles Times also suggested that correspondence from auto manufacturers, and pressure possibly linked to meetings held last month between executives from Ford and General Motors and Vice President Dick Cheney which were first reported by the Detroit News, may have influenced Johnson.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vowed to fight back. "I am extremely disappointed by EPA's decision to block the will of millions of people in California and 16 other states who want us to take tough action against global warming," he said in a statement.

"EPA's denial of our waiver request to enact the nation's cleanest standards for vehicle emissions is legally indefensible and another example of the failure to treat climate change with the seriousness it demands."

Schwarzenegger announced that the state will sue EPA to overturn the ruling as quickly as possible. "I have no doubt that we will prevail because the law, science and the public's demand for leadership are on our side.

"Anything less than aggressive action is inexcusable," he said.

Automobile manufacturers sued to prevent the California law from taking effect, arguing that they could not alter production to meet the demand in time. The Bush administration joined their case, claiming the EPA should not regulate carbon dioxide - a major greenhouse gas - because it believed CO2 is not a pollutant.

In April the Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration, saying that the Clean Air Act does give the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

In September, a federal district court judge rejected the automakers suit brought before a Vermont court. And earlier this month, another federal judge tossed the automakers' suit in California. "Given the level of impairment of human health and welfare that current climate science indicates may occur if human-generated greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, it would be the very definition of folly if EPA were precluded" from regulating greenhouse gases, Judge Anthony Ishii wrote.

It seemed that California and the other states were on the verge of moving forward. But shortly after President Bush signed the new energy bill, Johnson announced there would be no waiver.

The Energy bill, which President Bush originally threatened to veto, raised car fuel efficiency standards for the first time in 32 years, and marked a defeat for automakers who had vigorously opposed raising fuel economy in the past.

California's regulations would have required a 30-percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions in new cars and light trucks by 2016, with the first cutbacks starting in 2009.

The new federal regulations would result in somewhat smaller reductions of greenhouse gases - 10-23% by 2030 - and would require automakers to achieve an industry-wide standard of 35 miles per gallon four years later than the California law, in 2020.

California's law would also apply to all vehicles - unlike federal rules which separates cars and trucks under different categories.

Johnson said that the new federal fuel efficiency ratings (known as Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards) mean that states need not adopt competing standards.

"There is much greater environmental benefit of 50 states abiding by this new law [than] one or two or twelve or seventeen," he said.

But other states adopting California's law means there would be only two standards, no matter how many states opt in. And those states are opting to join with California in fighting the EPA.

[trillion1]

This goverment has been bought out lock, stock and barrel by big business. It was never this bad till bush.

[andor3]

The EPA argument makes no sense logically or legally, only politically. The seem to be saying that if states implement more strict rules sooner than the federal government requires it is a violation. How can anyo9ne make that argument with a straight face?

[andor3]

"CO2 ... [IS] NOT air pollution;"

Well, scientists say it is and the Supreme Court says it is and most everyone with sense who has looked at it says it is.

[seafang]

The California proposal was not to cut air pollution requirements, but to change Federal auto mileage standards regulations; something it doesn''t have the authority to do. Well either that, or Schwarzenkennedy''s proposal was to reinvent the laws of chemistry and physics, and derive new non-carbon, non-hydrogen "fuels" to power cars (or other energy useage) Both WATER VAPOR, and CARBON DIOXIDE are well recognised as GREEN HOUSE GASES, and the California mandate to cut GHG emissions would require reductions in both of those gases; nonsense.

We are living in a State that is run by morons.

[agent_chloe]

Forget the EPA and forget the lawsuit %u2013 each state should instead tax the Cars and Sport Utility Vehicles that do not meet the new emissions standards a 100% Smog Tax.

The EPA has no control over taxation!

[rowdytexan2]

"...pressure possibly linked to meetings held last month between executives from Ford and General Motors and Vice President *** Cheney..."

Well, there ya go! Bush''s #1 rat at it again!

How many months has the EPA been debating the California issue? And they did not decide to pass on the waiver until AFTER the legislation that Mr. Bush would said he would veto if it was NOT written his way?

And you notice TEXAS was not one of the states trying to pass stricter emissions laws because Rick Perry is actually Dubya II under his fancy suit and $9,000 a month rented house while the Mansion is being renovated.

One way to get rid of Bush and company is just to secede from their fool union until after Washington decides it can act responsibly! Congress once again cratered to Bush! Cowards!

[seafang]

Well andor3, you tell these scientists that CO2 is air pollution; and get yourself an elementary science education before you rant about something you are totally ignorant of.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

[rowdytexan2]

Doesn''t the EPA has the power to pass on waivers if the state does not meet the MINIMUM EPA standards? And they STILL have the right to pass on the waiver when they more than meet their standards?

That''s hogwarsh!

[eddynewhope]

Wow - The Environmental Protection Agency is prohibiting states from protecting the environment. Go treasonous Bush administration, go! Vote for the De-BUSH-ification of our great nation!

[hollyt2-2009]

EPA has always been corrupt and always will. they are just another political group.

[mfwtf]

I can''t believe what has happened to our country. It''s like a bad movie. Looks to me that its being run into the ground by big oil and other special interests groups who control Washington, including Congress, for short term gains and no concern for what kind of world we will leave future generations. America is in a downward trend and we continue to bring it on ourselves. What happened to government by the people? Go Arnold!

[mfwtf]

I can''t believe what has happened to our country. It''s like a bad movie. Looks to me that its being run into the ground by big oil and other special interests groups who control Washington, including Congress, for short term gains and no concern for what kind of world we will leave future generations. America is in a downward trend and we continue to bring it on ourselves. What happened to government by the people? Go Arnold!

[kansas1946]

EPA = Enviornmental Pollution Agency

[tfheringer]

This is just another example of courts and the executive branch making legislation. It needs to end. Only congress can enact legislation that can take effect nation wide. What is wrong with the EPA are they that dense.

[mfwtf]

The Bush (special interest groups) administration (oxymoron) is running our country into the ground and the whole world see this.

[andor3]

"Well andor3, you tell these scientists that CO2 is air pollution..."

No you have it backwards! Scientists tell US that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is easy to find the references. And please stop posting that silly weblink since the stuff it points to has long ago been exposed as nonsense.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make, but looks like you are just trying to interfere with real discussion. Concentrated CO2 can be deadly to animals and humans. It causes all kinds of problems in the atmosphere. Regulation of CO2 emissions has to be included in any air quality measure.

[DrColes]

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz

[alphaa10-2009]

andor3 said, "Concentrated CO2 can be deadly to animals and humans... Regulation of CO2 emissions has to be included in any air quality measure."
---
Points well taken. Based on certain posts from the shrinking circle of Bush defenders, it''s clear the Flat Earth Society is thriving. Such posters conclude any matter-- especially global warming-- can be reduced to a matter of mere politics in the scientific community.

Even a grade schooler has better understanding than they about global warming. And even Bush acknowledges much of global warming is man-made and remediable, and has issued public statements to that effect.

Said Bush, "Each country needs to recognize that we must reduce our greenhouse gases..."

Where Bush differs from the scientists is Bush recognizes global warming is a problem, but he doesn''''t favor spending money to address the problem.

Denial of global warming is a pet GOP cause, because taking responsible measures against climate change threatens the GOP cash cow of Big Oil. Ultimately, the GOP argument against global warming is about money, not science.

Ironically enough, any postponement of climate measures will be even more costly for all of us, GOP bozos included.

[SafePCUser]

Another outrage from the incredibly corrupt Bush Administration.

To anyone one who denies or disputes the fact of human-caused global warming visit my blog at http://theearthblog.spaces.live.com and click the numerous science links.

[SafePCUser]

Another outrage from the incredibly corrupt Bush Administration.

To anyone one who denies or disputes the fact of human-caused global warming visit my blog at http://theearthblog.spaces.live.com and click the numerous science links.

[lawyertom1]

Is EPA Playing Dirty With Clean Air Law? Duh.

[spargle]

As a 29 year veteran of EPA, this is just the latest totally political decision that overrides career staff knowledge and guidance. Steve should know better - but he''s just another politico, looking out for his master - W.

[beehive21-2009]

EPA,DEA,cost lots of $$$ to the taxpayers,lets us abolish both these runaway monsters,they appear to no longer be in tune with the universe at everyones expense.how do we terminate , stop feeding is the EPA and DEA today..Bush is not the problem he started neither .Hopefully his legacy is ,to help rid the USA of DEA and the EPA.

[ontheleft]

"clear the air of real (dirty) pollutants"

What are you? A moron? A car that gets better mileage will also pollute less. DUH. I''m not going to argue whether or not CO is a pollutant. There are a hell of a lot of other pollutants that are spewed into the air by automobiles. I was disgusted on a recent trip to Joshua Tree Monument to see how the pollution from LA makes it that far east and fouls such a pristine area. No matter where you live you are breathing pollution from fossil fuels and up goes your cancer risk as well as numerous other health hazards. The pollution eventually makes it into the water supply as well. I''m sure you''re not concerned about any of this.

[missingamerica]

Knew I''d see Cheney''s name in this.

"Screw the planet, our money first!" is a lousy attitude.

Heck, even Hitler seemed to only want to kill subsets of the human race.

People like Cheney want to kill us all.

[brianbwb-2009]

"Where Bush differs from the scientists is Bush recognizes global warming is a problem, but he doesn''''''''t favor spending money to address the problem." Posted by alphaa10

I don''''t believe it is spending money, so much as the fact that the necessary changes to our industries will result in cash flows being altered to new businesses, disrupting the profits of the old obsolete ones that own Bush at present.

A self professed "conservative" Bush is against progress, and for preserving old, and no longer useful or efficient ways of doing business. The "old money" is the group that pays his bribery allotment.

[caballoverde]

Capitalism breeds this sort of thing when insufficiently regulated. Changes in the relationship between industry & power may be the only way to prevent the biosphere from becoming inhospitable to humanity. Impeach W. while there''s still time!

[me97581]

California can reduce their emmisions anytime they want without effecting the rest of the nation, all they have to do is outlaw any personally owned car or truck with over a 4 cylinder engine. If they had the guts to do this California could immediately reduce their polution and the rest of us would not have to pay for the increased MPG mandated to the auto manufactures.

Of course no politician would keep their job, so they have to force someone else to do their dirty work.

[mcvet]

California can reduce their emmisions anytime they want without effecting the rest of the nation, all they have to do is outlaw any personally owned car or truck with over a 4 cylinder engine. If they had the guts to do this California could immediately reduce their polution and the rest of us would not have to pay for the increased MPG mandated to the auto manufactures.

Of course no politician would keep their job, so they have to force someone else to do their dirty work.


Posted by me97581 at 01:22 AM : Dec 22, 2007
+ report abuse

Now you Nazi''s are the FIRST one''s on the "States Rights" Bandwagon when you can do the Toe Tappin Business on the simple minded Red Necks, but let a State want to improve the lot of all the people and you Nazi''s suddenly turn into "Big Government" People. I''ve come to the conclusion that you are about whatever it takes to get YOUR way and the rest of us be damned. Sieg Heil Bush!!

[mcvet]

EPA,DEA,cost lots of $$$ to the taxpayers,lets us abolish both these runaway monsters,they appear to no longer be in tune with the universe at everyones expense.how do we terminate , stop feeding is the EPA and DEA today..Bush is not the problem he started neither .Hopefully his legacy is ,to help rid the USA of DEA and the EPA.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by beehive21 at 09:07 PM : Dec 21, 2007
+ report abuse

The DEA I can agree with but the EPA is ABSOLUTELY necessary or the Corporate People will NEVER clean up anything...

[spargle]

to Beehive21 - yeah, all that clean air and clean water, safe food - so tiresome! We would be better off like in the olden days when chemical industries ran amok and were able to dump their pollutants wherever and whenver they pleased right? Spread pesticides everywhere and kill off everything that moved or grew. That worked so well. Love Canal, cancer clusters, the Hanford site?? Like Reagan said - they''ll regulate themselves.. HAHAHAHAHA

[me97581]

Poor MCVet he can not post without calling someone names. My post had nothing to do with states rights or big government, but the California attutude that they must force there problems on the rest of the country. California just needs to do what they need to do within their state, but they dont have the guts, they have to have someone else do their dirty work, IE can not reduce their use of gas now, but make the auto manufactures make changes that may help in ten years.

[rowdytexan2]

I applaud the states for taking the issue in their own hands, when the oil business is lobbying the feds to keep gas guzzlers on the road.

It''s as important to address the country''s dependence on oil. Setting a standard on gas consumption does that. Does a person that lives within a mile of work and only hauls themself really need an 8 cylinder doolie to get there? Is image so important to people that we can''t get past it to start conserving and doing our part to curb the control of the oil business? Or are we so content to sit behind our tv clicker and moan because the government''s not accomplishing it?

[brianbwb-2009]

Is image so important to people that we can''''t get past it to start conserving and doing our part to curb the control of the oil business? Or are we so content to sit behind our tv clicker and moan because the government''''s not accomplishing it?
Posted by RowdyTexan2

Sort of like those who continue to advocate that our soldiers continue to die in Iraq, not for any real reason, but only to show that "we don''t cut and run"...

Actually, the people have been so down trodden that other than the fuel required for necessary travel, not much more can be saved, and if we could manage it, they would simply raise the price of gas again.

Any real change will be a radical one, forced by the imminent collapse of the US economy, with the attendant anarchy, unless we can start right now to implement radical changes in a controlled fashion, mass targeted boycotts, etc...

[jon2012-2009]

California just needs to do what they need to do within their state, but they dont have the guts, they have to have someone else do their dirty work, IE can not reduce their use of gas now, but make the auto manufactures make changes that may help in ten years.
Posted by me97581 at 07:30 AM : Dec 22, 2007

Climate change is at least also a public health issue, if you''re not aware. The increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is by itself harmful to the health of the human population in addition to the other chanllenges of adapting to rising temperatures around the world.

Californians were among the first to ban smoking in the workplace and public areas, weren''t they? That is an example of state government policies that work to reduce the rates of smoking and protect nonsmokers from exposure to carcinogens from cigarette smoke. If you seriously argue the same could have been accomplished by having the people of California show their "guts" to smoke less on their own, you''re full of it. And if you think the federal government will do anything to help Californians pay for the costs of providing medical care for Californians sickened by tobacco, you''re not living on this planet.

[usurhead]

Are those of you that argue against California''s position actually serious? Or, are you just trying to stir up some controversy? Who is doing whose dirty work? Can you read? 16 states, the entire staff of the EPA, and the Supreme Court of the United States vs. one bureaucrat (can you say, "Heck of a job, Brownie"?) & the brilliant cry babies in Detroit, who have demonstrated their competence by driving America''s industrial base straight into the ground, AGAIN! (Doesn''t anybody remember the 1970''s?)

These same Detroit CEO%u2019s, who have cost tens of thousands of your fellow citizens their jobs, who have devastated entire US cities, all while taking hundreds of millions of dollars in executive pay at %u2013 thanks to the GOP %u2013 significantly lowered tax rates; these are the guys you%u2019re siding with? Are you seriously defending the position of an administration that attempted to argue - with a straight face - that C02 is not a pollutant?

Read. Think. Figure it out, and quit being a patsy. These people who have you duped into believing their horse pucky, who have you believing and arguing as if their nonsensical "values" are somehow in league with your own, are not working in your best interests - they''re using you like pawns!

[usurhead]

Are those of you that argue against California''s position actually serious? Or, are you just trying to stir up some controversy? Who is doing whose dirty work? Can you read? 16 states, the entire staff of the EPA, and the Supreme Court of the United States vs. one bureaucrat (can you say, "Heck of a job, Brownie"?) & the brilliant cry babies in Detroit, who have demonstrated their competence by driving America''s industrial base straight into the ground, AGAIN! (Doesn''t anybody remember the 1970''s?)

These same Detroit CEO%u2019s, who have cost tens of thousands of your fellow citizens their jobs, who have devastated entire US cities, all while taking hundreds of millions of dollars in executive pay at %u2013 thanks to the GOP %u2013 significantly lowered tax rates; these are the guys you%u2019re siding with? Are you seriously defending the position of an administration that attempted to argue - with a straight face - that C02 is not a pollutant?

Read. Think. Figure it out, and quit being a patsy. These people who have you duped into believing their horse pucky, who have you believing and arguing as if their nonsensical "values" are somehow in league with your own, are not working in your best interests - they''re using you like pawns!

[closethippy1]

Once again everything is meant to be the opposite with Bush and his ilk. War is peace, dirty is clean, protect the Constitution by ignoring it, torture is not torture, etc.
These folks are there to be a pain in the behind and they''re loving every minute of it. They belong to the upper class and so the US belongs to them more than anyone else.
2008 is going to be one long, long year.

[pepperp1]

What bunk, Calif has this has the right to set this standard get some balls Arnold call the Bush bluff implement the change let him try to sue your State the Clean Air Act is clear.

People wake up your not stupid, you are competent, there is no discussion dont be Bush stooge victim again ignore him he is just a donor pasty not king We the People are the government and it is you and yours who will die when those seas rise and this planet burns with heat. You let him and his hood wink you and drive your real governor out of office with a shell game orchestrated by Ken Lay and get rid of that Izza creep at the same time..

[mrtracker]

This is typical. The Federal government ignores the will of the states, the will of the people, and even their own experts. The corporate interests are more important.

The system is broken, and I''ll be very surprised if congress does anything but pretend to be on the side of the people.

[micma-2009]

To reflect their new mission under his leadership, Bu$h has decided to change the name of the agency from the EPA to the BOPA(Big Oil Protection Agency).

[pepperp1]

The answer is yes, just like they placed Calif on the ropes when ENRON was wrecking havoc on their State embessling their emergy dollars to subvert their duley elected Govoner, if they wnat to play victim to Bush Cheney again what can we do, their sitting duks the clean air act gives them every right they should ingore Bush and implement their standards let Bush try to stop them. It is time all good women and all good men get off the fence and take back governance from this patsy. And get rid of Issa he is dragging the State down for partisan hackery.

[downsteamjim]

The EPA should be required to deport all illegal aliens. While they are in the US they breath out carbon dioxide billions of times per day. Once back in the developing world they can breath freely. As we know CO2 emissions from China, India, Mexico, etc don''t really count. The world is like a swimming pool that allows urination in only half of it.

[brianbwb-2009]

Ironic, that Arnie had the popularity to be governor no matter which party he chose, he chose to become a Repubican. Now he acts as if he is dissatisfied that a publicly popular position is rejected by his "party".

It may very well come to pass that "the Collectinator" will collect his hush money from the oil and auto industries, then you will soon hear no more about his dissatisfaction.

The EPA should be required to deport all illegal aliens. While they are in the US they breath out carbon dioxide billions of times per day. Once back in the developing world they can breath freely. As we know CO2 emissions from China, India, Mexico, etc don''''t really count. The world is like a swimming pool that allows urination in only half of it.

Posted by downsteamjim: CO2 doesn''t hover in a great cloud over the country that emits it. And emissions from EVERY country count. When Kyoto was first put together, the economic growth of China and India was just a dream for them. Now it''s a reality, and we''re all able to see what damage it does. We all need to stop pointing fingers at the other guy and take responsibility for OUR actions.

[inventagod]

A ''National Solution'' is most always a big lie. Nothing ever really happens except at the local level. The EPA is acting as the enforcement arm of Bu$h''s petro-machine. Seems like the oil industry protects the auto industry, and today - the EPA spoke for them both...

[antiglobal]

I have to agree with Inventagod. There is never a "national solution" that works as good as it looks on paper. With California leading the way, and 16 other states already on the band-wagon, why shouldn''t we get all 50 states to agree to stricter standards? Considering how polluted California''s air already is, I''ve been kind of shocked that they were the first state to take a stand against Global Warming. I''m even more shocked that Schwarzenegger is going against his entire party to fight for stricter emissions regulations. Hopefully in 2008 (or sooner) a far better president will be elected that won''t be just another pawn in the oil/car industry''s global monopoly scheme.