EPA: Calif.'s Climate Crisis Not Unique

Admin. Says Agency Blocked Auto Emissions Law Because State Had No "Compelling" Need

(CBS/AP)  The head of the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday justified his decision to block California and other states from cracking down on auto emissions by saying the problems of global warming aren't unique to one state.

In a 47-page document describing the reasoning behind his much-criticized decision, EPA administrator Stephen L. Johnson argued that he rejected California's request to impose stricter auto emissions rules - stricter than what is currently allowed under the federal Clean Air Act - because the state did not have what he called the "compelling and extraordinary conditions" required to limit greenhouse gases.

Johnson said it was because the rest of the nation also suffers the effects of global warming.

Johnson, who has faced lawsuits and angry denunciations since making the decision in December, told The Associated Press in a phone interview that legislative history shows California must have a unique problem in order to justify a federal waiver to implement a vehicle emissions law stricter than the federal government's.

"I'm not saying that California isn't experiencing problems as a result of global climate change," Johnson said. "There are in fact other parts of the country that are actually worse."

Environmentalists and California officials disagree with Johnson's interpretation, contending that California has been granted Clean Air Act waivers in the past to deal with problems that are also happening elsewhere, such as diesel pollution.

Critics also contend that California does, in fact, have uniquely worse problems from global warming compared with other states, including wildfire risks, air pollution and water supply shortages.

"Clearly Johnson hasn't spent much time in California. Doesn't he know the simple scientific fact that hotter air causes more smog?" said Frank O'Donnell, executive director of Clean Air Watch, a Washington advocacy group.

"This reads like something written up in the board room of General Motors," O'Donnell said.

The Clean Air Act gives California special authority to regulate vehicle pollution because the state began such regulations before the federal government. But a federal waiver is required, and if California gets one, then other states can adopt California's standards, too.

California's tailpipe emissions law would have forced automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016.

Twelve other states - Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington - had adopted California's tailpipe standards and the governors of Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Utah had said they also plan to adopt them. The rules were under consideration elsewhere, too.

In denying the waiver request (the first-ever such denial in EPA history), Johnson argued that a nationwide approach would be better and said it would be provided by a new law raising fuel economy standards that was signed by President Bush in December. Automakers applauded Johnson's decision.

California officials argued that California's law would be stronger and act faster.

Johnson's decision prompted several congressional investigations and a legal appeal by California and 15 other states. Last month, the EPA withheld documents requested by Congress pertaining to the decision and redacted information that Senate aides said concluded that the agency was likely to lose a lawsuit if it went to court for denying California's waiver.

Earlier this week, transcripts released by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who is investigating that decision, revealed that high-ranking career staffers had urged Johnson to allow the waiver or face having to resign.

Among the documents was a memo written in October, during the Administrator's deliberations, that stated it was obvious "that there is no legal or technical justification for denying" the waiver.

The memo urged Johnson to grant the waiver or find a compromise.

"You have to find a way to get this done. If you cannot, you will face a pretty big personal decision about whether you are able to stay in the job under those circumstances," said the memo from the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality.

The memo seeking the waiver was penned at the request of William K. Reilly, who served as EPA administrator under President George H.W. Bush.

"This is a choice only you can make, but I ask you to think about the history and the future of the agency in making it. If you are asked to deny this waiver, I fear the credibility of the agency that we both love will be irreparably damaged," said the memo.

"The eyes of the world are on you," it said.

It was not clear who "asked" Johnson to deny the waiver, although records show he attended White House meetings on the issue before announcing his decision.

Boxer's aides have been allowed to transcribe unredacted versions of the EPA documents only under the supervision of EPA staff. Boxer has ignored EPA requests to keep the contents confidential.

In Johnson's statement released today, the EPA administrator wrote,

"While I recognize that global climate change is a serious challenge, I have concluded that section 209(b) [of the Clean Air Act] was intended to allow California to promulgate state standards applicable to emissions from new motor vehicles to address pollution problems that are local or regional. I do not believe section 209(b)(1)(B) was intended to allow California to promulgate state standards for emissions from new motor vehicles designed to address global climate change problems; nor, in the alternative, do I believe that the effects of climate change in California are compelling and extraordinary compared to the effects in the rest of the country. Based on this finding, pursuant to section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (Act), CARB’s waiver request for its GHG standards for new motor vehicles must be denied."

Johnson qualified his statement that global climate change is a "serious challenge," by noting,

"This document does not reflect, and nothing in this document should be construed as reflecting, my judgment regarding whether emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles or engines cause or contribute to air pollution 'which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,' which is a separate question involving different statutory provisions and criteria; nor should it be construed as reflecting my judgment regarding any issue relevant to the determination of this question."

Johnson said California could not argue that a state-specific law to cut greenhouse gases was necessary, because "Greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles or other pollution sources in other parts of the country and the world will have as much effect on California’s environment as emissions from California vehicles."

The law's supporters also bolstered their Clean Air Act argument by noting, due to the law's mandate for more fuel efficient cars in California, that the subsequent reduction of emissions from oil refineries having to produce less gasoline (refineries are a major stationary source of nitrogen oxides and other pollutants) would benefit the state's ozone levels.

Without answering whether the fuel reductions would have a positive effect, Johnson nonetheless rejected that argument, saying California could not institute an auto program targeting the emissions of refineries because

"any such reduction in local stationary source emissions would not be reductions in the emissions of ozone precursors from motor vehicles, but instead are indirect reductions caused by the expected actions of stationary sources. The second criterion in section 209(b)(1)(B) focuses on the need to control emissions from new motor vehicles because of the impact of motor vehicle emissions on local or regional air pollution problems, not on the need to indirectly control stationary source emissions through motor vehicle standards."

[pboskovich]

avoice

Let me see if I can get you to understand something. I will type slow so you will not miss anything. Farmers increase CO2 to make plants grow faster. The same is true in nature. It has been scientific knowledge for over 100 years.

You should also go the website listed in my later statement for a more technical explination. I pasted it below for your convienience.

http://www.purgit.com/co2ok.html

[pboskovich]

Anyone who thinks that the global warming debate is over needs go to this website and read this petition. It has been signed by over 19,000 U.S. scientist.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm

You are welcome.

[pboskovich]

avoice

Here is an even better site for an explination on the relationship between CO2 and plant growth. The IPCC forgot to mention this. Oops!
http://www.purgit.com/co2ok.html

"I don%u2019t care if they grow faster and need less water when there is more CO2 for them to use"
------------------------------
Oh yeah, where did you get this "fact?"

"While scientists disagree about the likely effects of additional carbon dioxide on global temperature, they generally agree on another important effect of a rise in the CO2 level. A doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, as is projected, would increase plant productivity by almost one-third. Most plants would grow faster and bigger, with increases in leaf size and thickness, stem height, branching, and seed production. The number and size of fruits and flowers would also rise. Root/top ratios would increase, giving many plants better root systems for access to water and nutrients."

[pboskovich]

avoice

"I don%u2019t care if they grow faster and need less water when there is more CO2 for them to use"
------------------------------
Oh yeah, where did you get this "fact?"

Try this web site for a start. http://homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichment.htm

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) contributes to plant growth as part of the miracle of nature known as photosynthesis. This enables plants to combine Carbon Dioxide and water with the aid of light energy to form sugar. Some of these sugars are converted into complex compounds that increase dry solid plant substances for continued growth to final maturity. However, when the supply of carbon dioxide is cut off, or reduced, the complex plant cell structure cannot utilize the sun''s energy fully and growth or development is curtailed."

[pboskovich]

ixoye_02

Let%u2019s not forgot to tell the oceans that they are polluting too since they produce most of the earth%u2019s CO2. We better warn all the trees too. Don%u2019t those dumb little trees realize that all the CO2 that makes them grow is killing earth? I don%u2019t care if they grow faster and need less water when there is more CO2 for them to use. Don%u2019t they listen to Al Gore? In fact, while we are at it lets tell every living thing to stop producing CO2. I think I will try to breathe less as well because every time I exhale that *** CO2 keeps coming out of me. In fact, in a move of solidarity to support the earth I suggest we all hold our breath for 1 minute. You can hold yours for longer if you want.

Also, while we are indiscriminately classifying things as pollution, I vote to call that leftist politically dogmatic propaganda that you emit and spread on the net as pollution. It appears that your over exposure to it has rendered your mind as incapable of intelligent open minded thought and that%u2019s just not fair.

OK%u2026on three let%u2019s all hold or breathe and don%u2019t stop until I post my next blog. Here we go 1%u20262%u20263.

[oleander8]

If we wait for the EPA to cleanup the air we will all suffocate. What happened to STATES RIGHTS??

[jimfinster]

Xlib,

For most reasonable people, the question of "what if" has been settled. Policy makers are now looking at "what now". In other words, remedial actions.

It does not matter whether or not you agree. The train has left the station.

[xlib]

actornaught-love how you took a few words from my post and slanted it. The other libs are very proud,how typical.
As a matter of fact the article was written by a Michael Asher and posted on prisonplanet.com, hardly a conservative site. Check it out, it''s interesting.
And no, not confused at all regarding global warming/climate change. See, your side pulled away from using global warming when the temperatures didn''t agree with the consensus. I also find it interesting that you would get so vile when someone poses another point of view. How typical of a lib.
As for the Limbaugh jab, why are you people so afraid of him??
How''s air american?

[xlib]

singingrick-There are approximately 600 Canadian scientists that do not agree with the consensus you put out. Is there climate change, yup. There has always been climate change. Have you read the new consensus regarding a trend toward cooling???
Do you honestly believe that we, here in the US alone, can change the climate? What about China and INdia, are they doing their part??
I think it''s a bit elitist to think we can control the climate.
Ws should take care of the earth, and I truly believe we in the US have gotten better. There was an article in our local news a few years back saying that CAnada in the biggest polluter of the great lakes. Of course that was during bubba so they wouldn''t pin anything on him.
What you have proposed is a consensus of some scientists, that''s all.

[doujoh101]

Poor California, the inmates run the asylum. If you want "America" to be like its neighbor to the west, keep putting democrats in office.

[kaylag04]

"The National Academy of Sciences surveyed EVERY peer-reviewed, scientific climate change study published in the last ten years."

They missed a couple.
-"Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth''s climate system", Stephen E. Schwartz, Accepted for publication in Journal of Geophysical Research, 2007
-"Experimental Evidence for the role of Ions in Particle Nucleation under Atmospheric Conditions"; Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 3 October 2006

There are many more peer reviewed, published studies available that address all aspects of the anthropgenic climate change issue - they are easy to locate if you engage in research with a critical eye, rather than religious fervor.

[cyberus-2009]

*****
What ever happened to States Rights?

Posted by oleander8 at 06:34 PM : Mar 01, 2008
*****

Problem with calling this a *state right* is they aren''t doing it just in the state .. they are attempting to impose their standards on manufacturers everywhere.
California is still free to do things like charge more to license vehicles with high pollution ratings but I dunno if the rich hummer drivers would like that very much, they could raise the license fees for diesel trucks with high emission rates, but that would not only raise the cost of vegetables grown in CA. but the cost of transporting goods from the Port of LA ... of course I think Washington state would be happy to take up the port slack and I''m sure there are a few states that would like to get a little more of the vegetable market.
So lets see what else, they could offer cut rate licensing for electric vehicles, but that would require building more electric plants rather than exporting their pollution to the state lines since there isn''t any more capacity to bring power in from outside.

[aardvark99]

I agree with the comments on state''s rights.

If the California government wanted to phase in stricter emissions standards on vehicles over the next several years, auto makers have two choices: adapt to the new standards or get out of California. If they decide to get out of California it will open up the automotive market for new companies that are more willing to pay attention to the needs of their customers.

[tucano2]

Only Hawaii is upwind of California. The filth generated in California spews Eastward to Washington D.C. where apparently it sofens the brain of the folks involved in arriving at this decision. On the other hand maybe it''s "just" political for the benefit of G.W. Bush''s personal bank account viz. "generous corporate donors". What a croc! What a bunch of crooks! The South seceeded for just this kind of violation of States'' Rights.

[oleander8]

What ever happened to States Rights?

[singingrick]

The National Academy of Sciences surveyed EVERY peer-reviewed, scientific climate change study published in the last ten years. Without exception they ALL agreed on three fundamental facts:


1. GLOBAL WARMING is real and happening now.

2. GLOBAL WARMING is caused by man.

3. The consequences of GLOBAL WARMING are and will be catastrophic.


The SCIENTIFIC debate ended long ago. The SCIENTIFIC community has long been in agreement on this.

The POLITICAL debate rages on fueled by millions of dollars invested in a disinformation campaign by the fossil fuels industries who stand to lose a lot if we actually begin to act to save the planet.


The time for DENIAL is over. The time for ACTION is now if we want to pass on a livable planet to our children.

[nodemotwit]

Some points:
While the consequences and causes of the earths''
most current warming trend ARE open for debate,
despite a group of left-leaning scientists that
have assumed the mantel of
''we are obviously mental giants and therefore
refuse to debate the mathematics behind
our findings'',
there are OTHER valid and pressing reasons to
reduce our carbon emissions,
such as:
. * With huge middle class populations coming
. on line in China and India,
. who are just as entitled to a middle-class
. lifestyle as the anyone in the West,
. the projections of the worlds remaining oil
. supplies have to be adjusted radically downward.
. Recently Dutch Oil revised peak world
. production to peak in the next 7 yrs.
. Rather than risk the apocalypse of a global
. war for the oil that''s left, why not just
. get off the oil teat?

. * The massive particulate-contamination
. (coal, carbon fuels, etc) of the air
. mass that moves from China into the
. Western US is just going to get worst.
. These particulates are known
. causers of lung cancer. Why not save
. lives just get off the oil teat?
(cont)

[nodemotwit]

(cont)
. * Don''t we owe it to next US generations
. the legacy of unspoiled National Parks
. and Wilderness areas ? They will not
. remain so if opened for oil exploration,
. so why not just get off the oil teat?

If the US will invest in newer technology,
like fast-neutron nuclear reactors, and convert
all vehicles to battery and/or fuel cell power,
the whole global warming debate, as least as
far as US contribution to same, becomes a mute
point. Further, this technology can recycle
OLD technology nuclear waste, and result
in a very significant (over 100X) reduction
in the 1/2 life of the resulting waste,
reaching safe levels in several 100 yrs instead
of the tens of thousands of years required
for old technology reactor waste.

Obviously solar and wind can help as well,
but there is no way, in the foreseeable future,
they can get close to replacing the total
energy currently provided by fossil fuels.

Let''s get beyond the ''global warming'' debate
and find common ground to do what must
invariably be done.

[actornaught]

I understand a new study...
Posted by Xlib at 08:04 AM : Mar 01, 2008

Source? A limbaugh comedy routine, perhaps?

Also, i know how often the phoney con''s like to spout US climate statistics, and then say they''re global. As your post states, you''re confused about the difference between climate change and global warming.

[gkc99]

""I''m not saying that California isn''t experiencing problems as a result of global climate change," Johnson said. "There are in fact other parts of the country that are actually worse." "


So the Darth Bushit regime admits there''s a problem? I thought everything was just peachy in their view, because the Tiny Texasshole said so.