Earlier today, the EPA denied California's request for a waiver of preemption under the Clean Air Act for California's regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles. Based upon the EPA release, the passage of a federal energy bill that will impose more stringent automobile fuel economy standards is one of the justifications for rejecting the waiver. There is no question that California will challenge this decision in federal court (see here). Whether or not California succeeds will largely depend upon how well the Bush Administration defends its decision. As I've argued before (see also here), I think that there are reasonable legal arguments supporting a denial of a waiver. Nonetheless, I am surprised by the Bush Administration's decision.
I hope to have more to say about this decision once I have read the formal decision. In the meantime, here is news coverage from the Los Angeles Times and New York Times. Here, also, is Governor Schwarzenegger's response.
Related Posts (on one page):
- California Sues EPA Over Waiver Denial:
- Does It Matter EPA Staff Opposed Waiver Decision?
- What Next for Federal GHG Emission Rules?
- Alternative Views of the EPA Waiver Decision:
- EPA's Decision to Deny California's Waiver Request:
- EPA Denies California's Waiver Request:
- California Sues EPA for Waiver Decision:
I'd love to see the reasoning behind that decision. Has the Supreme Court bought into the hysteria? Is carbon dioxide legally defined as a "pollutant" in this country now?
So no, automakers won't be exiting the California market any time soon.
yes CO2 is now a pollutant in the US per order of US Supreme Court. I don't have a cite handy but it was Massachusetts v EPA decided back in april.
Right. And in the other 16 states that want to adopt the CA standard. It's true that the American auto companies often behave suicidally, but I doubt it's reached that point.
I eagerly await the objections to this decision from all the fierce federalists hereabouts.
The article also stated that the lawyers for the EPA were unanimous that if the EPA were to veto this measure, they would lose in court. Jonathan Adler thinks it depends upon how vigorously the Bush Administration defends its action. So either the EPA lawyers are not very good attorneys, or Adler is wrong.
Another thing: Bush just signed a bill that would increase fuel mileage standards to a whopping 35 MPG -- by 2020! Boy, the Georgie. It takes real political courage to force a small increase 13 years from now.
That being said, the EPA should be able to prevent regulations applied on a state-by-state basis based upon hysteria.
Still waiting for the federalists to show up.
California has gone off the deep end in environmental regulations, and, like Wiley E. Coyote, is in midair, not realizing gravity is about to kick in. While I support the EPA's decision, I think CA should have been allowed to jump off the cliff they've been building for themselves. CA is a fiscal and political liberal trainwreck in the making. I think the EPA denied the waiver more because of the other 15 states that wanted, for purely political reasons, to pile on.
Or the EPA lawyers are bluffing/lying for the sake of the environmentalist cause. Are they political appointees or career civil service?
The Supreme Court did not designate carbon dioxide as a regulated pollutant. That decision is up to EPA, and has not yet been made. What the Supreme Court did do was to say (1) EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gasses if it chooses to do so; and (2) EPA's explanation for why it wouldn't regulate did not properly take into account the criteria that are relevant under the statute.
But how does that justify California having separate standards for CO2? Global warming is not a local problem.
No.
It is the temperature inversion that traps the atmosphere in the LA basin, causing smog to be a larger problem than if it was swept away by the prevailing winds.
CO2 is not a traditional pollutant as it is a natural product of living organisms. Stop "polluting" and you stop living.
(To be perfectly clear NOx emissions have been cleaned up considerably by the various emissions control regulations put in since the 1970s, however, I was just pointing out that there is a way that CA could impose limits on engine size and car weight consistent with local clean air requirements)
In theory I support the idea that California should have the right to set it's own standards that are higher than the rest of the country (even though I'm stupid enough to live in that state). I do get concerned when such standards may become de facto national standards due to the size of the California economy - no reason that the gerrymandered fools in Sacramento should get to set national policy. So that tension tempers my enthusiasm for federalism on some issues.
In the short term the NOx and CO2 stay trapped under the LA inversion layer. The NOx directly poisons Angelenos and so is a legitimate concern of the CA state government, and this is exactly why California was given special treatment by Congress. The extra CO2 is trivial compared to what's naturally in the atmosphere and has no health effect, and so is none of the CA government's business.
In the long run, the extra NOx and CO2 get evenly mixed into the entire Earth's atmosphere. The NOx breaks down. The extra CO2 reamins in existence long term, and many believe it will warm up the entire Earth, eventually flooding Bangladesh and Florida. Should this happen, California, with its mostly much steeper coastline, will suffer more than landlocked states but less than most other coastal states. So again there's none of the disparate local impact on California that was the reason for allowing them to set extra-stringent state pollution standards.
Any support for the notion that these regs are based on hysteria?
It's so strange that people really think that their own health isn't really that important, or at least not as important as oil company profits. What's a little asthma and cancer compared to good stock market returns?
Ralph: "Or the EPA lawyers are bluffing/lying for the sake of the environmentalist cause."
I guess it's pretty sad. Used to be we trusted our civil servants to have integrity to do their job. Now we assume that they bluff or lie for some reason. This isn't a partisan issue, as I realize that liberals have abused the public trust as much as conservatives have. But Bush has been in office for 7 years, and has done such a darn good job of abusing the public trust that we now all just assume that all gov't workers have a hidden agenda. Like Cheney. (see above).
The thing is, he could be a man about it, and just come out and say, I support car manufacturers over the environment. But that would require a modicum of integrity and transparency.
When an organizxations scientists are caught falsifying data (infamous planted lynx hair incident) and are not summarily fired, I think it beocmes rational to start distrusting anything that organization says.
wtf?
CO2 is not associated with asthma or cancer.
California can regulate pollutants that are associated with asthma or cancer, but it chooses to do so on a political basis rather than on the basis of health risk.
In other words, "here is a way in which California could suffer impacts which are unlike both coastal and inland states. Therefore there is no disparate impact."
The argument against it has nothing to do with any local effect of high concentrations, but with the theoretical global effect. And under that theory it makes no difference whether the CO-2 is emitted in Malibu or Madagascar.
Preemption.
Do you get concerned when Senators from places like Wyoming and Alaska and Oklahoma get to set national policies, despite the wishes of people in CA and NY, for example? Or is federalism just a good idea when it produces policies you like, a la Scalia?
this one. it's definitely this one.
That's unfair and you know it. There's a big difference between the US Senate passing a law, even at the behest of a Senator from Alaska, and the CA legislature passing one. Californians and New Yorkers have representation in the US Senate. Alaskans and Oklahomans do not have representation in the CA legislature.