Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
18 states now; ...are calling Johnson on his B.S.
Topic Started: Dec 27 2007, 07:46 AM (273 Views)
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
http://www.gazette.net/stories/122707/prin...717_32361.shtml

Quote:
 
Maryland leaders are vowing to challenge the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to reject a state’s ability to regulate the greenhouse gases emitted by automobiles.

The ruling prevents 17 other states, including Maryland, from enacting their own regulations. The 18 states account for almost half of the total U.S. population and about 45 percent of new automobile sales nationwide.


Never in the past 37 years, since the inception of today's Clean Air Act, has EPA denied any of California's 50 waivers to provide tougher emissions standards than the federal guidelines. It's written in the language of the Act itself that federal guidelines are "meant to act as floors, not ceilings" to regulation.

The advice from EPA's own technical and legal staff was unanimous that Johnson should honor California's proposed standards. Senator Boxer asked Johnson to explain himself after he denied the waiver. And whadda ya know, Johnson denied the invitation.

What a complete tool. He's just another mindless douchebag crony.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
She should give him the kind of offer he can't refuse.

The kind that comes with a little piece of paper called a subpoena.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
QuirtEvans
Dec 27 2007, 07:49 AM
She should give him the kind of offer he can't refuse.

The kind that comes with a little piece of paper called a subpoena.

For starters.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Just FYI, said 18 states are as follows:

Arizona, New Jersey, California, New Mexico, Colorado, New York, Connecticut, Oregon, Florida, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Rhode Island, Maine, Utah, Maryland, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Washington.

This whole administration's emissions program sucks balls. And not the sports kind.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Johnson is acting against federalism and against common sense.

I can understand if a state is trying to go below EPA standards, for there to be EPA resistance, but not if a state wants to mandate *higher* standards.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
You can understand it if they're trying to protect the auto industry. That's what the EPA's job is under the current Administration, isn't it?
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Executive Protection of Automobiles

Right?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
QuirtEvans
Dec 27 2007, 08:14 AM
You can understand it if they're trying to protect the auto industry.  That's what the EPA's job is under the current Administration, isn't it?

Well, the admins at least. But yeah, absolutely. The rhetoric used here would be laughable satire, but since it's real it ticks me off.

Many states --CA, NY and NJ to name a few -- called for greenhouse gas emission standards for cars back in 2004, but the White House said it wasn't in their power to do so. They said that the Clean Air Act does not give them the authority. This was so bogus that last May, the Supreme Court ruled that EPA must take action under CAA to regulate GHG emissions. The Supreme Court forced their hand.

So now, says Johnson: "The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules. I believe this is a better approach than if individual states were to act alone."

Jackass, Bush didn't want to regulate in the first place! It was the states that showed the initiative back in 2004 when they called for new standards! And if by "clear national solution" you mean wait until the Supreme Court tells you to do something, yeah, you're all doing a bang-up job. If you think individual states acting alone is not the way to go, I guess you better start rewriting SPCC requirements, TMDL implementation plans, state plans for criteria pollutants... you know the list is too big. It's easier to say the entire CAA and CWA.

Hilarious Despicable.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack Frost
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
QuirtEvans
Dec 27 2007, 11:14 AM
You can understand it if they're trying to protect the auto industry. That's what the EPA's job is under the current Administration, isn't it?

I thought it was to protect auto makers and ethanol growers.

jf
Quote:
 
Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Sorry, but I think on this issue you guys are wrong. If the States get their way on this it is only going to cause higher new vehicle prices, lost of market share for U.S. automakers, loss of jobs to American workers (who were in the middle class, last time I checked) and damage across the board to our economy. All this damage for a program that targets the wrong source of pollution and ultimately doesn't produce much in the way of results.

Be careful what you wish for.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
The question is not whether WE are wrong.

The question is whether 18 states are wrong ... and whether they should have the right to be wrong within their own borders.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Because this sort of thing affects the entire nation as I noted, I would say it probably should be a Federal issue.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Kincaid
Dec 27 2007, 09:22 AM
Sorry, but I think on this issue you guys are wrong. If the States get their way on this it is only going to cause higher new vehicle prices, lost of market share for U.S. automakers, loss of jobs to American workers (who were in the middle class, last time I checked) and damage across the board to our economy. All this damage for a program that targets the wrong source of pollution and ultimately doesn't produce much in the way of results.

Be careful what you wish for.

Not really. The California regulations do not call for radical vehicle changes. They were designed to use existing technologies to reduce GHG emissions.

Under pre-existing legislation, no California emissions law can ban the sale of any vehicle category in the state, nor can there be any requirement to reduce vehicle weight. Also, CARB cannot follow any legislation that is not both technologically feasible and cost effective at the point of its proposed adoption.

By the way, this is the exact same worry carmakers had when CAA was first proposed in the 70's.

I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Kincaid
Dec 27 2007, 12:33 PM
Because this sort of thing affects the entire nation as I noted, I would say it probably should be a Federal issue.

It don't agree with that analysis. It's not as if a state wanted lower standards and the right to let the wind blow its pollution across a dozen other states.

If particular states want to mandate tougher emission requirements, and to have their citizens pay more for cars, why shouldn't they? Protecting the profits of auto makers should not be a Federal issue.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Aqua Letifer
Dec 27 2007, 09:35 AM
By the way, this is the exact same worry carmakers had when CAA was first proposed in the 70's.

And the American car industry has done so well since then. (AMC, rest in peace).
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Kincaid
Dec 27 2007, 09:43 AM
Aqua Letifer
Dec 27 2007, 09:35 AM
By the way, this is the exact same worry carmakers had when CAA was first proposed in the 70's.

And the American car industry has done so well since then. (AMC, rest in peace).

I wouldn't know because I never buy American. :lol:
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
QuirtEvans
Dec 27 2007, 09:38 AM
Kincaid
Dec 27 2007, 12:33 PM
Because this sort of thing affects the entire nation as I noted, I would say it probably should be a Federal issue.

It don't agree with that analysis. It's not as if a state wanted lower standards and the right to let the wind blow its pollution across a dozen other states.

If particular states want to mandate tougher emission requirements, and to have their citizens pay more for cars, why shouldn't they? Protecting the profits of auto makers should not be a Federal issue.

Well, it's not much of an analysis. I suppose there is case law that has pretty well defined what should be Federal issues and what should be State issues.

Anyway, it's a lot more than protecting profits (what profits would those be?) of U.S. car makers.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Aqua Letifer
Dec 27 2007, 09:43 AM
Kincaid
Dec 27 2007, 09:43 AM
Aqua Letifer
Dec 27 2007, 09:35 AM
By the way, this is the exact same worry carmakers had when CAA was first proposed in the 70's.

And the American car industry has done so well since then. (AMC, rest in peace).

I wouldn't know because I never buy American. :lol:

I never have either but my next car is going to be American - thanks to my GM card earnings. With Toyota living on its reputation and the upswing of American quality, I feel good about doing this.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Free Rider
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Kincaid, thanks for your counter-arguments.

As for buying american, take a look at this list. It's not the name of the car anymore.
http://www.uaw.org/uawmade/cartruck2006.cfm
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Kincaid
Dec 27 2007, 12:44 PM
QuirtEvans
Dec 27 2007, 09:38 AM
Kincaid
Dec 27 2007, 12:33 PM
Because this sort of thing affects the entire nation as I noted, I would say it probably should be a Federal issue.

It don't agree with that analysis. It's not as if a state wanted lower standards and the right to let the wind blow its pollution across a dozen other states.

If particular states want to mandate tougher emission requirements, and to have their citizens pay more for cars, why shouldn't they? Protecting the profits of auto makers should not be a Federal issue.

Well, it's not much of an analysis. I suppose there is case law that has pretty well defined what should be Federal issues and what should be State issues.

Anyway, it's a lot more than protecting profits (what profits would those be?) of U.S. car makers.

Yes, there is case law.

It is reported that every single lawyer at the EPA advised against this decision ... they told the agency that, if it denied California's waiver request, California would sue and would very likely win.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Well, you do what you can.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply