In this morning's Washington Post, an article caught my eye. It is titled, EPA Chief Denies Calif. Limit on Auto Emissions: Rules Would Target Greenhouse Gases. In the article, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson denied California's petition that would limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. Administrator Johnson said he thinks that the new US Energy Bill would do more for global warming than state mandates. He claims that the California standards would have an average of 33.8 MPG by 2016 while the Energy Bill would have an average of 35 MPG by 2020. California has created its own air pollution policies under the Clean Air Act, and has not been denied a petition until now. At the end of the article, Johnson says the EPA denied California's petition because "climate change affects the entire world" and that "It is a global problem that requires a clear national solution."
I'm not sure how I feel about this. Its not as if California is trying to enact lower standards than the federal government. Also, if California is trying to do its part with the battle against global warming, then why stop it? I don't know if I appreciate Johnson stating the truth about "climate change affect[ing] the entire world" and that "It is a global problem that requires a clear national solution," to defend his action against California...
What are your thoughts OT blog?
Thursday, December 20, 2007
US Energy Bill, California, and the EPA
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Jessica, I agree. Johnson is just trying to obstruct the efforts of CA and other states to nudge the Bush Administration along. Youth booed the US delegation at the Bali meeting, and then national delegations began booing too. Let's hope CA and supporting states take EPA to court quickly and win!!
Johnson is right about one thing: a national plan rather than a patchwork of regulations is a better approach. If states each have their own regulations, emitters will just relocate to the states with lowest regulations - and then those states will reap economic benefits for their poor regulations. For this reason, national standards (or even better- international standards- are welcome.)
However, in this particular case, Johnson seems to be falsely asserting that the national standards set by the energy bill are the same but stricter than California standards. Apparently, many others disagree and believe the Energy bill is actually weaker:
>>The new mileage standard mandated by Congress is aimed at reducing gasoline consumption, which will reduce vehicles' overall "carbon footprint," but California's rules would target total greenhouse gas emissions, including those that stem from auto air conditioning units. Experts said tailpipe regulations are a more comprehensive way to address vehicles' contribution to greenhouse gases.
Johnson said that California standards would produce a mileage average of 33.8 mpg by 2016, while the new federal energy law would require an average fleet fuel economy of 35 mpg by 2020. But California officials said EPA had miscalculated, estimating that its emissions standard would achieve an average of at least 36 mpg by 2016.
It really makes no sense to say that "It is a global problem that requires a clear national solution." There IS NO clear national solution. Also, I read that Utah, New Mexico, and about 17 other states supported California's higher standards. You'd think with that kind of support it wouldn't have been a problem. Guess not.
Post a Comment