Posted on 12/21/2007 7:33:27 AM PST by NRG1973
(CNN) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger plans to sue the federal government over its decision not to allow a California plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, he announced Thursday.
Environmental Protection Agency chief Stephen Johnson announced the decision Wednesday, refusing the state's request for a waiver that would have allowed it to cut emissions faster than a new federal plan the president signed into law Wednesday.
"It's another example of the administration's failure to treat global warming with the seriousness that it actually demands," the governor said at a news conference Thursday.
Bush on Thursday defended the decision of his EPA administrator.
"Is it more effective to let each state make a decision as to how to proceed in curbing greenhouse gases? Or is it more effective to have a national strategy?" he said.
Citing the new energy law -- which sets a fuel economy standard for the whole country -- Bush said Johnson "made a decision based upon the fact that we passed a piece of legislation that enables us to have a national strategy."
But Schwarzenegger said he would like to set a higher standard for California. "Anything less than aggressive action on the greatest environmental threat of all time is inexcusable," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
Regardless of the issue, 50 experiments are better than one.
Someone told me a few days ago in another thread that states don’t sue the federal government...
wow... I guess he was wrong!
Should we allow California to destroy their economy when it is a major component of the Nation’s economy? A pure Conservative reading of the Constitution says, “yes.”
Ask the two Democrat Senators and Democratic Govenor from Michigan the same question.
When Pete Wilson was governor of California, he sued the federal government for funds to recompense the state for benefits and services mandated by the federal government, yet paid for by State funds, as no federal funds were offered.
He lost.
Sorry - that should have been “mandated by the federal government FOR THE BENEFIT OF ILLEGAL ALIENS.”
Well, I guess it doesn’t matter if they win or lose, and it’s not about the suit... it was the fact that someone was claiming states don’t/can’t/won’t sue the Feds. I know it’s been done before
Poor Arnie, he’s been sucked into the man made GW delusion.
Hey Arnold, need a lawyer? I hear John Edwards will be free to take cases real soon. And since you are both Democrats...
Incredibly sad that this one basic truth is so completely forgotten
I wish Bush would respond with his executive rule-making capacity:
1. No diesel trucks from out of state are allowed to enter California.
2. No electrical power generated from hydrocarbon sources (coal, oil, natural gas) will be allowed to be wheeled into California.
3. All natural gas, crude oil, oil product pipelines going into California are shut down.
Oughta take about a week and then we’d hear “nichts als ruehig!” out of Der Governator.
ACTUALLY, the issue is whether one state may impose its “car-emission standards” on the citizens of other states. Of course, California will lose on this one. As it should.
Please note that there would be no “Constitutional” problem if California, for example, just increased its gasoline tax by, say, $1 per gallon. Such a tax would certainly encourage California’s consumers to buy cars which burn less gasoline and encourage them to drive fewer miles. And that is the supposed “point” of California’s un-constitutional “law”, is it not?
But raising taxes is a “direct” action, that would surely produce a voter backlash. Therefore, California’s cowardly politicians are trying to use an “indirect” action, for which the immense cost to voters is much less obvious.
Certainly the trade-off between “more highway accident victims” and “fewer CO2 poisoning victims” is difficult for most people to calculate. Not everyone knows how to divide by “zero”.
Moreover, a large percentage of the economic costs of permitting California’s politicians to feel “self-righteous” would be passed along to citizens of other states. For example, if cars with higher emission stands are more expensive, then fewer cars will be bought and there will be more unemployment in Michigan.
How much do California’s politicians care about that?
That’s another figure to be divided by “zero”.
Maybe he'll be the next "Nobel Peace Prize" winner with statements like THAT!
Courtesy Comment:
California is already destroying it’s economy.
One need look no further than the 18 billion short fall to see that all the wishful thinking will not put money into the State coffers.
The truth is Arnold is a RINO and dosen’t have a conservative bone in his body.
Baseball is investigating ball players who used steroids.
Well maybe the states governors should investigate over the hill body builders.
Arnold is bad for California because he is using the guise of a conservative and is nothing more than an Austrian socialist.
On a local radio station out of Palm Springs the host was asking callers where they would retire.
9 out of 10 callers said they would be moving out of state due to California's inability to deal appropriately with the rampant liberalism of high taxes, inane laws and illegal immigrants.
Thats bad when state citizens are so despondent that they give up their homes and move elsewhere because of having no confidence in their state government.
Arnold you can buy fancy furs, Botox injections and liposuction for an aging California government but after your all done you still have an old gal thats nothing more than a facade.
bump
I disagree on the pass on to other states part. The car companies, insurance companies, and oil companies should not be required to do business in California if they have different standards.
They dropped the appeal of Prop 187 (thanks Gray Davis) but will appeal when the greenies lose in court? Gotta love these politicians.
“Monopsony” and “Economies of Scale” have a lot to do with it.
If, for example, I manufacture “lead crystal” for the world market from my factory in Pennsylvania and California imposes a “lead content standard” that (if followed) would degrade my product, I can decide to comply and remain active in California with some loss of my “world customers”. Or I can decide to “abandon” the California market to manufacturers of less shiny, less clear, “lead-free-crystal” and keep my customers in the rest of the world happy.
But, with respect to automobiles, the market in California is just too big to be abandoned (the “monopsony” problem). This is why California’s politicians are certain that they have the ECOMONIC power to force America’s car-makers to comply with their feel-good pipe-dreams.
At the same time, car manufacturers have succeeded in producing automobiles at a very low cost (the high rate of car-ownership in the US proves this) by automating the manufacturing process and by offering a limited number of “options” to potential buyers.
If car manufacturers were forced, by law, to manufacture some engines to meet “California Standards”, others to meet “Iowa Standards”, others to meet “Florida Standards” etc., then the cost-savings resulting from long production runs will be lost, and the prices of automobiles must increase. Of course, we will then hear about “greedy car manufacturers” and “women and minorities hardest hit!”
Ya’ f’got water.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.