Posted on 08/11/2002 11:36:48 AM PDT by NorCoGOP
SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. -- California Governor Gray Davis is asking the impossible.
The debate over environment vs. commerce continued on a few weeks ago as Davis signed the first law in the nation that requires automakers to reduce global warming gas emissions in their automobiles.
Top scientists, Hollywood stars and environmental activists flanked Davis as he signed the bill, AB 1493, during ceremonies in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
"If the rest of the country is not going to stand up and do something, then by God, we are," Davis said to cheers from a crowd of supporters. "We can have the cars and vehicles we want, and cleaner air."
But he's wrong: the automobiles Californians want -- gas-guzzling SUV's, minivans and luxury vehicles -- would all have to undergo major design overhauls in only a few short years in order to meet Davis' demands.
He wants automobiles to produce lower amounts of "greenhouse gases" like carbon dioxide, but the only way to do that is to regulate vehicle gas mileage, and that requires serious design modification.
"The only way to produce less carbon dioxide is to combust less fuel," said Eron Shosteck, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, in an AP story. "To do that, you have to make the vehicle lighter, smaller, less powerful, less versatile, and basically strip away the features that consumers demand."
Unfortunately for Davis and his supporters, only Congress is allowed to decide gas mileage standards. The state can enforce smog rules, and that's about it.
But Davis is ignoring the limits of his power and demanding automakers redesign their entire lines within 10 years, so he looks like an environmental trailblazer. He's missing the point. Why not take this opportunity to also address air quality problems related to smog, since that is at least within the state's power to regulate?
Why not work with automakers to develop a comprehensive overall policy that outlines ways to improve the environment on all fronts?
Why focus on only one issue, and do it in such a way as to invite animosity from manufacturers? It's irresponsible for the governor to demand a simple solution to a complicated problem like this; there isn't one.
The AAM is planning to sue, and they'd be justified in doing so. Davis is over-stepping his bounds by attempting to act above Congress.
Davis and supporters of AB 1493 need to recognize they can't have their cake and eat it too. Issues like the environment and public health safety shouldn't be used for headline-grabbing and political grandstanding.
Leaders need to develop methods of conservation and regulation that work to cut production of greenhouse gases across the board. In California, transportation accounts for 57 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions, but in other areas of the country electricity generation and industrial and commercial development play more significant roles.
By making an impulsive first stab at the automotive industry and demanding results that are outside the realm of its decision, the state has made a terrible mistake that could hinder future efforts to improve the environment by cleaning up greenhouse gases in other sources.
Davis should've found another approach. Though the AAM hasn't announced a specific lawsuit date, it's not a matter of if, but when. And when the issue finally goes to court, there's a strong chance AB 1493 will be ruled unconstitutional.
If that happens, all Davis' chest-pounding rhetoric will be in vain, and we'll all go back to the drawing board.
And here we all are, wondering along with Davis as to what his legacy will be.....
All this concern about emissions is interesting. We do have an exteme burden on resources in the state. But who drives the dirtiest cars Mr. Davis. Is it the person that drives the newest SUV? Surely you realize that most older cars have the worst emissions. And guess who drives them Mr. Davis.
We do have a number of severe problems in this state. The leadership has elected to igore them. They start at the border and disburse ever northward and eastward. Reduce those illegal numbers and you've already cut emissions by 10% Mr. Governor. Ahem...
Rather than offend one his - panic, a good Democrat would punish 100 others with higher taxes and more government controls.
"Top scientists" should probably read "Politically pandering leftist scientists with a need for funding..." "Top scientists" indeed...
Most industry insiders assume that the automakers can't afford to give up a lucrative part of the California market. Most insiders reason that the industry will fight Davis to the death in court because this law would force them to redesign their whole fleet, again because California represents such a large market share.
I'm not so sure that these predicitons are accurate. I'm betting they would. I'm also betting they won't be forced to reach such a desision.
The problem with the legislation is that even incrementally you can't outlaw trucks. A state can attempt to tax a truck out of economic existance but the results would be self defeating without even considering the legal considerations of infringement of interstate commerce.
The automakers will repackage their truck fleet to fill the void created by this legislation and then the CARB will redefine what falls under their jusidiction (similar to the changing assult weapons definitions) until the consumer has had enough.
It was fairly even-handed and showed many of the things we've talked about regarding the invasion of immigrants v. our compassion for the World's poor. There was a scene where the Hispanic LA Mayor was shot at by blacks who were angry about losing jobs to the hordes of Mexicans crossing the border. The on scene reporter was scrambling around to find someone who spoke English - even the cops didn't.
A number of other states joined the stand off and sent their National Guard. In one scene, some fed Army troops refused to fire on their fellow Americans and started shooting the officers. The mutinous soldiers lost the skirmish and were summarily executed. The whole movie is from the perspective of a CNN like newsroom and that firing squad scene was broadcast to a stunned America.
Very disturbing movie, but really on target regarding much of the immigration and balkanization issues.
LOL!
It does seem to have anticipated what could happen rather well from your description!
To be sure it's a complex issue to resolve. But then again, if you stick to the law and act accordingly, it becomes quite simple really.
Just two years ago California whites dropped below the 50% mark in population. I just saw figures that stated they had already droped to 46.5% since then. I'm sure Davis and Clinton must be off in some corner somewhere celebrating up a storm.
I think the movie was pretty fair in how it portrayed the "melting pot" was no longer melting together, and that the political correctness of diversity had created a divisive balkanized nightmare with all the individual ethnic enclaves battling for political power and dominance of their cultures.
Some of the perspectives included:
1. The infrastructure was completely breaking down due the huge influx of immigrants;
2. States rights v. federal jurisdiction;
3. Ordinary citizens fed up with the destruction of our standard of living;
4. The compassion we should continue to show the poor of the World;
5. The almost rabid position of the pro-immigrant group;
6. The wrongful influence of modern media on occuring events:
7. The foolish actions by all the politicians involved;
8. The militia/separatist and other hateful groups;
9. The question of American military fighting its own;
10. The inherent racism (or preference to culture) that's in all of us.
Other than the farcical portrayal of the main characters, I found it deeply unsettling. I was surprised I never heard of this movie, and even more suprised that someone would produce it. It represented in detail what many have been warning about for years. I fear that someday this little movie may be seen as prophecy, even with the dramatic license it incorporated.
movie title: The Second Civil War (produced in 1997)
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.