Davis misses point with new auto bill

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.

"We can have the cars and vehicles we want, and cleaner air."

We can have our cake and eat it, too. We can have wealth without toil, ease without effort, travel without fuel, power without the messy necessity of generating plants.

We are as ignorant as savages as to how--precisely--the light comes on when we flip the switch. We are as clueless as cavemen as to how the big silver bird rises into the sky.

We are as arrogant as King Canute, who thought he could stem the ebb and flow of the tides by royal decree.

We plan to pull a "Canute" on the Laws of Thermodynamics, which we imagine subject to our wishes.

--Boris

P.S. Would it not be wonderful if the entire auto industry just refused to be bullied and stopped selling cars in CA? I know, they'd never really do that, would they? After all, John Galt is fiction.

Boy would Davis be surprised, though!

--Boris

Just two years ago California whites dropped below the 50% mark in population. I just saw figures that stated they had already dropped to 46.5% since then.

As soon as whites ceased to be the majority in CA, the San Diego city council acted to outlaw the use of the word "minority" in all official city publications. The word was publicly flogged as "demeaning". The official replacement for "minority" in all city documents is the phrase "people of color". Do you suppose there was a political motive behind the sudden change in the definition of terms? Once whites were no longer 50% plus 1, the power of minority preference programs ceased to carry a punitive anti-white element. Minority preferences have been recast as "people of color" preferences.

A San Diego talk radio program decided to explore the community reaction to the change in terminology. One lady expressed concern that the phrase "people of color" would be shortened to "colored people". The more things change, the more they stay the same. California is now a confused mix of pluralities.

The old phrase, "When you can rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have Paul's vote" is indicative of the direction in California. As the parasites increase in voting clout, the producers will have no option but to leave CA or be totally enslaved to the state. CA will continue the descent into a 3rd world future.

Thanks. That was a good breakdown on the explanation.

I'll address the issue of preference of race, because I think it's an area where some confusion exists.

As for coming into contact with people of different races, I actually enjoy it. I have met and liked blacks, hispanics, Russians, Asians, Israelis, Arabs, British, Italian, Irish, European... look, I like all people. But when I come down to it, I like all people in small doses.

I like the idea that the United States always has some people coming into our nation from other nations. As long as that number is reasonable about 0.5 to 1.0% per year, and they don't all congregate in the same area of one town, I'm for it.

Immigrants should be managed. You come here and you blend in. You come here and you do not set up a little "whatever" (a little bit'o'heaven) that's essentially a new pocket of a foreign nation within our own. Disburse the 25,000 new immigrants from Italy this year, in a number of states.

I don't really say this out of dislike for Italians. I just don't think two cities in our nation should suddenly have 12,500 Italians show up within 12 monts, followed by 12,500 more the next year and the next. I don't care if it's Italians, Mexicans, Columbians, Brits or people from the African continent. Bring em on, just don't flood one area with them.

Now, I believe that there should be a nation for every race. I think it's just great that black Africans have their own nations. They should. They should be proud of them and turn them into something wonderful. They have a very human right to surround themselves with people just like themselves. And you know what, my life would be less enjoyable, less fulfilled if I didn't come into contact with some people form that nation. I support that. It makes me angry when people act like they don't want to have blacks or any other race around. On the other hand, if I think it is right for black Africans to have self-determination to chose what is best for black Africans, then it is only reasonable that I should think it proper to have a nation filled with whites, that can determine what best works for them. And no I'm not talking exclusivity, or segregation at all. I have absolutely no problem with having neighbors of any race.

I never realized what having people who look like me around meant to me until I took a trip to Chicago about four years ago. My wife and I took the subway out to Wrigley Field. About half way through the game something dawned on me. That day as I looked around, it seemed like there were nobody there but whites. The people sitting all around us were middle class folks just like me who had left work early and were enjoying the game.

When I go do Dodger stadium anymore, I feel like I'm not in just another nation, I feel like I'm at the United Nations. What is up with this?

I try to assess if perhaps I am a closet racist, but I don't think that I am. I do not think that I should have to feel guilty for desiring to live in a nation with folks that look like me. I'm not saying everyone has to look like me. I'm just saying that the way things are headed, in the very near future, there is not going to be a nation on earth where whites will have majority rule.

Is that a good thing? If it is a goog thing, then it's totally my problem and something I need to work on. But if I am right in feeling that there should be a nation or two on earth with white majority rule, isn't it time we started doing some assessment?

I would NEVER think of telling Mexicans that they should not have their own nation, and have the right to majority rule within it. I would never support the idea of managing the African continent so that there would not be a single black majority rule nation there. That would be genocidal to my way of thinking. Why then is it wrong for me to simply want to live in a nation that has many citizens that came from all nations, but that I am still a part of the majority race, and can experience self-rule?

Perhaps I'm a closet racist. Perhaps it is best if self-determination for whites ceases to exist this century. Perhaps I'll live to celebrate that eventuality even as Bill Clinton and Gray Davis celebrated when white majority rule ended in California. Perhaps it is a good thing for the race that gave the world it's greatest accomplishments to agree to fade away. I guess I just haven't progressed enough to have reached that level of conciousness yet. In truth, I doubt I ever will.

I don't think I'll ever hate the people of any race. I don't work that way. I just wonder what my race did that they should be denied what they have allowed for every other race, self-determination.

D1, I didn't for a moment meant to imply that you are racist in my earlier remark. I was just make my position clear.

As for being a "closet racist", I believe most people are that to some extent because they prefer to be with like people. It's human nature. But again, my concerns are the "flood" of immigrants which are putting REAL strains on our infrastructure, and the unwillingless of those immigrants to fully assimilate into our American culture.

That little "B" movie demonstrated the possible results of runaway immigration and foolish PC programs that encourage immigrants to keep to themselves.

You're right, everyone should see that movie. Some eyes may be opened some not, but we need to start talking about what we want for our children's future. Do we want to maintain our standard of living? Do we want to communicate in one language? Do we want all races and ethnics groups to live together in peace? Or do we want to continue down the path of balkanization and the ultimate consequences?

No I did not mean to infer that you thought I was a racist. Perhaps I should have made the comments without a "To:" person named.

I made the comments because I think there is confusion on the issue of what is racism, but didn't mean to imply that you were confused. I've been called a racist a number of times on these threads, never by you, and find it useful to do a little public self-assessment once in a while. I address the issue of race often, since it's so closely intertwined with illegal immigration, not that it should be. If I explain step by step what my thought processes are, it allows others to follow along and compare their own thoughts. And I would hope any reasonable person could see that I try to be very level-headed and even-handed when it comes to race and the reasonable rights of all parties.

You mentioned that nearly everyone is somewhat of a closet racist in that they like to be around like people. I completely agree. In integrated schools, the kids immediately group up based on this principle. I don't think that's racist at all. And you're right, it's human nature.

I agree with your comments on all counts, and applogize for any implication my post may have seemed to infer.

I'll never understand why the auo manufacturers decided to sue as their only course of action. They had a warchest and the the ability to gather enough signatures to get an initiative to overturn this idiotic law on the ballot. And voters would have gone for it.

I thought so too, and initially that appeared to be the plan. The Dems were desperately delaying things, and the Reps were trying to push the process along to be able to force a referendum onto the November ballot. That could have been a big problem for Davis, as I opined on my blog.

So I can only conclude that further private polls and focus groups indicated that there was too great a risk of failure. It's obviously far cheaper and politically much safer to pursue the lawsuit route, but there was no inherent reason they couldn't have done both.

I would have loved to see a referendum. A public defeat of AB 1493 by the liberal state of California would have been a body blow to the Kyoto global warming nonsense. It's a missed opportunity. It was missed because the auto manufacturers and dealers failed to appreciate the long-term value of such a victory, preferring the very short-term route of least cost and least resistance.

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.