 | |  |
 |
|
|
|
States
Seek Stricter Car Emissions Standards |
Posted:
05.29.07
|
|
|
Following a Supreme Court decision that called carbon dioxide
a "pollutant," California is leading the charge for
stricter car emissions standards.
Printer-friendly version: PDF
|
|
|
|
|
For decades, California has been at the forefront of trying
to control car emissions. It was the first state to enact tailpipe
controls, in 1966, with an aim of reducing smog.
 Now,
California is seeking to be the first state to regulate greenhouse
gas emissions from vehicles.
Carbon dioxide, a major byproduct of gasoline combustion, is
the most significant of the manmade greenhouse gases, so called
because they trap heat when released into the atmosphere. Transportation
accounts for about one-third of greenhouse gas emissions in the
United States.
California has argued that, because greenhouse gases lead to
global warming, the release of carbon dioxide from cars should
be limited to protect the health of its residents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State and
federal greenhouse gas laws |
|
|
|
|
|
At issue for California is a 2002 law which requires carmakers
to cut automobile greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent starting
by 2008, with a goal of reducing total greenhouse gas production
by 30 percent by 2016.
California has argued that affordable technology already exists
to make the goal a reality.
But now that California has put forth its law, it must negotiate
a deal with the federal government to implement it. Under the
federal Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency has
the sole authority to make air pollution rules. But the same act
also allows states like California to create their own rules with
an EPA-approved waiver.
 Should
the EPA give the green light to California another 11 states,
accounting for about 30 percent of vehicles on the road, have
already passed laws to follow its lead.
For years, the EPA has resisted regulating greenhouse gases because
the gases don't pollute the air.
But the prospect of California's waiver improved in April when
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the favor of 12 states that sued
the EPA over greenhouse gas emissions.
The high court said that heat-trapping greenhouse gases can be
considered "air pollutants" under the Clean Air Act
and that the EPA violated the act by not regulating them.
|
|
|
|
EPA holds
public hearings |
|
|
|
|
|
Following the court's decision, the EPA has requested public
input on the waiver issue.
"This is more important than any issue that EPA's going
to have to face," California Attorney General Jerry Brown
told EPA officials at the first hearing last week in Washington,
D.C.
 "Protecting
our planet is not a partisan issue, and the states now want to
do what we can in the absence of federal action, and the EPA has
no right to deny us the ability to move forward," Brown said.
Environmental groups, public health groups and representatives
from states -- including Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island and
Maryland -- joined Brown to support the 2002 law.
Many of the law's supporters were critical of the Bush administration,
which, they say, has thwarted efforts to tackle climate change.
"This administration has too long hidden behind a wait-and-see
approach as an excuse to do nothing. California isn't willing
to wait and see if the sea level will rise by one foot or 10 ...
California will take action," Robert Sawyer, chairman of
the California Air Resources Board, told the Los Angeles Times.
|
|
|
|
Critics of
tailpipe controls |
|
|
|
|
|
But the California proposal is drawing fire from pro-business
and pro-environmental groups.
Jonathan Adler, director of Case Western Reserve University's
Center for Business Law and Regulation, told the EPA that it would
have to deny the waiver if California's problem was not "compelling
and extraordinary."
 On
the other side, some experts worry California and a few other
states cannot pass laws that would force car manufacturers to
create different types of vehicles in one state as opposed to
another.
"A patchwork of state-level fuel economy regulations, as
is now proposed by California, is not simply unnecessary, it's
patently counterproductive," Steven Douglas, director of
environmental affairs of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers,
said in opposition to the waiver at the first hearing.
The car industry -- the major critic -- believes that the California
standards could drive up new car prices, reduce safety and cost
jobs.
Douglas said carmakers are focusing efforts on vehicles powered
by gas-electric hybrid engines and ethanol to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, the Washington Post reported.
In the past, the EPA has sided with the car industry, maintaining
that the tailpipe is the wrong place to target emissions and instead
suggesting that greenhouse gas emissions should be limited by
fuel economy standards, which are outside of its control because
they are set by the Department of Transportation.
Though fuel efficiency rules for light trucks were changed last
year, car efficiency standards were last set at 27.5 miles --
in 1990.
|
|
|
|
Deadlines
for action |
|
|
|
|
|
The EPA has granted some 50 waivers to California since the 1960s,
but it has not hinted how or when it may rule following the recent
hearings. And the clock has started ticking.
 Following
an executive order signed earlier in May, the White House has
set a 2008 deadline for determining how to deal with the threat
posed by automobile greenhouse gas emissions.
California's Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, said
his state isn't willing to wait that long. If the EPA doesn't
act by October, he's threatened to sue the federal government.
Again following California's lead, 11 other states have also threatened
to sue, the New York Times reported.
--Compiled
by Adnaan Wasey for NewsHour Extra
Do you have an opinion about this article? Or do you have
a personal experience related to this article that you'd like
to share with our readers? Click
here to submit your story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The display of the Confederate flag is an act of imparting information or ideas and falls under the constitutional guarantees that protect free speech at school.
