Bush Slams California on Climate Change

Three days ago I suggested - naively - that perhaps the Bush Administration would turn in the right direction on climate change and grant California a waiver to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. It hasn't and the EPA didn't. Continuing its record as the worst environmental administration in history, Bush's EPA yesterday denied California's request to implement its regulations. Without a waiver, the other 14-16 states that have either enacted or expressed interest in enacting the California regulations cannot do so either.

Governor Schwarzenegger has already announced he will sue the federal government. But the regulations -- one of the centerpieces of California's plan to roll back the state's emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 -- will almost certainly not be implemented on schedule. The state's regulations are supposed to take effect for model year 2009 cars. A new president - who could reverse the EPA's decision - won't take office until January 2009. It seems highly doubtful that California's lawsuit to overturn the EPA decision will be decided before 2009 model year cars begin to roll off assembly lines. Meanwhile, the globe warms and greenhouse gas emissions grow at a rate even faster than predicted.

There's also the not insignificant question whether California will succeed in overturning the EPA's decision. From a legal perspective, there are several important questions. The first is whether the EPA followed statutory requirements under the Clean Air Act in deciding to deny the waiver. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to grant the waiver unless California "does not need" new greenhouse gas standards "to meet compelling and extraordinary circumstances." The EPA says California doesn't have compelling and extraordinary circumstances, that climate change is a global problem not unique to the state. California says the state is facing drought, water shortages, wild fires and worse smog and needs the regulations to address its contributions to global warming. Unfortunately, courts reviewing the question are likely to defer pretty heavily to the EPA's decision. On the other hand, EPA's own lawyers apparently believe that the agency is likely to lose the case. See Washington Post article here:

But California may have a better legal argument based on statements made yesterday by the EPA's head, Stephen Johnson. He says we don't need California standards because Congress just raised fuel economy standards that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We don't, he argues, need "a patchwork" of state regulations. As a factual matter his argument is plain wrong. California's standards regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases; the federal government's fuel economy standards regulate fuel economy. While there's a correlation between fuel efficiency and the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from gasoline-burning engines, the standards are regulating two separate things (a federal court decision in California made this clear just last week, based on a United States Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v. EPA). It's also more than curious that Johnson based much of his public justification for denying the waiver on legislation that passed just this week even though he's had almost two years to consider the California waiver request. Moreover, granting the waiver wouldn't produce a patchwork of standards but rather only two, the California standards (which many other states would adopt) and no standards (which the other states would follow). And finally, as a legal matter, Johnson and his EPA can't consider whether it's a good idea or not to let California have its own standards. Congress and courts that have considered the issue already have said the state can regulate separately as long as it meets Clean Air Act requirements.

So California may have a good legal claim. The better and faster route, though, is to elect a president who will reverse the EPA decision come January 2009.

Comments

[jsarets]

This is entirely backwards. As mentioned in this piece, there are two distinct components to the energy debate: efficiency and emissions. They require two different approaches, and we're going at it backwards.

Efficiency fits relatively well into the market capitalist framework. Both consumers and businesses understand very clearly the economic impact of purchasing efficient products and making lifestyle or operational adjustments to increase efficiency. Saving energy saves money. We increasingly perceive a moral imperative as well as a national security angle.

The government ought to play an important role in incubating new technologies for energy efficiency and making long-term investments in sustainable infrastructure, but ultimately, efficiency regulates itself. I know it's frustrating to be a little ahead of the curve and feeling that the market isn't providing enough competitive options for energy-conscious consumers. But demand will create the supply. The private sector will come around with or without political leadership. They'll follow the money.

Emissions is another story entirely. It's arguably the most massive externality in our market capitalist system. The impact of our production and consumption on the environment is almost totally absent from the market forces that drive our economy. There is no fundamental economic incentive to reduce emissions. To the extent that emissions are independent from efficiency, our incentive framework is virtually non-existent.

That's why we absolutely must have carbon cap-and-trade. This eliminates the emissions externality, generates public revenue for investment in green initiatives, and provides market incentives to reduce emissions in an economically efficient manner. The market may not consider emissions to be a finite resource, but nature does, and therefore we have to have a cap to allow supply and demand to do its thing.

[SeanGardner]

This is funny. The big story in this is that a Republican Administration favors a Federal Agenda over "states rights"?

Whatever happened to states rights? I guess that was just rhetoric.

Republicans for years have leaned on states rights rhetoric (which is a big thing in the South, and has been with White Southerners since the "Reconstruction" period, where Federal Troops came into the South and occupied it for years.

This is probably why former Govenor Kathleen Blanco refused the suggestion of federal troops coming into the city of New Orleans and the surrounding areas after Hurricane Katrina. She knew most white voters would have been livid.

But I am not a champion of that type of hysteria driven "states rights" thinking. I am however, a champion of the type of states rights that the State of California and almost 20 other states are exercising with respect to the environment.

Who knew Bush would abandon his mantra of "States Rights" in favor of Federal Guidelines.

[SILVANUS]

"A military coup in a third world country could not have effected a more devastating collapse of government, and law, in favor of greed, than this administration."

Indeed. Nor Satan.

[PerryWhite]

"California says the state is facing drought, water shortages, wild fires and worse smog and needs the regulations to address its contributions to global warming."

Should a state that determines that it has too much precipitation and is too cold be allowed to legislate an increase in the level of "green house gases" produced by automobiles sold in its state?

[realitytrumpsbull]

When I read about people in California parking
their cars one day per week specifically
to improve air quality, then I'll have more
faith in the honesty of the entire debate.

If you really and truly want cleaner air, then
don't wait for 'the government' to give it
to you, that's just a money game. Go tune up
your car. Slow down. PARK IT. Go take a walk.
Plan your trips. THINK. THINK HAR-DER. Buy
a Honda. Petition the state to add a .50/gal
clean air surtax to get people to use less
fuel. Close some gas stations. Close some
businesses. Balance California's budget,
while you're at it. Buy Schwarzenegger a
hat, and a cane, and some tapdance shoes.
If you really want clean air, then itemize
what YOU are willing to do about it. Are you
willing to walk and save for 5 years to buy
a Tesla? Have you read about the GM Volt?
People need to stop trying to sue the government
and get off their butts instead. It's either
politics, or you really mean it, if you're
sincere about the Varmit, start buying books
and learn how to build the Green car, and
put it on the market. Or just walk.

[lamarguerite]

Yes. Agree with your suggested course of action. . . :)

Today, I wrote in my green blog, an article inspired from Thomas Friedman's great (as usual) editorial from a few days ago. In it, I suggest our next leader look at France's Grenelle Environment for an already well thought out plan, on how to effect environmental transformion on a national scale.

Listening to Sarkozy's speech did make me very proud to be French. I can't wait for the day when our next president makes me also proud to be an American!

http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com

[jdm58]

The sad fact is, Bush has now rigged the SCOTUS in his favor as well, while the country and Congress rolled over and slept it seems. I hope that CA can get what they need, but I won't hold my breath given the "justices" Bush has appointed. A military coup in a third world country could not have effected a more devastating collapse of government, and law, in favor of greed, than this administration.

[nowaterboardUSA]

Well you can't very well reduce emmissions if you are going to have gas wells shooting flames in the air over LA by 2019 as Phillip K.Dick predicted (ala Blade Runner). The Terminator should know that. I think this is smoke & mirros he's pulling to satisfy the Cali Left.

[WASanford]

California could just charge a state gas guzzler tax that goes up as the mpg goes down. I don"t think the feds can keep us from taxing the crap out of vehicles that don't get decent mileage and pollute our beautiful state. California needs the money anyway and it beats cutting back state provided services.
I"ll call my assembly person tomorrow!

[cloudy]

This is a very good column focusing on a pivotal issue -- one that merits MUCH more attention at Huffpo. One thing to keep in mind was the excruciating and utterly unnecessary delay in the EPA decision, so that even if they had done the Un-W thing and OPPOSED ecocide/genocide-for-profit, the two year delay would have itself significantly hampered the good faith efforts by many states to at least begin to fill in where the federal government has defaulted.

As for the recently passed legislation -- it hasn't even yet been signed into law. Rather, the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that this was a thoroughly political decision (in the WORST sense of the word political), one that defies common sense and the much-preached but little-practiced RW protestative talking point about 'states' rights'. (That doctrine was cooked up to stymie civil rights efforts and never, in the past 1/2 century, been a genuine principle rather than a point-of-indignant-protestation for the right)

As for looking to the federal court system for a remedy, my own experience in those courts, and what I have studied, suggests 'don't hold your breath'. This is a pivotal power issue and upholding the CA position, to and thru the Supreme Court, would defy the court's tradition of never seriously challenging the worst aspects of the elite's agenda, especially on fed v state, quasi-ICC type issues. The zero-spill assumption theory in the case upholding nuclear waste transportation thru NY is more emblematic of the nature and function of these fora on state & local government rights on environmental issues.

If I'm wrong, and the SCOTUS does uphold the CA law, BEFORE a new president assumes office in Jan 09, I'll buy Ms Carlson a free large pizza, any toppings.