TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › One for the people!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

One for the people!

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
Here's a win for the people over the auto industry. California wants to regulate the GHG emitted by SUVs and pick-ups. The auto industry sued.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...la-home-center

Does anyone know who the 16 other states are?
post #2 of 26
It will be overturned. That Federal Circuit is the most overturned by a substantial margin. California can set standards for what is SOLD in the state but can not mandate manufacture standards for vehicles that meet Federal standards which are produced in another state. Also, Federal requirements ALWAYS supersede state law (remember: we had a huge war over that very issue some 140 years ago!) Similar issues have come up before, often involving California, and every one was eventually decided in favor of the Federal government over the state.
post #3 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharmsDad View Post
It will be overturned. That Federal Circuit is the most overturned by a substantial margin. California can set standards for what is SOLD in the state but can not mandate manufacture standards for vehicles that meet Federal standards which are produced in another state. Also, Federal requirements ALWAYS supersede state law (remember: we had a huge war over that very issue some 140 years ago!) Similar issues have come up before, often involving California, and every one was eventually decided in favor of the Federal government over the state.
Actually Calfornia does have a much stricter car emissions standards than the federal government and has had for awhile. Also any state that choses can follow Calfornia's laws rather than those of the federal government. That's exactly why the auto manufacturers are fighting the new state laws. They are afraid other states will adopt our standards.

You are probably too young to remember the horrible air quality in L.A. in the 70s. California obtained a waiver to set its own standards at that time. The air quality has vastly improved.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...ornia_driving/
post #4 of 26
California is also going to be placing tighter controls on truck (semis) emissions. These are not only for trucks based in/out of California but the rules will also apply to trucks traveling into California that are based in other states. If I remember correctly the laws/standards are supposed to take place in 2012.

This is one thing I do agree with California on. Every state and the feds should be working harder to pressure the auto industry to tow the line with tighter emissions standards.
post #5 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by katie=^..^= View Post
Actually Calfornia does have a much stricter car emissions standards than the federal government and has had for awhile. Also any state that choses can follow Calfornia's laws rather than those of the federal government. That's exactly why the auto manufacturers are fighting the new state laws. They are afraid other states will adopt our standards.

You are probably too young to remember the horrible air quality in L.A. in the 70s. California obtained a waiver to set its own standards at that time. The air quality has vastly improved.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...ornia_driving/
I'm 52, hardly to young to remember these things. The California standards are established using what are essentially after market add ons to the drive train, not by setting manufacture standards. That's the jist of the suit.

As for trucks traveling through California, the state already tried to do the same thing with trains and the Federal courts overturned it. This won't hold up either.
post #6 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharmsDad View Post
I'm 52, hardly to young to remember these things. The California standards are established using what are essentially after market add ons to the drive train, not by setting manufacture standards. That's the jist of the suit.

As for trucks traveling through California, the state already tried to do the same thing with trains and the Federal courts overturned it. This won't hold up either.
You've only got two years on me, so do you also remember how revolutionary California's insistence on catalytic converters was? I was living in Pennsylvania (my home state) at the time, and then moved to Germany. Guess what? They soon became the norm, and unleaded gasoline became "standard".
post #7 of 26
Thread Starter 
To me the hypocrasy of the automakers was so obvious when they sued California. They pretend that the are interested in reducing GHG and improving air quality, but when pushed to do just that they sue instead.

Here is an article from The Detroit News on the court decision:




http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll.../1022/POLITICS
post #8 of 26
how i agree its a good thing.. I would not say its one for the people.
Since it is THE PEOPLE that will be paying for the higher cost of the car.

lol but since this is the same state that complains about rolling black outs but has not allowed any new power plants to go online for how long?
post #9 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
You've only got two years on me, so do you also remember how revolutionary California's insistence on catalytic converters was? I was living in Pennsylvania (my home state) at the time, and then moved to Germany. Guess what? They soon became the norm, and unleaded gasoline became "standard".
I certainly wouldn't call it "revolutionary". Do you recall the number of auto fires from the early catalytic converters because the mandate they had to be rushed into production before all the engineering could be properly done? Then again, that has no bearing on the current issue. California is free to lobby and try and push laws through congress, just as ever other state has the same right. At issue here is whether California can unilaterally dictate standards for the entire nation, or whether California law supersedes Federal law, both of which they have tried on a number of previous occasions.

And yes, that state insists other states should build power and water purification plants and then provide electricity and water at a very low price (even pushing for below cost pricing.) They are by no means the only state trying to do this type of thing, but being the most populated that state has the greatest impact.

As for "One for the People", I don't see that either, unless you title it "One for the People of California". Again, California is free to push for stricter standards in Congress. They are free to mandate emissions reducing add ons to the vehicles REGISTERED in their state. They are no free to dictate standards for others.
post #10 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharmsDad View Post
I certainly wouldn't call it "revolutionary". Do you recall the number of auto fires from the early catalytic converters because the mandate they had to be rushed into production before all the engineering could be properly done? Then again, that has no bearing on the current issue. California is free to lobby and try and push laws through congress, just as ever other state has the same right. At issue here is whether California can unilaterally dictate standards for the entire nation, or whether California law supersedes Federal law, both of which they have tried on a number of previous occasions.

And yes, that state insists other states should build power and water purification plants and then provide electricity and water at a very low price (even pushing for below cost pricing.) They are by no means the only state trying to do this type of thing, but being the most populated that state has the greatest impact.

As for "One for the People", I don't see that either, unless you title it "One for the People of California". Again, California is free to push for stricter standards in Congress. They are free to mandate emissions reducing add ons to the vehicles REGISTERED in their state. They are no free to dictate standards for others.
Did you read the websites I cited? California can set its own laws because it had already passed its own Clean Air Act before the Environmental Protection Agency was formed. It is a leader in this area. California is known for its interest in environmental laws. If these laws had not been passed L.A. would be unliveable today.

All states can choose to follow California's standards or the more lenient federal ones.

I wonder why you are so angry with California? Do you work for an oil company or an auto maker? Are we talking your water?

I said One for the People because, not only can any state that chooses follow our standards but cleaner air and fewer GHG are to the benefit not only to other states, but to the entire planet.

I'm not going to respond to anymore of your protests until you read the websites I linked.

I said One for the People because any state that
post #11 of 26
Many states do follow California s lead on things ... as well as legal issues relating to items such as real estate ( ie I believe the Cali contract is now 9 pages) compared to 20 yrs ago when it was 2 or three I was was quite young then and cant remember .... THank you California many areas your lawsuits have the states around you stand up and take notice
post #12 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
how i agree its a good thing.. I would not say its one for the people.
Since it is THE PEOPLE that will be paying for the higher cost of the car.

lol but since this is the same state that complains about rolling black outs but has not allowed any new power plants to go online for how long?
The rolling blackouts were totally staged and fake. Enron and their cohorts staged them. They had nothing to do with the availability of electricity. We were taken and Vice-President Cheney was involved in it.
post #13 of 26
You think? We had brown-outs in Dayton, Ohio long before Cheney, or anybody but the very local DP&L was in a position to control anything.

Do you have anything I can read about that? (I wouldn't put it past him, of course...)
post #14 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
You think? We had brown-outs in Dayton, Ohio long before Cheney, or anybody but the very local DP&L was in a position to control anything.

Do you have anything I can read about that? (I wouldn't put it past him, of course...)
You're right, I got so angry I posted my personal opinion as fact. The Bush administration was close to Enron and Cheney had many secret meetings with the higher-ups in the company. He refused to make them public during the investigation claiming "executive privilege." I'm still angry about this. They caused the blackouts with no concern for the people. It was only after it was pointed out that some people were dependent on electric power to run life-saving medical devices.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in620795.shtml

There are more articles, but I can't remember how to post more than one!
post #15 of 26
Thread Starter 
http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/...01/enron_memo/

Here's one that implicates Cheney. It tells the story of the "executive privilege" he claimed to avoid revealing memos.

This has nothing to do with the auto makers sueing California to make gas emissions safer.
post #16 of 26
Here's the update to that story:

EPA says 17 states can't set emission standards

I really like what Johnson said:
Quote:
Climate change affects everyone regardless of where greenhouse gases occur, so California is not exclusive,"
I think that instead of California trying to "set the standard" for the rest of the America, they need to coax the 49 other states into agreeing with them.

The thing they really need to understand when it comes to "changing" cars, if you will, is that they need to get Michigan (auto capital) in agreement. If they have the auto capital with them, then suddenly more states will fall in line.

(PS, I'm not agreeing with the judgement, merely stating what they should do to get things going)
post #17 of 26
did not this fail?
post #18 of 26
Some other article I read said that CA is appealling the EPA's decision.
post #19 of 26
IMO we need to go to the way Japan does things. Over there even the power the car puts out is regluated. They regulate emissions very stricly over there, and requre cars to be more efficient. There is nothing in this world that boils my blood more than four ton trucks that drink gas like water ALL OVER THE ROAD!
post #20 of 26
Thread Starter 
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,2287845.story

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,2746599.story

This is the coverage in the L.A. Times. You might have to register to read it, but registration is free.

Seventeen states and half the nation's population don't seem insignificant to me. In addition California has received waivers from the EPA over 50 times in the past. The truth is the state had gas emissions laws BEFORE the EPA was formed and so has always been a special situation.

No, I don't think we should have to wait for states that don't see this as important to come on board. L.A. would be unliveable today if we had waited for everyone else to care what our laws are.

I see this as a right that we have to regulate our own air quality. I see it as another win for an administration more concerned with the short-term economic gains of the oil, gas and automaker's industries than with the health and welfare of its citizens.

I'm not a Swarztenegger fan, but his leadership on this issue might just be enough to make me vote Republican for the first time. I hope all 17 states, and environmental groups get together on sueing over this.
post #21 of 26
It would be silly to allow ONLY 17 states to do it imho. I think it should be an all or nothing.

What happens if it did pass, but the states surrounding CA weren't any of them? The tourists coming into CA would make that law insignificant. OK well CA is pretty large, let's pick on NJ. The area I live have a ton of tourists from PA, NY, CT, MA, DE, MD, VA, etc, etc...if this law were to pass, then the tourist coming in during the summer (when emissions are higher than winter) would be useless.
post #22 of 26
i am still trying to fiq out how its one for the people, When its going to hurt the people.
post #23 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunasmom View Post
It would be silly to allow ONLY 17 states to do it imho. I think it should be an all or nothing.

What happens if it did pass, but the states surrounding CA weren't any of them? The tourists coming into CA would make that law insignificant. OK well CA is pretty large, let's pick on NJ. The area I live have a ton of tourists from PA, NY, CT, MA, DE, MD, VA, etc, etc...if this law were to pass, then the tourist coming in during the summer (when emissions are higher than winter) would be useless.
Actually I look at it the other way. Having California and 16 other states following this law would HELP everyone else. If New Jersey is clean then it helps the surrounding states. Because California is cleaner, it makes it better for all the adjacent states.

One thing you should understand: This is not at all controversial in California. In my 33-year residence I have never heard anyone say, "Oh I hate these smog laws, they make my car cost more!" Everyone here sees these laws as necessary to the health of their children, seniors, disabled and themselves.
post #24 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
i am still trying to fiq out how its one for the people, When its going to hurt the people.
How is it going to hurt anyone if the people of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Washington have better air quality?

It only means fewer health problems for those states and fewer GHG for the entire planet.

When I said "the people," I was thinking of "We the People of the United States....." what were you thinking of?
post #25 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunasmom View Post
It would be silly to allow ONLY 17 states to do it imho. I think it should be an all or nothing.

What happens if it did pass, but the states surrounding CA weren't any of them? The tourists coming into CA would make that law insignificant. OK well CA is pretty large, let's pick on NJ. The area I live have a ton of tourists from PA, NY, CT, MA, DE, MD, VA, etc, etc...if this law were to pass, then the tourist coming in during the summer (when emissions are higher than winter) would be useless.
Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Maine, and Maryland are also included.
post #26 of 26
Thread Starter 
http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/s...la-news-scimed

This was clearly a backroom decision. The automakers and the country's manufacturers agreed to the passage of the gas emissions bill in exchange for the EPA decision. They're hoping it will also enable the EPA to hold off on any actions to curb carbon dioxide emissions from smokestakes.

Well the people are just being jerked around by this administration again. Short term financial gain instead of a healthy environment and a lessening of GHGs.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › One for the people!