California Sues The Us

[gaia.plateau]

California Sues Over US Emissions

California is suing the US federal government, in an attempt to force car makers to conform to tougher cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
The lawsuit comes after the federal Environmental Protection Agency denied California a waiver from US law needed to enact its own efficiency targets.

The Epa says it wants to avoid a confusing patchwork of different regulations across states.

But California says the Epa has "done nothing" to curb greenhouse gases.

Fifteen other states or state agencies are set to join the action.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown filed the suit in the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Wednesday.

It challenged the Epa's denial of California's request to implement its own emissions law - which would require a 30% reduction in motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by 2016 by improving fuel efficiency standards.

Melting snowpack
For years, California has been allowed to set its own environmental targets in recognition of the "compelling and extraordinary conditions" the state faces - and the Epa has never before denied California a waiver request.

California claims it faces dangerous consequences from global warming, including to its mountain snowpack, which supplies a third of the state's drinking water, and to miles of coastline and levees threatened by rising sea levels.

"The Epa has done nothing at the national level to curb greenhouse gases and now it has wrongfully and illegally blocked California's landmark tailpipe emissions standards, despite the fact that 16 states have moved to adopt them," said Attorney General Brown in a statement.

He said he was aware the legal challenge could turn into a "long fight".

But the Epa says new energy legislation signed by President George W Bush will provide a far more effective approach to reducing greenhouse gases than a patchwork of state regulations.

Fifteen other states or state agencies said on Wednesday that they plan to intervene in support of California's action.

They are: Massachusetts, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

[gaia.plateau]

Thoughts? Outrage?

Fear of this sort of movement has been a salient cause for hostility against the notion of climate change, and especially human-effected climate change... I'm surprised at the support this has received.

I'm not overly savvy the US political system, so correct me if I'm wrong... are all the states supporting this not democratic?

[Cybersist]

I think that California should be able to set their own targets. They are the farthest along on the road to better emission regulations, and the government shouldn't impede their success. I'm glad that I'm in a supporting state.

Although I think technically this type of action is not very democratic. In a way it is a rebellion against the goverment. But it is needed, so let it be.

[gaia.plateau]

Although I think technically this type of action is not very democratic. In a way it is a rebellion against the goverment. But it is needed, so let it be.

Holding your government accountable is the very spirit of democracy... you could say that it's not patriotic or nationalist, and that's a whole new can of worms, but it's quite true to the tenets of democracy.

[anathema]

Should have happened long ago.
That's a yay from me.

[TheScotsman]

Cali is insane.

This is the state that outlaws weedeaters, generators, outboard engines, leaf blowers, wood stoves, go-carts, roto-tillers... all as being too damaging to the environment, yet setup freeway gridlock where 1 day's output is said to be worse than every one of the aforementioned small engines in the whole nation, for more than 1 month.

Courts are about proof, and there is still no proof that is beyond reasonable doubt, of any emission causing global warming, or if so, the extent of it.

The automakers would build different vehicles if people would buy different vehicles. Trying to force the builders to make something that people don't want is beyond stupid, in so many ways. Until the public decides a 5,000lb full time 4x4 is not the ideal get-to-work machine, all the governmental stupidity isn't going to fix something people really don't want to change.

If Kalifornia wants to be the omni-powerful, then I think the auto builders should go back to the mid '70's practice of building special "california" models with crappy performance, and a load of emission stupidity. Maybe a california-sale suburban with a 75 hp 4-popper. Bet everyone would like that! No? well then don't try to force the same rubbish on the rest of the country.

[Scheetz]

Are you telling me California hasn't become its own country yet?



Congratulations to the citizens of those states. They have now succeeded in raising their own taxes to sue themselves.



I could care less what laws they pass about new car restrictions. There has yet to be a new car built after 2002 (beside the ZR-1) that thrills me. Every enjoyable sports car was produced in the 90s,80s and 70s. I am going to continue to focus my attention on those years.

[The Devils Playground]

Greenhouse gasses? Do you honestly think It's going to honestly matter in the next 100 Years?

As far as I am concerned as soon as my nephew dies they can blow the entire planet up. He is 7 now so in 71 Years blow this bad boy us.

I am sure with Global warming at least not as many people will wear furs. See theres a good point to it. Not to mention then Canadians will not flood those poor people in Arizona. lol

[r1v3th3ad]

States rights, wtf are the feds stepping in for, this is a country for the people, of the people...I hate the bs where they go out of line and butt in on everything now...NAU is on its way. Another thing is ruling over states rights in personal freedoms. Certain drugs have been illegal at fed level when it is the states' choice, but more so now is salvia. Some states have chose to make a harmless, respectable divination tool like that illegal, but the feds wanna step up and do the same. I respect the states that have and their laws, thats their choice coincided with the people, but the feds have no right whatsoever.
Sorry to go off on a tangent, phillip glass does this to me, but anyway...good for cali I support you and those who follow.

-And if requested, I will edit or remove what I posted, I do not feel it is inappropriate, but I was just reading over forum rules and this extra is an edit...I have no problem following rules, but sometimes, issues need to be brought to light and opinions expressed, I appolgize if I offend anyone or unintentionally brought trouble in my wake. Edited January 15, 2008 by r1v3th3ad

[ubernerd83]

Cali is insane.

This is the state that outlaws weedeaters, generators, outboard engines, leaf blowers, wood stoves, go-carts, roto-tillers... all as being too damaging to the environment, yet setup freeway gridlock where 1 day's output is said to be worse than every one of the aforementioned small engines in the whole nation, for more than 1 month.

Courts are about proof, and there is still no proof that is beyond reasonable doubt, of any emission causing global warming, or if so, the extent of it.

The automakers would build different vehicles if people would buy different vehicles. Trying to force the builders to make something that people don't want is beyond stupid, in so many ways. Until the public decides a 5,000lb full time 4x4 is not the ideal get-to-work machine, all the governmental stupidity isn't going to fix something people really don't want to change.

If Kalifornia wants to be the omni-powerful, then I think the auto builders should go back to the mid '70's practice of building special "california" models with crappy performance, and a load of emission stupidity. Maybe a california-sale suburban with a 75 hp 4-popper. Bet everyone would like that! No? well then don't try to force the same rubbish on the rest of the country.

So many things wrong here, it hurts my brain. Yes, the courts are about proof. But the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is applicable only in criminal matters. I believe this would be a civil suit, so the verdict is based on a "preponderance of the evidence", a less stringent standard. It's also worth noting at this point that SCOTUS ruled last year that it is within the EPA's power to regulate CO2 emissions, and that they should, in fact, do it.

As to your claim that there is no "proof" that anthropogenic global warming is occuring, you are clearly not reading the same scientifi journals I am. The question has ceased to be "is there global warming?" or even, "are we causing global warming?" It's not even a question of "Is it bad?" any more, it's "How bad is it?"

And if people want all these huge gas guzzling monstrosities that Detroit keeps poutting out, why are American auto manufacturers consistently outperformed by their Japanese counterparts, who don't seem to making vehicles the size of an adolescent blue whale?

[TheScotsman]

I did not mean to infer that reasonable doubt had to do with any court, but rather that no substantial proof had been presented by either side to make a positive case that any warming was attributed to MV exhaust. (One would wonder why antarctic ice is growing if it's getting warmer.) Both sides show their hype, but neither presents any unskewed evidence.

It was only a decade ago they told us we were all going to freeze to death in a new ice age. It wasn't when, or if then either, but how soon, and how bad. (Most likely you can find the exact same organizations touting the big warming now) I have heard it all before... I don't believe either side's bullshite without proof beyond what I find my own doubt in. For some reason there is always a liberal-loon at the funding end of those organizations if you look hard enough.

As far as what to drive, I have an F-450, I can afford the fuel , and I like it, so why should I have to drive what some jealous bozo thinks I should. Ever try to land a winged keel 32' boat with a toyota? Not happening. Funny cartoon bubble of being pulled into the lake with the brakes locked though. I find most nippers a bit short of headroom.

California... the state that wants everyone to have a radio controlled thermostat... so THEY can tell you what temp you will have in your house. BITE ME!

[Gold Wing Gunner]

I think that california needs to calm down about all of this, if they have such strong feelings against the rest of the US let them try to succeed(lol I have no idea how to spell that) but they still have yet to thank the government for saving their asses in WWII *for those not in the know, 8 days after the atomic bombs were droped on japan, Japan had planned the largest raid/bombing ever using something like 28,000+ Jet fighters and Bombers, Japan believed that by destroying the ENTIRE STATE OF CALIFORNIA the US would surrender. Look it up they had plans to literally destroy ALL of california, and by todays standards the bombing of Japan would have gone through so much political shinanigons that it would have happend weeks, maybe even months later, rendering California to a crater on the west end of the US*

But that is my opinion on the matter... besides a couple years ago California promised Honda that they would have a Hydrogen refueling station every 2.5mi down the road. Never happend California made like 25 and gave up! shinanigons...

[guyt]

I'm from Cali but I still believe in a strong federal Government. This however is just fucked up. For years Cali had their own emission standards and some states chose to adopt it. This is not such a burden on the auto industry because the second they leave the US there are many more regulations they have to deal with. So one more won't hurt auto, it will help the world.

[HookahDude831]

ice melts.... Its honestly that simple