Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

The fight over emissions standards

The Rocky

Published December 30, 2007 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

Environmental activists and sympathetic public officials were naturally upset by the decision in Washington the other day to reject California's "clean car" law. No surprise there. After all, more than dozen other states, including Colorado, supported California's effort to tighten emission rules for new motor vehicles with the intent to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

What has proponents of the California standard really fuming, though, is news that Environmental Protection Agency chief Stephen Johnson made his ruling against the advice of EPA's career staff. California Air Resources Board Chairman Mary Nichols, echoing other critics, called the move further proof "that this administration ignores the science and ignores the law to reach the politically convenient conclusion."

Not so fast. Nichols and her allies may disagree with Johnson's move to deny a waiver from the Clean Air Act. But rather than ignoring the law, it seems clear that he took his legal obligations seriously. It's not that easy for states to receive a federal waiver, as California requested, and it shouldn't be. Moreover, it's potentially dangerous to suggest that the policy decisions of agency chiefs like Johnson who are accountable to the public should hold less sway than the conclusions of career civil servants, who aren't.

Johnson noted that states have to pass a legal test to win a Clean Air Act waiver, and it's not clear that California has. Before the EPA can legally grant a waiver, a state must, among other things, demonstrate that tougher environmental rules would let California "meet compelling and extraordinary conditions."

They wouldn't, so Johnson was on solid ground when he denied the waiver. As Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Adler notes, global warming is not unique to California (unlike, say, its unhealthy levels of urban smog, which is concentrated in large air basins). Climate change is a planetary phenomenon. Nor can states credibly claim that, by themselves, tighter emission rules for new cars would ease the local impacts of global warming.

The EPA chief also pointed out that tougher fuel economy standards and higher ethanol mandates in the recently signed energy bill would lower gasoline consumption and hence greenhouse gas emissions from cars - and that's the result California and the other states wanted.

Whether those lower emissions actually occur remains to be seen. But it's certainly a reasonable conclusion. That's important because of the Supreme Court's 1984 Chevron ruling. In it, the justices gave agencies a lot of leeway to interpret a statute that was ambiguous, so long as the interpretation is "reasonable" or "permissible" - as this clearly seems to be.

We're not suggesting the courts will necessarily side with the EPA if California challenges its decision. But whatever the outcome, it's wrong to suggest that top administrators should always meekly defer to career staff. If that were the case, regulations that control large sectors of the economy could be handed down by junior civil servants who face minimal public oversight, with top officials ducking responsibility for them. That would be the antithesis of open government.

Anyway, if environmentalists believe that tougher auto emissions rules are essential to fighting global warming, they've always had a failsafe solution available: Persuade Congress to pass those standards into law.

Comments

  • December 30, 2007

    5:16 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    TheByzantine writes:

    What twaddle! Johnson is accountable to the public? Hogwash! Johnson is accountable to Bush. Bush is more interested in maintaining record earnings for Exxon Mobil than saving our planet for posterity.

    The American people have expressed many times in recent polls their concerns about climate change. Even so Congressional Republicans have blocked bills to impose more stringent measures to limit emissions. Even if tougher standards had prevailed, Bush's veto threat was a constant.

    The recent UN conference in Bali made very clear the urgency of starting now to implement changings needed to reverse the planet's devestation from manmade climate change. The US was the gadbly at the conference with its shameful obstreperousness.

    In view of the perfidious secrecy displayed by this administration, your reference to open government is laughable. The constitution guarantees a free press to act as the watchdog for the people. The sophistry in this editorial confirms you are no more than Bush's lapdog.

  • December 30, 2007

    7:49 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ArthurLemay writes:

    Actually, what you think is science is not – it’s pure politics. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been taken over by a group of Environmentalists (50 to 60 of them) who make scary comments in press releases on areas they know nothing about. When the real scientists write critiques of the conclusions their comments are ignored, and, even worse, the bylaws of the IPCC require that the scientific reports which appear months after the press releases must agree with the politics.

    It’s no wonder that the scientists are fed up and angry with the IPCC. Many of them supported the efforts of the Senate Environmental and Public Works committee (minority report) in which 400 well known climate scientists stated unequivocally that man’s CO2 emissions were not responsible for climate change. In addition, 100 scientists sent a letter to Ban Ki-Moon during the climate conference in Bali that any CO2 efforts would ultimately be fruitless. See http://epw.senate.gov minority report.

    But, the IPCC is well known for its lack of scientific integrity and its rejection of any theory or explanation which does not support the agenda of imposing carbon taxes or a cap and trade scheme run by the UN as a step on the way to being a world government.

    The scientists point out that in the last century during the period of the greatest increases in CO2 emissions (1940 to 1975) the temperatures actually went down, and in the most recent decade, there has been no change in temperatures. But, solar activity explains this, and the fact that the other planets in the solar system had similar trends in temperatures, even though there are no man-caused emissions of CO2.

    Scientific theories must always be tested with observations, and scientists know that when the theory disagrees with observations, the theory must be discarded. The IPCC abuses science and its scientists, by ignoring facts and promoting a discredited theory. As the Economist Magazine said, “the IPCC is dangerously incompetent.”

    So, California is engaged in its own arrogant “mission impossible” which will cost billions and accomplish nothing. And the world’s governments who agree to the CO2 reductions from the Bali Conference will spend trillions, cause an economic crisis, put hardships on everyone, and accomplish nothing.

    The EPA decision was correct and the Environmentalists have got it wrong again. Their anti-DDT theory was wrong too, and 30 million people died in Africa alone. Then, these cruel anti-human extremists said “it’s a form of population control.” With friends like these, who needs enemies?

  • December 30, 2007

    9:56 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    TheByzantine writes:

    After reading some at your website, I must say who would dare disagree with such a humble ultrcrepidarian? Seems you are a contrarian for the sport of it.

    I do not view global warming as a game. You certainly are entitled to your opinions. My view is that apologists for Bush's doublethink and the do-nothing advocates simply are parasites.

  • December 30, 2007

    10:23 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ooofda writes:

    Why anyone would follow the lead of California on anything is beyond me. Their education system is lacking scholastic and social credibility.
    Case in point.
    The University of California was removed from managing the Nuclear Labs and JPL, reason gross mismanagement as well as allowing Chinese graduate students full access to top secret information without their passing security checks (happened on Bill Richardson's watch). So how could anyone seriously accept their "scientific" findings.

  • December 30, 2007

    11:34 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    lucky writes:

    I didn't know that a state had to show "compelling and extraordinary conditions". Thanks for that info. It seems to me that having more than 10 million people (a guess) living near the coast and near sea level might make California out of the ordinary. Colorado doesn't have that. The same scientists who have come to the conclusion that CO2 and other human-made gases are responsible for the global rise in temperature are gravely concerned that coastlines and low islands may be inundated, and that the change so far seems to be accelerating faster than they had anticipated. If they're right, we don't know how much time we have to change course or face catastrophe, and they believe time is of the essence. Maybe it won't happen, but I believe in the precautionary principle. I don't know if that is part of the EPA's guidelines, but I think it should be because it is wiser.

    If 9 out of 10 airplane mechanics told me a plane was unsafe and one said it was OK, I wouldn't get on the plane, even if I really liked the one who said it was safe, and liked his argument. I think airline mechanics use precaution; I want my EPA to use it too. (By the way, this is not the precautionary principle. You may find a description on wikipedia if you are interested.)

    Besides, it will be good for the economy. The US car makers have done terribly and the Japanese carmakers continue to do well. Greening America will bring different jobs, but there is a whole lot of work to be done, and a lot of it can't be out-sourced. Right now, a lot auto-making is sort of being out-sourced.

    Heck, I'd bet, without doing the math, that there's more potential jobs in retrofitting homes, constructing light rail, and manufacturing and installing wind and solar technology components than the oil industry is giving us right now. It is change, I'll grant you that. But then, I'd rather that change than an unstable climate and inundation.

    For the record, I live on the coast of California.

  • December 30, 2007

    3:30 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Brix57 writes:

    Some interesting tidbits from this opinion piece:

    1) The California Air Board predates the Environmental Protection Agency by 3 years. CAB was formed in 1967 and the EPA in 1970.

    2) The EPA's chief, Stephen Johnson, is a career scientist from within the EPA whose acceptance speech can be found here: http://usinfo.state.gov/special/Archi...

    3) Global warming is a theory that while it is not proven, has been the politically correct trend recently.

    4) The Denver major newspapers have never been watchdogs of the political process, lapdogs is a much more descriptive term.

    Basically, the California Air Board wanted the Environmental Protection Agency stamp on vehicles performing better. Why not? Since the CAB does predate the EPA and is not beholding to them, all they wanted was the stamp of approval. What is so wrong about the vehicles that you all drive performing better and polluting less? If you don't think that these Denver newspapers are not watchdogs, one only has to look at the editorial from yesterday where an association of car dealers wants to pass legislation about poorly performing older cars, all tens of thousands of them and sell new ones.

  • December 30, 2007

    7:14 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    rellimpank writes:

    ---"Anyway, if environmentalists believe that tougher auto emissions rules are essential to fighting global warming, they've always had a failsafe solution available: Persuade Congress to pass those standards into law.--"

    They might also take a look at the Commerce Clause of the Constitution before Commiefornia (and a few other states ignorant enough to swallow the Algore hogwash) attempts to dictate to the rest of us---

  • December 31, 2007

    9:19 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    davis_x_machina writes:

    What happens to all the states rightists when some state wishes to regulate conditions within its borders? It seems to me the loudest protesters are the very same people who'd insist that such matters as abortion or gay marriage be left to that same level of government due to the sanctity of "state's rights".
    A poster above complains about others "dictating" to him and supposedly his ilk. Aren't those people dictating to the rest about the quality of the environment by their refusal to accede to tougher standards?