President Obama is reviewing a Bush decision that would allow states to go above and beyond the EPA regulations. This may lead to stricter standards required on cars being sold in CA, and add between 400.00 and "thousands" of dollars to the price of a car. It would require greater control of tailpipe emissions.
"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state officials praised Obama's decision to order a swift review of the state's request for a waiver under the Clean Air Act, allowing California to enforce strict limits on tailpipe emissions. At least 14 other states have adopted the California standard, with four more in the process, representing about half the nation's population."
Opponents say this will bankrupt the auto industry, raise the price of cars, and put thousands of auto dealers out of business. Proponents praise the notion, saying that tougher regulation is needed to save our planet. But what might strike one is the idea that States should have more power than the Federal government. That is something to be considered.
What happens when States are given greater leeway to regulate than the Federal regulation? A couple of things. First off, it is allowing the Great Experiment to operate. One of the ideas behind the USA was that different states could operate under different rules, and people could freely move between states if they didn't care for the rules that governed them. So if a particular state had moral laws that one couldn't abide, they could more to a more (or less) restrictive moral state. If one state had a death penalty law, and one didn't want the death penalty, one could move. And so it is for regulating the environment.
So California, and 14 other states that follow California's Clean Air policies want stronger regulations in their states. What is the downside to this? More regulation = more government. But wait, isn't the act of the Bush Administration in blocking the waiver request also more government? Just of the Federal type. So where does the debate lead to? Is it right for 15 states to dictate policy to the Automakers in regards to the emissions? Can individual states, or states as collectives, determine national policy?
It would appear that they can, under Obama. Meaning factions of states, who could conceivably target specific industries and force them to comply with potentially unfair rules that would cause economic damage to them. And yet the alternative is a stronger Federal government. Can there be a middle ground to this argument?
As a final note, something that escapes a lot of notice, is this article here:
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/01/26/federal-govt-shifts-to-hybrids-green-procurement/
This is about an Executive Order from President Bush in 2007 mandating better gas mileage from fleets run by government agencies.
"Bush’s order requires agencies to reduce their overall energy use by three percent annually through 2015 and to cut water consumption two percent annually over the same period. It mandates that agencies expand procurement programs focusing on environmentally friendly products, including bio-based products."
Is it better to tackle emissions issues from a State perspective, or should we allow the Feds to do it?
No comments:
Post a Comment