Hot, noxious air from Bush administration

The EPA’s phony explanation of its rejection of California 6

After more than two months, the Bush administration today finally articulated its legal case for rejecting California's greenhouse-gas standards for motor vehicles. The argument is here.

It reads like something written up in the boardroom of General Motors or a law firm working for car companies. It even cites arguments made by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers as justification for the decision!

It's a phony argument designed to protect the auto industry -- and it's typical of the Bush administration to dump out bad news like this on a Friday to minimize media coverage.

Johnson contends that California's problem with global warming is not "compelling and extraordinary." Clearly, Johnson hasn't spent much time in California. Doesn't he know the simple scientific fact that hotter air causes more smog?

His claim stands in sharp contrast with the conclusion of the EPA's own technical experts, who found that California had identified significant environmental and public health issues in their request, and addressed particular effects on California -- noting the effect of climate change on several conditions, such as snow melt, agriculture, coastal erosion, and ozone. Remember -- California doesn't have to argue that its problem is "unique," only that it is compelling. The law requires opponents (i.e., the car companies that Johnson cites) to prove that California is wrong.

The argument here draws a distinction between "local" or "regional" pollutants and "global" pollutants, and argues, basically, that reducing greenhouse gases in California won't affect overall levels all that much.

This is a reprise of an argument that the Bush administration made before the Supreme Court in the Massachusetts v. EPA case. The Supreme Court rejected the Bush argument then. Courts will reject this phony argument also.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. socialscientist Posted 5:41 am
    29 Feb 2008

    so far behind...The U.S. debate on carbon fuel and autosprawl is so far behind the curve it is embarrassing. We should be discussing the best way to implement free public transit.
    freepublictransit


    .

     

    Permalink

  2. Delay And Deny's avatar

    Delay And Deny Posted 7:42 am
    29 Feb 2008

    13 EEEThe Green argument is that somehow even though the world is totally convinced we're about to play out like a scene from the 1961 thriller The Day The Earth Caught Fire, no individuals are willing to do anything about it -- like stop driving.
    And while "The People" are totally Gorified and willing to make any sacrifice, they still have to be shackled by government to actually do anything...by themselves!  
    Even though, there are probably nine jillion articles in Grist about how People can just hold hands and form dodecahedrons and built tool sheds from styrofoam cups...so why can't they just use People Power to fix the smog?
    You know what I would like?  I would like a complete accounting of each and every Grist "editor" on a web page, showing how much their CO2 footprint was in 2001 and how much it is now.

    Permalink

  3. Pangolin's avatar

    Pangolin Posted 10:32 am
    29 Feb 2008

    We <em>deserve</em> the die offBecause as a species we are just that stupid. Our genetics tell us males to look big and make big noises for reproductive success and the tools we make to do that doom our children to sterility and death.
    It's almost an airtight refutation of intelligent design as good as the existence of the republican party.
    When it comes right down to it automobiles represent a form of futile cycling in urban areas and would do do if they all ran on mr. fusion devices. People think that because they have a car it's a good idea to take a job an hours drive from where they have housing. Because everybody else is just as human (stupid) as you are that hours drive turns in an hour and a half every other day.
    Exhausted people make bad decisions leading to drug addiction, teen pregnancy, fast food, divorce and bottled water use. All of that leads to more driving, more exhaustion and the elevation of the Bush family to public office.
    Whether environmental destruction happens due to greenhouse gases, freeway building or excessive heat buildup from everybody using their Mr. Fusion (tm) to keep the patios toasty in blizzard weather the result is the same. The population overshoots the carrying capacity of the earth.
    All that heat and waste has to go somewhere and usually it means your neighbors septic tank overflows onto your lawn. So until everybody agrees to a sane waste disposal policy some idiot gets extra benefit from throwing his shit over the fence.
    That's the point.
    The Bush administration is arguing from the viewpoint of the guy who wants to keep throwing his shit over the fence. After all, we don't know that guy over there on the next block and we're pretty sure we have more guns than he does. And if California decides to quit tossing all by itself then everybody else looks bad.
    Can't have that.

    Put the Carbon Back

    Permalink

  4. katakanadian Posted 12:30 pm
    29 Feb 2008

    The Darwin Award to top all Darwin Awards goes to... human nature which almost always grabs all that it can for itself without serious consideration of fairness or consequences.

    Permalink

  5. morganmghee Posted 4:56 am
    01 Mar 2008

    Easy enoughWithout having read the argument, if it is as stated above, it should be easy enough to refute.  California is as large or larger than most countries, which makes a strong counter to the argument that any change within CA will not greatly effect the overall air quality.  In addition to that the geography specific to California lends itself to the argument.  With it's full length edged by the pacific ocean and it's interior a series of valleys, canyons, gorges and small mountains it is quite verifiable even by the untrained observer that local pollutants greatly effect local air quality.  I'd bet that CA is willing to stipulate the action may only bring it's air quality into the greater regional average and would be happy for the improvement.  I also bet they would be able to show that it's own improved air quality would probably increase the chance that nearby states would also want to offer their residents this cleaner air and would soon pass their own stricter standards resulting in an improvment of even the greater regional average air quality. Shoot, if the states inland from CA wanted to do nothing else to reduce their own air pollutants they could back California's effort, considering the prevailing winds from the pacific ocean.
    Since I'm no rocket scientist I am sure this is the same conclusion the oil companies came to, and is probably the reason for the rejection in the first place.  Huh...

    Permalink

  6. GreenMom Posted 2:40 pm
    01 Mar 2008

    Steve Johnson is a hackHis arguments are just temporary cover for the Administration.  If they don't hold up in court ultimately, no biggie -- he's done his job, which is preventing any forward movement during the Bush presidency.  
    That's what the Administration expects from him, and that's what he's delivering.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement