Bush flips off California (and every other state) on Earth Day
Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:47:40 AM PDT
The Los Angeles Times has a sweet little editorial about the latest Bush gambit on the environment. It is worth a read.
The opening paragraph gets to the heart of the matter.
For Earth Day this year, the Bush administration sent California a few million tons of carbon dioxide, then tried to pass it off as a gift for the environment. The proposed federal fuel economy standards issued Tuesday represent a backdoor attempt to thwart the will of the state, Congress, the federal courts and possibly even the Supreme Court. That's quite a day's work even for President Bush.
As part of the Clean Air Act, states have always had the ability to set emission standards more stringent than the EPA minimum standards. All they had to do was request a waiver and it has been automatically granted until the Bush administration. California has had a waiver application under consideration for three years before the EPA came out at the end of 2007 and flatly rejected it. Other states, including Massachusetts and Minnesota, have also been trying to adopt more stringent emission standards, including the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, than EPA standards, resulting in a variety of court battles because of Bush administration opposition. With that background in mind, this excerpt will probably make more sense.
On the surface, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's draft regulations on automotive fuel-economy standards look like a surprisingly green gesture, going a little further than Congress had anticipated when it ordered automakers to build more fuel-efficient cars as part of last year's energy legislation. Yet buried deep in the complex proposal is a statement rejecting the right of states to set greenhouse-gas standards for vehicles, under the principle that there's no difference between regulating tailpipe emissions and regulating fuel economy (and only the federal government can make the rules on fuel economy). This is a tired argument from the administration that has already been rejected twice by federal courts.
California has been trying for years to implement restrictions on tailpipe emissions; its regulations would reduce greenhouse gases from vehicles 69% more than the current federal fuel-economy standards would by 2020, according to the state Air Resources Board. Under the federal Clean Air Act, California can set tougher air-quality rules than the federal government as long as it gets a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency. That agency has rejected the state's waiver request, but the Bush administration clearly realizes that the next presidential administration will probably grant it. So it has found another way of gumming up the regulatory works.
The Bush administration has lost a number of court battles regarding emissions standards, including its refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. In a masterstroke of arrogance and executive power, the Department of Transportation (DoT) decided to equate greenhouse gas emissions with fuel efficiency, effectively taking the EPA out of the regulatory equation and giving sole jurisdiction to the DoT when dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. There is no precedent for the DoT to allow states to adopt more stringent standards on fuel efficiency (and by extension greenhouse gas emissions), so California and other states that are trying to regulate tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide have to fight in court a complicated and expensive battle the states probably cannot afford to fight.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration pretends to be doing something that is good for the environment and saves energy in one fell swoop. Here is the public announcement of the new regulations by Mary Peters. She claims that the DoT is going beyond what Congress mandated in fuel efficiency standards.
Under the proposed rule, the fuel economy on a fleet-wide basis will increase by an average of four-and-a-half percent annually through 2015 – a 25 percent improvement over five years. This standard exceeds the 3.3 percent average annual increase needed to reach the target passed by Congress last year.
She also notes the apparent environmental benefits and makes this new regulatory package central to Bush claims about reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
As some of you may know, today is Earth Day. It is nice to be out here under the trees today – they serve as a reminder of the much larger world that exists outside of concrete jungles like Washington, and as a reminder to breathe every once in awhile.
This proposal will also help us all breathe a little easier by reducing carbon dioxide emissions from tailpipes, cutting fuel consumption and making driving a little more affordable.
In fact, the standards in this proposal would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 521 million metric tons, and is an important part of this Administration’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Now, if you are a masochist, a link to the 417 page pdf of the new regulations can be found here. In lieu of the pain, there are five things you should understand about the new gambit by the Bush administration.
1. The fuel efficiency targets are not fixed (see pages 13-14).
The agency cannot set out the exact level of CAFE that each manufacturer will be required to meet for each model year under the proposed passenger car or light truck standards since the levels will depend on information that will not be available until the end of each of the model years, i.e., the final actual production figures for each of those years.
2. There are many ways for manufacturers to get around the fuel efficiency standards (see pages 405-413).
a) If the manufacturer exceeds the standards for one segment (e.g., automobiles), the excess can be used to offset a failure to met the standards for another market segment (e.g., light trucks).
b) A manufacturer that exceeds the standards can sell or trade its credits to another manufacturer that has not met the standards.
c) A manufacturer can bank its credits for exceeding the standards to use against future shortfalls.
3. The standards link fuel efficiency with tailpipe C02 emissions.
Given the contributions made by CAFE standards to addressing not only energy independence and security, but also to reducing tailpipe emissions of CO2, fleet performance is stated in the above discussion both in terms of fuel economy and the associated reductions in tailpipe emissions of CO2 since the CAFE standard will have the practical effect of limiting those emissions approximately to the indicated levels during the official CAFE test procedures established by EPA. The relationship between fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions is discussed ubiquitously, such as at www.fueleconomy.gov, a fuel economy-related web site managed by DOE and EPA (see link, which provides a rounded value of 20 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gasoline).
4. The standards bring greenhouse gas emissions under the jurisdiction of the DoT rather than the EPA.
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4,1993), provides for making determinations whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to OMB review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency;
Since the DoT is arguing that impact on the economy will be greater than 100 million dollars, it is a "significant" regulation and takes precedence over any decision the EPA might make regarding greenhouse gas emissions. This means NO EPA waivers for states to adopt more stringent standards on CO2 emissions.
On the merits, the Court ruled that greenhouse gases are “pollutants” under the Clean Air Act and that the Act therefore authorizes EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles if EPA makes the necessary findings and determinations under section 202 of the Act.
The Supreme Court sided with Massachusetts that the EPA had the authority to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act. The Bush administration moved standards and enforcement of greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles to the DoT. Clever.
5. States cannot set up rules that supersede the DoT standards on fuel efficiency and presumptive tailpipe CO2 emissions (see page 378).
(b) As a state regulation related to fuel economy standards, any state
regulation regulating tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles
is expressly preempted under 49 U.S.C. 32919.
(c) A state regulation regulating tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions from
automobiles, particularly a regulation that is not attribute-based and does
not separately regulate passenger cars and light trucks, conflicts with 1. The fuel economy standards in this Part, 2. The judgments made by the agency in establishing those standards, and 3. The achievement of the objectives of the statute (49 U.S.C. Chapter 329) under which those standards were established, including
objectives relating to reducing fuel consumption in a manner and to the extent consistent with manufacturer flexibility, consumer choice, and automobile safety.
(d) Any state regulation regulating tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions from
automobiles is impliedly preempted under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 329.
A FEW BONUS POINTS
I have to apologize for the deathly dry nature of the subject material. However, there are a few additional tidbits that might interest you in this document.
On page 209:
The third component of the external economic costs of importing oil into the U.S. includes government outlays for maintaining a military presence to secure the supply of oil imports from potentially unstable regions of the world and to protect against their interruption.
NHTSA believes that while costs for U.S. military security may vary over time in response to long-term changes in the actual level of oil imports into the U.S., these costs are unlikely to decline in response to any reduction in U.S. oil imports resulting from raising future CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks. U.S. military activities in regions that represent vital sources of oil imports also serve a broader range of security and foreign policy objectives than simply protecting oil supplies, and as a consequence are unlikely to vary significantly in response to changes in the level of oil imports prompted by higher standards.
I wonder where the U.S. military is actively engaged to secure the supply of oil imports from unstable parts of the world? Do you mean the invasion of Iraq was all about securing the supply of oil after all? Gosh, I thought that was just a figment of the overactive imagination of us damn liberals.
On page 218:
At the same time, however, many studies fail to consider potentially beneficial impacts of climate change, and do not adequately account for how future development patterns and adaptations could reduce potential impacts from climate change or the economic damages they cause.
I keep hearing about all the benefits of climate change from the denial crowd. Since climate change will mean that the planet will be unable to sustain human population levels due to drought, famine, disease, and uninhabitable land mass, the only benefits I can think of must be the anticipated resource wars. Global warming will be good for the defense contractors.
What you can do:
- Comment on the proposed standards (and even more importantly encourage your state representatives to comment). You must include the docket number: NHTSA-2008 -0089
Please submit your comments by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation,
West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20590.
- Get the word out via blogs, letters, and word of mouth.
- Get your favorite presidential candidate to demonstrate a little leadership and blast the proposed regulations. Just think of the bonus points they win in states like California.
Permalink | 3 comments