California has sued the U.S. Government over their recent rejection of an emissions curbing law the state wanted to enact. Fifteen other states have also signed on. You can read details from this piece in the LA Times or here at CNN. Looking for something with a bit more international flair? Read the BBC's take on the whole thing.
The nut-nut is that under the federal Clean Air act, California is allowed to enact stricter standards than the res of the country as long as the EPA gives them a waiver. They applied for the waiver, which would wanted to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30% in vehicles over the next 8 years. Over the last 30 years, about 50 waivers have been allowed and have lead to things like catalytic converters and unleaded gasoline. The EPA said no.
I just don't get it. California wants to do something to not only better their own state's climate and the health and well-being of its residents, but this will have an impact on the rest of the country and even the world as well. Explain to me how that is a bad thing?
2 comments:
Come on Broad, throw me a bone. I can not argue this one. I am sure that this decesion had to do with money. I must point out to you that Dem. or Repub, The Prez. does not make every decesion in the administration. He was probably not even involved in it. Having said that, we do need to pay attention to the enviorment when it comes to this issue.
I don't doubt that this decision had to do with money, but not having a plant to live on is going to cost us a lot more. the gop is always arguing that we can afford to make these kind of big changes, industries will collapse, yadda yadda. i stand firm on the side of we can't afford to NOT make these changes.
you worry about terrorism and how that will affect your kids? I worry a lot more that my son won't even have a planet to live on. that is much more of a reality that will affect the whole planet, than terrorism ever could.
finally, as you so politely indicated to e in a previous post, you need to read things a bit closer. I never mentioned the prez at all in this post. i referenced the govt in total and the EPA. and if you want to say the prez is infered that is fine b/c he certainly has been in charge of appointing the people making these decisions, so he does bear some of the blame.
Post a Comment