Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
Please note that gratuitous links to your site are viewed as spam and may result in removed comments.












Reader Comments for
Subscribe to this thread(Page 1 of 1)
cowboy bob @ Mar 4th 2008 2:03PM
Thank God. If this had passed, every state in the union would want something different.
bvz @ Mar 4th 2008 4:25PM
sigh.
There seems to be a huge amount of confusion here.
Again.
California (and no other states) has historically been granted the right to petition for a waiver because A) it had already started regulating emissions before the federal government ever decided to step into the ring, and B) it was able to demonstrate that due to its size and extreme amount of pollution, the need for regulations was imperative. Once the EPA started regulating emissions, California's laws were grandfathered in and, in addition, it was given the right to continue to regulate its own emissions assuming a waiver is granted by the EPA. The dispute here is not whether California has the right to regulate its own emissions, but whether this particular request for a waiver was denied for political reasons or for a valid reason.
Now... pay attention here. Other states have the right to EITHER ADOPT CALIFORNIA'S STANDARDS OR THE NATIONAL STANDARDS. They DO NOT have the right to develop their own standards. Therefore, the argument that I see over and over and over that 50 different regulations are too burdensome for the auto manufacturers does not apply. There would be, at most, two standards (in addition to the standards that they already successfully meet in every other international market).
Luis @ Mar 4th 2008 6:01PM
This baffles me to no end...Isn't someone in say, Wisconsin,or China for that matter,going to breathe the same air eventually? We all live on the same Earth, right? Air standards are good for close proximity, but what good is that if in the next state over (example) they are polluting twice as much? I've said it before, people are going to drive what they want as long as their budget allows. I really don't see a mass group of millions going to purchase Prius' in the near future. No matter what there are always going to be those that like their (insert SUV or gas hog here).
jake @ Mar 4th 2008 7:41PM
@Luis
If you haven't lived in a big city you probably wouldn't understand...local pollution by cars can be a huge problem and it mostly affects the local population, lingering for quite a while. Just look at some of the pictures of beijing today and you can see how horrible the smog is from the cars/mopeds and it's mostly local (I've been there and on bad days the sky has a hazy light brown fog and the air feels very stuffy). By the time it reaches other states, the pollution would scatter and spread out. There's the argument right now that CA is much better now and doesn't need the waiver. In that past this was definitely not true, esp if you look at LA.
digitalzombie @ Mar 5th 2008 1:53AM
iright take a time machine go back 50 years or so and stand above LA basin. Look down up on it at around 6 am in the morning. That aren't clouds you see. It's freaking smog.