REPORT: President Obama to give states right to set own emissions/fuel economy standards
UPDATE: For the sake of clarity, it should be noted that there will be two emissions standards that states can choose - CA and Federal - not the "potentially fifty" that some worry about. Brace yourselves for a mess. The New York Times is reporting that the Obama administration intends to allow California and other states to set their own emissions and fuel economy standards. Obama is expected to announce his decision this week, maybe even as early as today. The move, which Obama campaigned on during the run up to last November's election, would overturn the prior Bush administration's denial of a waiver to California that allows the Golden State to set its own standards and other states to adopt them.
If the report is correct, it's not clear yet what the implications of the decision will be or how automakers will react. If things proceed in an orderly and organized fashion, it will be a minor miracle. Consumer experiences may well mirror what went on with diesels, most of which were recently unavailable in states adhering to California's stricter emissions standards.
Critics of state-administrated emissions standards fear that the potential for 50 different requirements will result in a costly quagmire. It will undoubtedly cost automakers more to conform to various and differing requirements, eating up profits (not to mention bailout funds) as well.
[Source: Detroit Free Press]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 9)
Rogue_G 1:12AM (1/26/2009)
First thing that comes to mind: "Oh shi-"
Reply
GOT 5:20AM (1/26/2009)
Yeah, there's "real science" behind "climate change" (what's it going to be called next year?). During the summer it's hot. During the winter it's cold.
Jon 6:40AM (1/26/2009)
Change we need?
It's the end of America. Period.
CARB is the de-facto national standard and will always be. There will be no "choice".
C.W. 7:29AM (1/26/2009)
wow... John D seems to have drank his portion of the kool-aid as well as much much more. "Change we need"... haha... if i hear one more brain-washed Obama supporter say that phrase i just may punch someone in the face.
This legislation is EXACTLY the kind of thing that will bury our auto makers. it makes ZERO sense. Science does not 'prove' climate change. In fact, when my parents were in high school the fear was 'Global Cooling' ... then that went away. Then it was 'Global Warming'... and then about 2 months ago they changed to 'Global Climate Change'... sounds much more scary... oh, and completely ambiguous to cover all bases. The fact is, climate has been 'changing' for thousands of years. Why else would you have entire towns buried in 100 ft. of ice in Greenland that were thriving 500 years ago?? did all their fossil fuel use cause this? The fact is, since we have been measuring temperature on the moon in the 60's, the changes we see here on earth are EXACTLY the same we see on the moon. This kind of stuff isnt covered on CNN because you would have a lot of very silly looking politicians who base all their 'facts' on one or two agenda-feeding 'scientists'. Come on people... its a game!!! ... 'change we can believe in' hahaha... unreal. I fear for our auto makers.
Fernando 8:09AM (1/26/2009)
What is to keep automakers from just adopting the most restrictive laws from the most restrictive state and then selling it in the other 49 states? That seems like the cheapest way to do it and it's something that THEY ALREADY DO! All vehicles (with the exception of Diesel powered ones) that are made by the big 3 are 50-state compliant (meaning they comply with California and Massachusetts' laws, the two most stringent of the nation).
All this law allows is for CA and MA to make their emissions laws tougher. Auto makers will all adapt and sell the same model in the other 48 states.
There is an old saying from when I grew up: "Equality is an advantage to none." All automakers, foreign and domestic, will have to meet the same standards and, therefore, have the same expenses. This will not kill off the Big 3 as some of you are claiming.
sledge 8:43AM (1/26/2009)
@C.W.
It's not one or two agenda-feeding scientists that "claim" global warming, but a significant number. Try reading the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment Report (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf). It was written by 800 scientific authors, from over 130 countries and over 6 years. So it's not some Cowboy environmentalists Op-Ed rant in the NY Times. The IPCC was setup by the UN so in essence it should be a neutral third party since the panelists are from all countries.
CJD1 9:02AM (1/26/2009)
To all those ignorant fools decrying global warming... (GOT,C.W.) understand this, it is science. Science is the observation of facts through repetitive trial and error experimentation which leads to theories. The more you control an experiment through controlling stimuli, the greater the ability to define a specific factor that leads to a specific result. No scientific theory is perfect, that is why one develops error rates. This allows you to define the chance that the theory is compromised.
In the case of climatology, global warming is a theory based upon the observation of CO2 percentage in the atmosphere. Each year you take a number of air measurements and ... observe an increase in CO2 concentration.
You then look and the absorption rates of heat and energy as applied to CO2. Those are greater than O2 and Nitrogen in the atmosphere based upon molecular structure and the physical properties of the molecules of CO2. You then take ice samples, by coring places like antarctica, where you can observe concentrations of CO2 by looking a layer after layer of ice, which has been undisturbed for centuries. As you go down the ice layers, you observe multiple variations of CO2 each many thousands of years. Sometimes much higher than a time period that is relatively close by. Now, you might argue, well gee, there you go, it varies. The point of the current theories is that the concentration of CO2 now, is skyrocketing faster than ever before.
You then take that data and review it with OBSERVATIONS of glacial melting that is massively accelerating, as depicted by photographic evidence by people like the Hindu monk at the foot of the Ganges, and the swiss photogs who have taken photos of the same locations for decades.
You then observe minor increases in temperature as the concentration of CO2 goes up, and you come to the conclusion that IF CO2 increases, THEN retained heat and energy increase.
You then make the additional observation that white color (snow) tends to relfect heat and maintain cold. Without ice and snow, the reflection of solar energy reduces.
You then take satellite photos of the polar caps and observe massive shrinking is certain areas, and ice shelf collapses, and you THEORIZE that because of the INCREASE in CO2, you are facing climate change.
And to answer the issue of global cooling, that theory still exists. More based upon white pollution trails from planes... and more specifically based upon the concept that there are so many white trails in the sky, that the solar energy gets reflected into space before it gets past those vapor trails.
Just because you couldn't be bothered to stay awake in a science class and learn the basic concepts of trial and error and experimentation, does not mean the science isn't correct. And when you say that some scientists do not agree that it is occurring... ask to see their data, only 66% of meteorologists believe it is happening, and 98% of climatologists. Why the discrepancy? Because one looks at short term issues... and the otehr looks at long term change. Try to open your eyes you ignorant boobs.
pmalloy4391 9:21AM (1/26/2009)
I say we just stop selling cars in cali for a week or 2... see how fast this lasts when no one has a car that meets the cali standards. S$%^t cali is the reason cars are as expensive as they are most the time anyway from what im told
I love cali, im in NY but I love cali...
But right now all i can say is f#^#K cali
GOT 9:27AM (1/26/2009)
Those who are wrong and weak always resort to name-calling, threats, government props and propaganda (that's essentially what PC is all about).
"Global warming", "Climate-change" (and whatever it's called next year) as touted by this UN gang, monopolistic big-business, tyrannical governments and threatened-into-compliance scientists are pure propaganda and lies. These and other measures like it are designed to bring people under bondage. Those who promote it are either seeking to enslave people or are accomplices.
These people take one or two truths and blend it together with pure fabrication, feel-good-measures and or outright malicious lies and then ridicule and destroy those who oppose. In the end, they will only bring ruin upon themselves.
C.W. 9:31AM (1/26/2009)
CJD1, dont for one second think that because you can copy and paste an article on 'science' that you are a qualified climate expert. Science is constantly making new claims that override others. Which is why the climate argument changes every decade like clockwork.:
the following comes from a group of EXPERTS in climatology, biology, meteorology and chemistry in Europe who also run their tests just like the scientists who claim we are all going to die from Global Warming. This is just one little snipit. there is just as much data proving it is cyclical rather than man-made. you may think the 'majority' can 'prove' one thing, but there is a whole group on the oposite spectrum. Do some real research on BOTH sides, not just research that supports your limited viewpoint.
So, how does one answer the climate skeptics when faced with the following alleged myths?
Myth: The Earth is warmer than it was 100 years ago.
Truth: At most it’s risen by 0.3 Celsius, less than 0.003 degrees annually and at the moment we’re apparently in a cold patch.
Myth: Global Warming must be happening, it’s warmer here in Small Town.
Truth: It’s global averages that matter (see above)
Myth: Carbon dioxide levels and average global temperatures are at a record high
Truth: Nope, they are among the lowest determined over the last few million years.
Myth: Rising carbon dioxide levels are directly linked to rising global temperatures.
Truth: Not necessarily, there’s a 400-4000 year timelag
Myth: Receding icesheets prove anthropogenic Global Warming is happening
Truth: Some ice is melting, other areas are actually growing
Myth: Carbon dioxide is the most potent greenhouse gas
Truth: No, that’d be water vapour of which there is an abundance in the atmosphere, then there’s methane, and what about nitrogen trifluoride used in the manufacture of flatscreen TVs?
Myth: If we accept it’s real, we can do something about it.
Truth: There’s really no point in kidding ourselves, we cannot even control local weather, what makes us think carbon sequestration and seeding the oceans will allow us to affect the climate
jv2k 9:46AM (1/26/2009)
". As you go down the ice layers, you observe multiple variations of CO2 each many thousands of years. Sometimes much higher than a time period that is relatively close by."
It's funny you bring this up because those ice layers tend to correlate with other evidence of global warming and mass extinction.
Rob 9:48AM (1/26/2009)
You "people" (and I mean that loosely) who do not think global warming is real are completely ignorant. I used to think it was crap, then I read the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC specifically on the issue. Hell, even lake Monona, in Madison, WI, is frozen over for a smaller time each year. It's not rocket science. That fact that some of you dismiss it as BS just shows your own retardedness. I almost wish we had two planets: One for the idiotic conservative religious freaks like yourselves, and the other with 'non believers' who believed in things like science. You guys could all kill yourselves, and nobody with a brain would be there to help you.
notYou 10:26AM (1/26/2009)
sledge: "The IPCC was setup by the UN so in essence it should be a neutral third party since the panelists are from all countries."
Uh-huh ... Lemming.
C.W. 10:54AM (1/26/2009)
@ Rob:
I do not claim that it is not happening. In fact, the evidence all says that it IS happening. My argument is that it is not US that causes it. it is not man-made. It is a cyclical change that happens throughout earth's existence. the rock layers, ice layers, etc all point to this. to think we can control it is lunacy. Mass extinctions throughout the fossil layer may attribute their demise to climate change, however they (like us) did not cause it. It happened, they died. But I agree that it is absolutely shifting, and will continue to shift (up AND down) forever. Print this post, and in 25 years dig it out and compare it to whatever scientists are saying then. I guarantee it will be something different, yet still blaming US.
Sean 12:14PM (1/26/2009)
Whether or not global warming is real, lowering the amount of pollution we put out is still a good idea.
noz 4:06PM (1/26/2009)
GOT, CW.
There's been PLENTY of science and studies regarding global climate change...just come to where I work..NASA...and say it to the face of some of the scientists and engineers and others working elsewhere tirelessly to to save your dumb asses.
What's lacking is research in human stupidity...so we can help guys like you.
I can't believe in this day and age people like you even exist. Amazing.
C.W. 4:35PM (1/26/2009)
@ NOZ:
if you work for NASA, God help us all. your comments are hostile, and void of anything other heated emotion. You fail to realize that no one is saying Global Climate change is not happening... in fact everyone is acknowledging that it is happening. it's the cause that is in question. No one at NASA can 'prove' beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans are the cause for any of this nonsense. and if you would do your own research of multiple sources, you would see that there is plenty of evidence out there supporting the claim that these changes are cyclical. period. In fact it was a group of your colleagues that recently pointed out the large scale climate change is on a cycle and the melting arctic ice shelf has nothing to do with humans (ask some of your so-called experts about Arctic Oscillation and the reports from James Morison of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory).
So dont wave your company badge around here like you actually know something. just because someone works at NASA doesnt make them any more intelligent... it just means their blinders are bigger.
snakesausage 6:49PM (1/26/2009)
Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.
noz 4:02AM (1/27/2009)
CW:
Thank God you don't work at NASA.
My comments are hostile towards you because you're an idiot..flat out.
It's an insult to people at places like NASA for someone like yourself to come in here and state that there is no proof. You have no idea what technology we are using to "prove" that climate change is occurring due to human activity. None at all.
The cause is NOT in question. But you wouldn't understand that. What is debatable is where the tipping point of global climate stability is. We are now understanding that the climate has meta-stable phases. Meta-stable means that if the system is not disturbed, it will remain stable. If it is disturbed and sufficiently so, it will become unstable and then later stabilize at a different point....hotter, colder, etc.
The correlation between man made CO2 emissions, the tracking of emissions over time, the oceanographic data of acidification, the slowing of the deep water currents of 30% since the 50's, and so on, all points to human activity speeding up an otherwise far longer frequency of natural events.
We don't know where the change in climate stability will be. But what we do know is that since the industrial age a mere 200 years ago, CO2 levels have reached 380 PPM today. Before the industrial age, we have been able to determine that for the last 600,000 years, CO2 levels never went over 300 PPM. Scientists at NASA and other European climate agencies have correlated data to project that by the end of this century or perhaps sooner, CO2 levels will reach at least 450 PPM. That's 1.5 times the highest level ever reached pre-industrial.
We're a blip on the geological time scale. And for CO2 levels to increase so rapidly has nothing to do with the sun warming, or volcanoes spewing more emissions out into the air, etc.
So shut your mouth for a change and listen and learn. We don't have time anymore for people like yourself to sit and have a chat with God so you know what the answer is going to be.
C.W. 9:14AM (1/27/2009)
NOZ...
thats a lot of gibberish.
you are in no way a professional of any sort. your demeanor and language say it all. you throw around others people work like you actually understand what you're saying. 'tipping point' 'CO2 levels' 'PPM'... you probably work at McDonalds.
Either way, it's irrelevant.
The fact is, i can google, and then copy and paste thousands of articles from respected scientists who would contradict every point you made... .with FACTS!!!!
so chill out. and in 25 years you can join the next climate bandwagon.
haha.. nasa... what a joke.