|
|
Register | Netphoria's Amazon.com Link | Members List | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
12-20-2007, 02:14 PM | #1 |
ghost
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
|
EPA to States: you can't set higher standards than us to fight global warming.
|
|
12-20-2007, 02:32 PM | #2 |
ghost
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
|
I always try to play devils advocate with myself to suss out my positions. But taking their statements on face value and trying to understand the reasoning behind this from the EPA point of view is blowing my mind right now.
|
|
12-20-2007, 02:50 PM | #3 | |
Master of Karate and Friendship
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,975
|
Quote:
Textbook W. |
|
|
12-20-2007, 02:51 PM | #4 |
ghost
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
|
and/or the liberal charge is this administration is simply bending over for the auto industry.
|
|
12-20-2007, 03:08 PM | #5 |
Minion of Satan
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
|
I can see the both sides of this. On the one hand, states should be able to set their own environmental policy without federal interference. But on the other hand, the federal government does have the responsibility to regulate interstate commerce, so if California's emissions standards are causing the economy of say, Michigan, to take a major hit, that's something that needs to be dealt with. California may care more about global warming than a bunch of factory workers' jobs in Michigan, but that doesn't mean the latter should lose out to the former. I'm on the fence on this one, but I almost lean towards the idea that the federal government is in the best position to balance the interests at stake here.
I'd be all for letting the states have their own emissions standards if they and they alone were willing to live with the consequences. If California will only allow cars with super-duper emissions to be sold in their state, good on them. But somehow I don't know if they'd like it if the auto industry jacked up the price on cars sold there to make up the costs involved, or better yet, just decided not to sell cars in California anymore. I say if California is so afraid of global warming that they want to make their citizens pay a year's salary for a car, then let them do it. |
|
12-20-2007, 03:17 PM | #6 | |
Immortal
Posts: 25,684
|
Quote:
the situation is idiotic obviously |
|
|
12-20-2007, 03:18 PM | #7 |
ghost
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
|
It's not just California, its 16 other states that also want to follow California's lead. It would affect half of the cars sold in America. Maybe I'm naive, but how does raising emission standards cost factory worker jobs in Michigan? And if so, what happened to free market ideals? We should have lower emission standards because Detroit can't compete and produce better cars?
|
|
12-20-2007, 03:28 PM | #8 | |
ghost
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
|
Quote:
Besides, California deadline is 2016, not tomorrow. |
|
|
12-20-2007, 03:33 PM | #9 |
Ownz
Location: Virginia
Posts: 778
|
Last week sixty percent of the nation was covered in ice and snow.
And you still want to allow for more state control of your life. This is not a crisis. |
|
12-20-2007, 03:39 PM | #10 |
Registered User
Location: In my house.
Posts: 14,464
|
More examples that this environmental legislation largely has nothing to do with protecting the environment, and everything to do with consolidating power.
|
|
12-20-2007, 04:50 PM | #11 | |||
Minion of Satan
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But you're right that the scenario I posed isn't realistic. In reality, the costs of the emissions standards CA and the other states would impose would be spread evenly amongst auto consumers in all states. So while the price increase might be significant, it wouldn't be as catastrophic as it would if they were only imposed on the states with the stricter emission standards. But it hardly seems fair that 16 states could significantly drive up the price of cars for the other 34 (yeah, I know those 16 states represent half of all cars sold...but that really doesn't change the point does it?). |
|||
|
12-20-2007, 04:57 PM | #12 |
Netphoria's George Will
Location: Fenway Park
Posts: 37,109
|
Yet they don't require emissions testing and allow the states to run those programs.
It'll take years and years to undo the injustice and harm done to local governments by this administration. BUT HE'S A GREAT REPUBLICAN! |
|
12-20-2007, 05:08 PM | #13 |
Minion of Satan
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
|
If California and these other states had mandated that only flying cars with garbage powered cold-fusion generators would be allowed to be sold in those states after 2015, would the federal government be the bad guys then for blocking it? What exactly is the cut-off here? Or can the states just do whatever they want regardless of how it affects the national economy?
I'm all for federalism and all, but come on. What's the point of having a federal government if it can't keep the states from fucking shit up? |
|
12-20-2007, 05:15 PM | #14 |
Minion of Satan
Location: I thought what I'd do is I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes
Posts: 7,676
|
The EPA is a huge joke, as is all this environmental BS. I really wish people would stop buying into it.
|
|
12-20-2007, 05:44 PM | #15 | |
Boardcaster
Location: reporting live
Posts: 3,854
|
Quote:
I think it should be up to the states, but the federal government could still have some sort of oversight. |
|
|
12-20-2007, 06:27 PM | #16 | |
Master of Karate and Friendship
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,975
|
Quote:
"California emissions" have been in effect on cars for decades, btw |
|
|
12-20-2007, 06:28 PM | #17 | |
Master of Karate and Friendship
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,975
|
Quote:
|
|
|
12-20-2007, 07:29 PM | #18 | |
Minion of Satan
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
|
Quote:
|
|
|
12-21-2007, 03:34 AM | #19 | |
huh
Posts: 62,456
|
Quote:
|
|
|
12-21-2007, 03:39 AM | #20 |
Immortal
Posts: 20,964
|
They are not ashamed to report that even though the US came across as the biggest asses at the last UN climate change convention?
Badass. |
|
12-21-2007, 05:54 AM | #21 | |
OB-GYN Kenobi
Location: the sea
Posts: 17,020
|
Quote:
he was just trying to show polite interest in you geez |
|
|
12-21-2007, 12:14 PM | #22 |
Ownz
Location: brooklyn
Posts: 847
|
america is so embarrassing.
|
|
12-21-2007, 12:52 PM | #23 | |
When I travel to the Sun
Posts: 458
|
Quote:
So you would prefer to have companies go unregulated (at least by the Fed)??? So companies using toxic or potentially lethal chemicals, to safe a buck or two, is ok with you? http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news....d=472542&rfi=6 |
|
|
12-21-2007, 07:34 PM | #24 | |
Immortal
Posts: 20,964
|
Quote:
|
|
|
12-21-2007, 10:19 PM | #25 | ||||
****
Location: live free or die
Posts: 1,057
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
yea ill agree with all of these posts |
||||
|
12-21-2007, 10:27 PM | #26 |
Minion of Satan
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
|
I had no idea everyone on this board was so fanatically in favor of states' rights all the sudden. I must have missed the memo.
|
|
12-22-2007, 06:22 PM | #27 | |
Ownz
Location: Virginia
Posts: 778
|
Quote:
Fuck You, America is great! |
|
|
12-22-2007, 07:27 PM | #28 | |
Master of Karate and Friendship
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,975
|
Quote:
|
|
|
12-22-2007, 07:28 PM | #29 | |
Master of Karate and Friendship
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,975
|
Quote:
|
|
|
12-22-2007, 09:21 PM | #30 | ||
Minion of Satan
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
I'm mostly on you guys' side on this one here. I tend to think we should err on the side of the states on these matters. But it's not that hard to play devil's advocate and think of legitimate reasons why the federal government might reel the states in a bit. |
||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|