Netphoria Message Board


Go Back   Netphoria Message Board > Archives > General Chat Archive
Register Netphoria's Amazon.com Link Members List Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-20-2007, 02:14 PM   #1
Debaser
ghost
 
Debaser's Avatar
 
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
Default EPA to States: you can't set higher standards than us to fight global warming.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/wa...gewanted=print

This administration is incredible.

 
Debaser is offline
Old 12-20-2007, 02:32 PM   #2
Debaser
ghost
 
Debaser's Avatar
 
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
Default

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.

 
Debaser is offline
Old 12-20-2007, 02:50 PM   #3
Nimrod's Son
Master of Karate and Friendship
 
Nimrod's Son's Avatar
 
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,975
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser
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.
It's yet another example of Bush being against smaller governments (states, municipalities) and his push for a strong national government in order to create a North American Union

Textbook W.

 
Nimrod's Son is offline
Old 12-20-2007, 02:51 PM   #4
Debaser
ghost
 
Debaser's Avatar
 
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
Default

and/or the liberal charge is this administration is simply bending over for the auto industry.

 
Debaser is offline
Old 12-20-2007, 03:08 PM   #5
Corganist
Minion of Satan
 
Corganist's Avatar
 
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
Default

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.

 
Corganist is offline
Old 12-20-2007, 03:17 PM   #6
TuralyonW3
Immortal
 
TuralyonW3's Avatar
 
Posts: 25,684
Default

Quote:
“It is disappointing that the federal government is standing in our way and ignoring the will of tens of millions of people across the nation,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said. “We will continue to fight this battle.”
http://stylemens.typepad.com/photos/...arnold_1_2.jpg


the situation is idiotic obviously

 
TuralyonW3 is offline
Old 12-20-2007, 03:18 PM   #7
Debaser
ghost
 
Debaser's Avatar
 
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
Default

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?

 
Debaser is offline
Old 12-20-2007, 03:28 PM   #8
Debaser
ghost
 
Debaser's Avatar
 
Location: @SactoMacto
Posts: 12,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corganist
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.
That's not realistic. Companies won't leave a lucrative market and if detroit wants to charge 6-figures on all their cars, people will just go buy a $20,000 Prius.

Besides, California deadline is 2016, not tomorrow.

 
Debaser is offline
Old 12-20-2007, 03:33 PM   #9
Cup O Mercury
Ownz
 
Cup O Mercury's Avatar
 
Location: Virginia
Posts: 778
Default

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.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	01125114_Par_74741_ImageFile.jpg
Views:	24
Size:	24.4 KB
ID:	32472  

 
Cup O Mercury is offline
Old 12-20-2007, 03:39 PM   #10
jczeroman
Registered User
 
jczeroman's Avatar
 
Location: In my house.
Posts: 14,464
Default

More examples that this environmental legislation largely has nothing to do with protecting the environment, and everything to do with consolidating power.

 
jczeroman is offline
Old 12-20-2007, 04:50 PM   #11
Corganist
Minion of Satan
 
Corganist's Avatar
 
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser
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?
The auto companies would need to put a lot of money into producing more fuel efficient cars. It's not like they've got fuel efficient cars ready to go and they're just holding out on us (but maybe I'm being naive there). Spending more money on research and development = less money to pay workers = layoffs. Or alternately, spending more money of R&D = more expensive cars to make up the costs = less cars sold = less money to pay workers = layoffs. It's not like the auto companies need much excuse to bleed jobs these days.

Quote:
And if so, what happened to free market ideals? We should have lower emission standards because Detroit can't compete and produce better cars?
It seems to me if we're gonna start playing the free market card, then we'd be better off doing away with emissions standards altogether and letting the market sort everything out. If low emissions is what is important to people, then they'd buy those cars and there'd be no need for any government to tell auto manufacturers what cars they can make or sell. Of course we know that's not the case, as it would be not-so-good for the environment. Whether it's right or wrong, some degree of regulation of the market is currently allowed for environmental safety, but there's still a limit to that. Just as under-regulation could hurt the environment to help the economy, over-regulation would do vice versa.

Quote:
That's not realistic. Companies won't leave a lucrative market and if detroit wants to charge 6-figures on all their cars, people will just go buy a $20,000 Prius.
It seems to me that if striving to meet emissions standards prices American cars out of the budget of the average consumer, the demand for foreign cars like Priuses go up, and their price will also shoot up accordingly. I don't think people would get off that easily.

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?).

 
Corganist is offline
Old 12-20-2007, 04:57 PM   #12
sppunk
Netphoria's George Will
 
sppunk's Avatar
 
Location: Fenway Park
Posts: 37,109
Default

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!

 
sppunk is offline
Old 12-20-2007, 05:08 PM   #13
Corganist
Minion of Satan
 
Corganist's Avatar
 
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
Default

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?

 
Corganist is offline
Old 12-20-2007, 05:15 PM   #14
exactlythesame
Minion of Satan
 
exactlythesame's Avatar
 
Location: I thought what I'd do is I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes
Posts: 7,676
Default

The EPA is a huge joke, as is all this environmental BS. I really wish people would stop buying into it.

 
exactlythesame is offline
Old 12-20-2007, 05:44 PM   #15
Skradgee
Boardcaster
 
Skradgee's Avatar
 
Location: reporting live
Posts: 3,854
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser
It's not just California, its 16 other states that also want to follow California's lead.
Vermont was the first to do this, FYI...and we won! That doesn't matter much now though does it?

I think it should be up to the states, but the federal government could still have some sort of oversight.

 
Skradgee is offline
Old 12-20-2007, 06:27 PM   #16
Nimrod's Son
Master of Karate and Friendship
 
Nimrod's Son's Avatar
 
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,975
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corganist
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?
Yes they would. Considering states like California are expected to subsidize the economies of.. say Arkansas I'm fairly confident they should be able to set their own regulations.

"California emissions" have been in effect on cars for decades, btw

 
Nimrod's Son is offline
Old 12-20-2007, 06:28 PM   #17
Nimrod's Son
Master of Karate and Friendship
 
Nimrod's Son's Avatar
 
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,975
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skradgee
Vermont was the first to do this, FYI...and we won! That doesn't matter much now though does it?

I think it should be up to the states, but the federal government could still have some sort of oversight.
Why isn't the federal government stopping California from haveing a higher minimum wage than the federal government demands?

 
Nimrod's Son is offline
Old 12-20-2007, 07:29 PM   #18
Corganist
Minion of Satan
 
Corganist's Avatar
 
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son
Yes they would. Considering states like California are expected to subsidize the economies of.. say Arkansas I'm fairly confident they should be able to set their own regulations.
So the big states can economically hamstring the little states with impunity just because they're bigger? That seems like a pretty perverse version of federalism to me.

 
Corganist is offline
Old 12-21-2007, 03:34 AM   #19
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 62,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by exactlythesame
as is all this environmental BS. I really wish people would stop buying into it.
uhhhh what?

 
Eulogy is offline
Old 12-21-2007, 03:39 AM   #20
Mo
Immortal
 
Mo's Avatar
 
Posts: 20,964
Default

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.

 
Mo is offline
Old 12-21-2007, 05:54 AM   #21
Mariner
OB-GYN Kenobi
 
Location: the sea
Posts: 17,020
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eulogy
uhhhh what?

he was just trying to show polite interest in you geez

 
Mariner is offline
Old 12-21-2007, 12:14 PM   #22
sweetmusk
Ownz
 
sweetmusk's Avatar
 
Location: brooklyn
Posts: 847
Default

america is so embarrassing.

 
sweetmusk is offline
Old 12-21-2007, 12:52 PM   #23
TicalFSU
When I travel to the Sun
 
TicalFSU's Avatar
 
Posts: 458
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by exactlythesame
The EPA is a huge joke, as is all this environmental BS. I really wish people would stop buying into it.

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

 
TicalFSU is offline
Old 12-21-2007, 07:34 PM   #24
Mo
Immortal
 
Mo's Avatar
 
Posts: 20,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cup O Mercury
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.
Please, please, go and off yourself.

 
Mo is offline
Old 12-21-2007, 10:19 PM   #25
<sp3
****
 
<sp3's Avatar
 
Location: live free or die
Posts: 1,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son
It's yet another example of Bush being against smaller governments (states, municipalities) and his push for a strong national government in order to create a North American Union

Textbook W.

Quote:
Originally Posted by exactlythesame
The EPA is a huge joke, as is all this environmental BS. I really wish people would stop buying into it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetmusk
america is so embarrassing.

yea ill agree with all of these posts

 
<sp3 is offline
Old 12-21-2007, 10:27 PM   #26
Corganist
Minion of Satan
 
Corganist's Avatar
 
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
Default

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.

 
Corganist is offline
Old 12-22-2007, 06:22 PM   #27
Cup O Mercury
Ownz
 
Cup O Mercury's Avatar
 
Location: Virginia
Posts: 778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetmusk
america is so embarrassing.

Fuck You, America is great!

 
Cup O Mercury is offline
Old 12-22-2007, 07:27 PM   #28
Nimrod's Son
Master of Karate and Friendship
 
Nimrod's Son's Avatar
 
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,975
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corganist
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.
it's been one of my biggest causes from my first post on this board

 
Nimrod's Son is offline
Old 12-22-2007, 07:28 PM   #29
Nimrod's Son
Master of Karate and Friendship
 
Nimrod's Son's Avatar
 
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,975
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corganist
So the big states can economically hamstring the little states with impunity just because they're bigger? That seems like a pretty perverse version of federalism to me.
California has had its own emissions standards for decades, hence the "California emissions" mention on the Price is Right when they give away cars

 
Nimrod's Son is offline
Old 12-22-2007, 09:21 PM   #30
Corganist
Minion of Satan
 
Corganist's Avatar
 
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son
it's been one of my biggest causes from my first post on this board
Oh, I wasn't surprised about your views on this. You're pretty consistent on the whole states' rights thing regardless of the issue. But it seems like some others here, given their usual views, are unusually distressed about this supposed overstep of federal power. It just seems odd to me that some people seem to trust state governments to save the environment all on their own, but then suddenly lose all that trust whenever the prospect of the states handling other issues comes up.

Quote:

California has had its own emissions standards for decades, hence the "California emissions" mention on the Price is Right when they give away cars
I realize that. But that still doesn't mean they can set their standards with total impunity. There has to be some point where the federal government can step in and say "Whoa there, ease up." Maybe CA's emission standards were not ever far enough out of line with everyone else that it ever caused a problem before, but that doesn't mean that'd always be the case.

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.

 
Corganist is offline
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is On
Google


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:06 AM.




Smashing Pumpkins, Alternative Music
& General Discussion Message Board and Forums
www.netphoria.org - Copyright © 1998-2022