Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiDemocrats Face Off Over Emissions Bill
California Lawmakers Lead Opposition to a Draft That Would Prevent States From Taking Tougher Action Than The Federal Government.
WASHINGTON — An unusual rift has emerged between top congressional Democrats over a draft global warming bill that would prohibit California and other states from taking tougher action than Washington to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.
On one side are House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and a number of her California colleagues, fighting to preserve their state's landmark law to cut tailpipe emissions. Pelosi has said that action to curb global warming is one of her most important initiatives.
On the other side are Reps. John D. Dingell, a Democrat from auto-producing Michigan who has expressed support for the legislation, and Rick Boucher (D-Va.). Dingell is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which will shape the bill, and Boucher is the chairman of a key subcommittee writing the bill.
On Thursday, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) rounded up a dozen signatures from members of Dingell's committee on a letter that strongly opposes the draft.
"We have serious concerns about the direction in which the committee is currently heading," the letter says.
California's senators, Democrats Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, also vowed Thursday to use "all means at our disposal" to block any effort to preempt California law, suggesting a possible bill-killing filibuster, if necessary.
The swift reaction against the proposal could doom the plan.
Perhaps the most important foe is Pelosi, who earlier tangled with Dingell by forming a special panel to consider global warming legislation. Also opposed are California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, and governors and attorneys general from other states, including several seeking to follow California's lead in regulating tailpipe emissions.
"While federal action is necessary and long overdue on climate change, Congress must not deny states the right to pursue solutions in the absence of federal policy," said a letter to Boucher sent by eight governors, including Schwarzenegger.
Dingell and Boucher showed no sign of retreating Thursday.
"Unlike local air pollution, which can be cleaned up by requiring cleaner cars to be sold in that area, climate change is a much larger problem that must be addressed nationally and internationally," Dingell said.
The fight, which comes as the energy issue moves to center stage on Capitol Hill underscores Democratic leaders' challenge in passing comprehensive legislation to reduce global warming and U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
Energy policy and environmental regulation often scramble the usual party-line divisions, splitting lawmakers based on their region's economic interests rather than ideology.
As Democrats prepare to debate their first energy bill since taking control of Congress in January — a measure expected to come before the Senate next week that calls for stricter miles-per-gallon rules for vehicles — some of the stiffest opposition comes from Democrats from auto-making states.
A House subcommittee is to vote next week on a measure that includes the provision to prevent states from imposing stricter standards than the federal government has on vehicle emissions.
California has been fighting to win the Bush administration's approval to implement its law requiring automakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Automakers oppose the plan.
The federal Clean Air Act permits California to set stricter anti-pollution rules than the federal government because of the state's legendary smog problems, but only if the Environmental Protection Agency approves.
On Thursday, an auto industry group spoke out in support of federal preemption of state laws. "The United States needs a consistent national policy that avoids the marketplace chaos that would surely arise from a patchwork quilt of conflicting state fuel economy/carbon dioxide mandates," Dave McCurdy, president and chief executive of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, told a House energy subcommittee.
Dingell said Congress gave federal regulators the authority to set vehicle fuel-efficiency standards because of "long-standing congressional concerns about the burden that would be placed on auto manufacturers selling cars across the country if they were forced to comply with regulations from multiple authorities."
Boucher cited the recent Supreme Court ruling that the EPA must regulate greenhouse gas emissions unless it can demonstrate a compelling reason not to. He said automakers could come under the authority of the EPA; the federal Department of Transportation, which sets fuel-economy standards; and the state of California.
"The automakers are understandably concerned about this regulatory confusion," Boucher said. "You could have at least three different regulations that would be inconsistent and make it impossible for them to manufacture their product."
richard.simon@latimes.com
© 2007 The Los Angeles Times
10 Comments so far
Show AllIs it even possible the U.S. automakers didn't see this day coming where global warmiong is generally accepted by the people and the scientists and the peak production of the finite resources of oil is upon us? Of course they have. American jobs are going overseas because business sees these trends as reason to circle the wagons rather than engage in the opportunities for greater success. Why isn't America the leading developer and manufacturer of wind generators rather than Europe? Why isn't Michigan? Consider that Mr. Dingell. All business must evolve and adapt to survive and government policy needs to as well. When the U.S. Congress decides to lead rather than wallow in fractured compromise, perhaps there will not be so desperate a need for States to show the way.
As far as the articles' topic. This is exactly like my home state does all the time to stop progressive change. The politicians will prohibit individual city or county initiatives for everything from bans on smoking in restaurants to municipally-run wireless internet, saying it should more properly be done through statewide legislation, then they will quickly do....nothing.
California's tougher environmental laws have often served as a goad for action at other states or at the federal level. This is why Dingell from General Motors and Boucher from Massey and Consolidation Coal oppose California's initiatives - not because they think action should be better coordinated but because they want no action at all.
Where I live you need a car. I buy used cars. The decision by the auto companies to sell only gas guzzlers will keep me in used cars. Why pay a lot of money for a gas hog?
I would like to get an electric car or plug in hybrid. Both available technologies TODAY. I would even take a wack at an electric conversion if I can get comfortable with the process and results.
But more likely a small diesel will pop up on the used market eventually. I am a cheapskate and without a financial or other compelling reasons I will push that last 150,000 out of the cars everyone else thinks are too old.
The automakers could make one product that meets the most stringent requirements and sell it nation wide. I'm sure the other states wouldn't object to cars that exceed their required standards.
The "need" for different models for different juristictions would only be to reduce production cost in less tightly regulated markets. If the automakers can't figure out the best way to do this, they need new management.
In reality they're saying "I don' wanna!!!!!!!" Like a child throwing a tantrum, perhaps it's best to just let them scream until they get tired and do the work.
The best thing Detroit can do is stop lobbying and turn their engineers loose to find the best ways to meet it. Otherwise the Japanese will kick their butts once again.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers doesn't need to worry about a patchwork of different laws from the states. What they need to be worried about is competition from foreign auto manufacturers related to Carbon emissions and MPG.
This is a capitalist nation; let the marketplace decide. Consumers are already voting with their dollars to support foreign manufacturers that produce higher MPG vehicles. When the all of the U.S. auto manufacturers finally 'tank' because they were not willing to produce what consumers wanted, let us all remember that it was of their own accord. There are to be NO MORE BAILOUTS FOR FAILED CORPORATIONS!!!
Who will determine what makes "it impossible for them to manufacture their product"? Perhaps the current auto makers aren't the best people to have making cars.
I suggest that Pelosi, Dingle, Boucher and any others who are to be involved in this important issue, have a meeting and sensibly discuss the problems which have arisin. There is no earthly reason why a bill could not be quickly drafted that would be satisfactory to all.
All of these legislators are sensible people, who display a high degree of good common sense. No need to fight about it.
I wonder if the American Medical Association, American Dental Association and Big Pharma were to join forces to lobby Congress if we couldn't pass some MAXIMUM health standards, too! "I'm sorry, your blood pressure far too low and you won't be spending enough money on doctor visits and pharmaceuticals. You simply must eat more red meat and increase your stress levels or there will be jail time!" Maybe it won't be all bad, as we're mandated to participate in Ice Cream and candy week to induce visits to the dentist. Of course, I'm a vegetarian, so I will not pleased when I'm forcefed hamburgers to ensure my need for Plavix or Lipitor. I mean, it creates a pretty complicated market for doctors when our health if all over the board. And how can Big Pharma make one drug fits all if we don't ALL have high cholesterol? What would happen to the dental industry if we all had perfect teeth?
If the car companies were serious about trying to meet the need for better fuel standards, they wouldn't have spent the last ten years turning out gas guzzling SUVs in every flavor imaginable (except fuel efficient, of course). General Motors would not have shredded every last EV1 and abandoned this SUCCESSFUL electric car. Yeah, we need to give something back to automakers in the same way that they gave something back to Flint, Michigan. We need to give them a break the same way they've given American workers a break by sending their jobs overseas. We need to give them a break because these billion dollar bailouts just have not been enough blood drawn from taxpayers. We pay for the cars, we pay for OUTRAGEOUS fuel costs, we pay with our health and the health of our planet, in Indiana we have given up Spring and Fall in some twisted wrinkle of global warming (I don't know how the rest of you are faring, but if these are the June temperatures, I am pretty terrified of August!). We need to give them a break because they were so concerned about consumers that they immediately adopted safety features like seatbelts and airbags without having to be dragged kicking and screaming into concern for their fellow human beings. Yeah, automakers have been such responsible citizens, I think we ought to just let Congress go right on and whore out the last vestiges of our environment to these soul-sucking sons of bitches. Somebody build me a train system and bugger these guys once and for all.
Although I don't own a car, you can bet it wouldn't be anything that guzzled gas and in principle when I did own the superior Japanese cars except for a couple of tiny Fords.
Why should the planet pay for the stupid management in Detroit?
Hasn't anyone seen, "Who Killed the Electric Car?" General Motors PRODUCED an electric car for the California market, but fought against it even while the car gained a WAITING LIST because there was more demand than GM could (or WOULD) supply. When the rules were changed in California, easing emission standards and the timeline for achieving them, not only did GM discontinue the EV1 line; they took back every single car (they would not SELL the cars, but only LEASE them, which makes one suspect they had this plan in mind all along) and SHREDDED THEM. What kind of capitalist response is that, you might ask? What kind of a company takes back a popular product and destroys it completely instead of letting the customers who loved these cars BUY THEM? Cleary, something else is at work, because it is beyond reason for a company to destroy a perfectly marketable product with a BEGGING customer base, taking a considerable financial loss instead.
I am reminded of the logic beyond destroying the Sandanistas in Nicaragua, the overthrow of Allende in Chile, the many attempts to remove Castro and current venom toward Chavez in Venezuela: These countries show, by exmample, that there is a more human way to run a country. A path that puts the welfare of citizens before profits and we hate nothing more than a good example. California and the EV1 were just that: Good examples.