• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Just how dirty does Bush want to make our air?

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
We already began discussing the Bush administration's plans for air pollution in another post earlier on the "Clear Skies" initiative begun by the Bush administration. Clear Skies IMO is another one of those Bush programs with a catchy name that means exactly the opposite of what it will accomplish. You know, Homeland Security, No Child Left Behind, Operation Iraqi Freedom etcetera.

Southern California's battle against smog has been a real success story. They've made great strides in cleaning up their air. Now The U.S. Department of Justice has joined The Western States Petroleum Association and the Engine Manufacturers Association in suing South Coast Air Quality Management District by filing a friend of the court brief supporting them against Southern California's smog fighting agency. And all AQMD is asking is that fleet operators with more than 15 vehicles replace their vehicles when they are retired with cleaner vehicles which are already available! Doesn't seem too much to ask, huh?

This along with "Clear Skies" makes it perfectly clear which side of the battle against air pollution the Bush administration is on.

<cough><cough>

How's the air where you live? If Bush gets his way it won't be getting any cleaner.

What are these people? Pollution junkies? Or are those campaign dollars worth more than our nation's air quality, George?



From the LA Times

August 31, 2003


Bush Administration Joins Effort to Kill Southland Agency's Anti-Pollution Rule

By Cara Mia DiMassa, Times Staff Writer


The U.S. Department of Justice has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn regulations established by Southern California's smog-fighting agency to curb pollution from taxis, buses, trash trucks and other fleet vehicles.

The government contended in a friend of the court brief filed Friday that the rules are at odds with the federal Clean Air Act because the authority to make such rules is limited to the federal government.

The regulations were adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in 2000 and 2001. They require public and private operators of transit buses, school buses, trash trucks, street sweepers, heavy-duty utility trucks, airport shuttles and taxis to buy clean-fuel models when they replace or add to fleets of 15 vehicles or more.

AQMD is the air pollution control agency for Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties.

The Western States Petroleum Assn., a trade group representing approximately 30 petroleum companies, and the Engine Manufacturers Assn. filed suit in 2001, arguing that AQMD regulations cannot override the Clean Air Act. Spokesmen for both associations were unavailable Saturday, but in court documents, the organizations have said that the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency exclusive authority to regulate motor vehicle emissions.

A spokesman for AQMD said Saturday that the rules are not emissions standards but simply require fleet operators to choose among clean-air vehicles already on the market.

A spokesman, Sam Atwood, said the agency is not requiring Detroit manufacturers "to make an engine that meets a certain level of oxide and nitrogen emissions per mile."

"We are saying to fleet operators, when you are purchasing a new vehicle or adding to your fleet, you need to buy a clean-air vehicle that's already available," he said.

The trade groups lost their case before the U.S. District Court and appealed last year to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which also upheld the AQMD rules. The Supreme Court agreed to take the case in June.

The Department of Justice's brief, submitted by U.S. Solicitor Gen. Theodore B. Olson, supports reversal of the lower courts' decisions. The government contends that the Clean Air Act preempts the regional air quality district's rules because those rules are related to emissions standards. It also states that neither California nor AQMD has requested a waiver that would permit the state to adopt such controls.

A message left with the Department of Justice's press office for comment on Saturday drew no response.

Atwood charged that the brief represents the third time in a month that the Bush administration has tried to thwart clean-air efforts in Southern California. Earlier this month, the EPA refused to commit to any specific emission reduction measures in its 2003 air quality management plan. Last week, the government revised Clean Air Act rules, allowing power plants and factories to upgrade without adopting the most up-to-date pollution equipment.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in the clean-fleet suit in December and to make a decision about mid-year.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Has any president ever kept his enviormental promises? :disgust:
Hopefully we can have a president who will actually put pressure on industries who put toxins into the air.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
BUSH-O-MATIC 2K3
Please select one:

___ 1.) It's all about the children. You don't HATE children do you?

_X_ 2.) It's about jobs, don't you know? We can't have environmental policies that hamper the ability for business to create more jobs, can we? Besides, the changes we're making to existing laws will make it harder for industry and business to continue polluting. <wink!>

___ 3.) Mushroom clouds. 9/11. WMDs. Terrorists. Chemical and biological weapons. Al Qaeda. Ka-blooeeeeee! Dictactor. Kills own people. Axis-of-Evil. Mastermind.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
It is pretty lame to fight these rules. The state clearly has an interest and a responsibility to protect the public from excess pollution. Detroit will suffer b/c in most vehicle classes . . . their offerings typically have lower fuel economy and higher emissions than the comparable car from Nippon Inc.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
It is pretty lame to fight these rules. The state clearly has an interest and a responsibility to protect the public from excess pollution. Detroit will suffer b/c in most vehicle classes . . . their offerings typically have lower fuel economy and higher emissions than the comparable car from Nippon Inc.
And the fault for that troubling fact lies, as you know BBD, right with the "Big Three."

If their foreign competitors can do it so can they. But they are more interested in funding candidates who keep making it easy for them to pollute instead of forcing them to make better vehicles.

Very short sighted. Just looking at the next quarter's numbers. While their competition is looking at the next decade.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I agree and disagree. Detroit (Ford, GM, and the sellout) are certainly responsible for their lagging "clean" technology but they are in business to make money. As long as there's no requirement to be a good corporate citizen why would they invest in such activities. Outside of oil fiefdoms, gas is taxed heavily and in most 1st tier nations environmental laws are rigorously enforced. If Honda was based in America, they would probably market technology comparable to Detroit.

My '95 Acura makes 180+ hp from 1.8L (aftermarket intake) while just missing LEV status (which didn't exist when it was manufactured) and still gets 25 city/30+ highway. My wifes '00 Lincoln LS makes 252 from 3.9L has higher emissions and barely gets 25mpg highway . . . and when I drive it gets less than 20 city:D:D:D. The current MDX meets ULEV while I doubt a single domestic automaker has an SUV meeting that standard. I stand corrected for Ford.
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
And the Ford Hybrid Escape, which comes out next year. 29MPG HWY/45 city!:D:D:D Perfect city car!

I'm getting one 'cause my dad worked for Ford, so I get Ford vehicles at dealer cost.

Now if I can just convince the wife that we can do the Grease Car conversion on an old deisel Mercedes, I'll have my perfect long distance car too.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I will believe the hybrid Escape when I see it. Not to offend . . . but isn't the Escape a POS? OK maybe not POS but certainly not the cream of the compact SUV crowd. I think it's wonderful that you are buying a vehicle you like (at a good price) that's environmentally-friendly but doesn't the Escape finish last in the compact SUV comparisons?

Regardless, cheers for the great car choice . . . seriously.:D AT least one good thing is the "Buy American" crowd will snap up Escapes which will definitely improve Ford's fleet fuel economy/emissions.
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Depends on what you are comparing it to and what you are comparing based on. But I am biased (plus my dad won't talk about my car if it is not a Ford product --wich now includes Jaguar, Volvo, and some Mazdas).

I've never owned an SUV before, the main point of buying this car will be to further my envrionmental agenda. If people want SUVs, then lets make sure that there are SUVs available with as little impact on the environment as possible.
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
Outside of oil fiefdoms, gas is taxed heavily and in most 1st tier nations environmental laws are rigorously enforced. If Honda was based in America, they would probably market technology comparable to Detroit.

We have some of the most stringent evironmental laws in the whole world, especially as it pertains to cars. Californias laws are the strictest in the world. Even before these rules kicked in. That fact that we consume more due to readily available and relatively cheap fuel is another matter.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY