Another Bush appointee gets it wrong
All this is after a group of twelve states sued the EPA, and the Supreme Court forced the EPA to start regulating carbon emissions as a pollutant earlier this year (Massachusetts vs. EPA, April 2007). The EPA said that it did not have the authority to regulate emissions, and even if it did, it did not elect to enforce any emission standards. Thus we arrive at an interesting paradox - The country's chief agency for protecting environmental quality is working to prevent .... environmental protection?
Some highlights
"The decision set in motion a legal battle that EPA's lawyers expect to lose and demonstrated the Bush administration's determination to oppose any mandatory measures specifically targeted at curbing global warming pollution. A total of 18 states, representing 45 percent of the nation's auto market, have either adopted or pledged to implement California's proposed tailpipe emissions rules, which seek to cut vehicles' greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016."
"Environmentalists and state officials lambasted Johnson's decision and pledged to sue to overturn it. In the past three months, federal judges in Vermont and California have twice rebuffed automakers' attempts to block state tailpipe regulations. The auto industry had also lobbied the White House and EPA to block the California regulation, and the Detroit News reported that chief executives of Ford and Chrysler met with Vice President Cheney last month to discuss the issue."
"By refusing to grant California's waiver request for its new motor vehicle standards to control greenhouse gas emissions, the administration has ignored the clear and very limited statutory criteria upon which this decision was to be based," said S. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents officials in 48 states. "Instead, it has issued a verdict that is legally and technically unjustified and indefensible."
"EPA's lawyers and policy staff had reached the same conclusion, said several agency officials familiar with the process. In a PowerPoint presentation prepared for the administrator, aides wrote that if Johnson denied the waiver and California sued, "EPA likely to lose suit."
"If he allowed California to proceed and automakers sued, the staff wrote, "EPA is almost certain to win."
(quoting Henry Waxman D-CA) "EPA's decision ignores the law, science and common sense," Waxman said in a statement. "This is a policy dictated by politics and ideology, not facts. The committee will be investigating how and why this decision was made."http://www.stevewk.com