EPA Strikes Right Note on C02 Regulation

By December 20, 2007Global Warming

We’re adding to our carbon footprint today by flying to PDX — the Blazers are smoking! (and we mean that in a good way, smoking) — so for now will just congratulate the EPA for denying California its request for an enormous regulatory overreach in attempting to regulate tailpipe emissions for carbon dioxide. If global warming and greenhouse emissions demand government action, and that’s a big IF, then surely a federal regime is the most efficient and less arbitrary way to accomplish that gigantic expansion of government control over the economy and our daily lives. (Take a deep breath, and HOLD! No, keep HOLDING! I didn’t say let it out! And put down that black bean dip!)

EPA’s announcement makes the most obvious point:

California’s current waiver request is distinct from all prior requests. Previous waiver petitions covered pollutants that predominantly impacted local and regional air quality. Greenhouse gases are fundamentally global in nature, which is unlike the other air pollutants covered by prior California waiver requests. These gases contribute to the challenge of global climate change affecting every state in the union. Therefore, according to the criteria in section 209 of the Clean Air Act, EPA did not find that separate California standards are needed to “meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.”

Also on point is the statement from Dave McCurdy of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

“By denying this waiver, EPA has not wavered in preserving a national program that raises fuel economy while reducing carbon dioxide. We commend EPA for protecting a national, 50-state program.

“Enhancing energy security and improving fuel economy are priorities to all automakers, but a patchwork quilt of inconsistent and competing fuel economy programs at the state level would only have created confusion, inefficiency, and uncertainty for automakers and consumers.

Of those who are bemoaning, decrying, attacking this decision, we ask: What regulatory expansion would you reject? Anything?

Leave a Reply