California, other states sue EPA over revoking state emissions authority
reuters.com
reuters.com
It seems to me that the more "keep America at the forefront" way to do this would be to demand much higher fuel efficiency, which requires expensive research that can only be done by huge and wealthy (US) companies.
You know, like what California seems to literally try to do (with a huge nod toward Tesla, I am sure).
California seems to essentially say that it is the law to buy high tech cars, which currently means American.
Why give that away to the competition?
What's worse, emissions are not done holistically. They rate battery-powered car as effectively having zero emissions, which does not consider how you charge you car. There was a study earlier this year, that revealed a Tesla charged by a power plant using coal generated more emissions than a standard unleaded gasoline car.
I get the intent of these laws, but they are poorly done.
Good thing coal is declining in the US, and likely permanently so as renewables continue to become more cost effective.
There is no where in the US electrical grid where that statement is true. It's a strawman.
Also, How is it a straw man? Coal power plants still exist. While some governments are forcing them out, it exists. If it's true, it is a real concern we should take into consideration.
source of study: https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/business/technology/5...
Second- bullshit. Every commercially viable coal plant burns much hotter than any gasoline or diesel engine, and will have a much higher efficiency as a result. (Wikipedia "Carnot cycle") Line/conversion losses will not make up the difference.
Third-we're talking about California. We don't have any coal plants. So even if we pretended physics wasn't a thing, our relatively large supply of wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, and hydro production would fix it. We're trying to replace natural gas with "batteries" of some sort, but even at the worst case, natural gas plants produce very little smog, even though their CO2 production is unfortunate.
Fourth- (well, three point fivesth) smog from coal plants in states that we share a grid with is their problem- winds generally blow west to east, so that smog won't end up in our cities. If the states where that smog ends up wants to enact federal smog reduction standards I'll be at the table shoulder to shoulder with you.
Trump has done a lot of shit to piss me off. As a resident of the bowl that includes Los Angeles, this is probably the issue that makes me the angriest, even though its national significance is fairly small. We need air quality protections here. We can't survive otherwise, and solving this problem at the state level had worked out fairly well so far. I'd rate it of more importance to me than the housing crisis, (our fault, we're doing nothing to address it) or the wild fires. (partially our fault, we're talking steps to fix it on a global scale with the knowledge that it won't ever be enough by ourselves)
BTW, someone pointed out previously that there is more to the story than just fuel regulations that killed the Ranger and similar vehicles, so take the above with a grain of salt if needed.
The government isn't allowed to change policies they've already created unless there is a compelling reason to. Otherwise every government policy would completely change every two years after each election.
I don't see what legal basis the EPA would have to nullify emissions standards of the individual states for cars registered there. But I also think Wickard v Filburn was a crock of power-agglomerating bullshit.
Hypothetically, could the federal government declare murder legal and preempt state laws because they disrupt the commerce of contract killing?
I meant I miss having more political common ground with many friends, as it was when their concerns were on the receiving end of the out-of-control federal government. During the Bush years, with the wars/gitmo/patriot act they were reading up on Constitutional law and buying guns. During the Obama years they switched to explaining how pushing people to buy into the corporate health "insurance" racket was a good idea.
I've come to the conclusion that the main function of voting is to make the winning voters think they asked for the ensuing policies.
If there is going to be an EPA, then the 14th amendment asserts equal protection of the law. So, states with their own emissions regime are actually nullifying federal law and violating equal protection. The incorporation clause of the 14th amendment would also be in play. How far this goes appears to be a constant battle in the courts and legislatures.
The EPA itself is on shaky ground, as there is no authority granted to the federal government to create an EPA. Relying on the commerce clause is pretty lame, and barely a fig leaf. Generally when interpreting a text, the most specific statement is determinative, not the least specific.
> states with their own emissions regime are actually nullifying federal law and violating equal protection
Erm, that does not make sense to me. What is legal is the intersection of the state and federal. If a state setting their own laws goes against "equal protection", then any concept of state sovereignty would be gone. Do you have any precedents backing up this line of thinking?