States Set to Sue the U.S. Over Greenhouse Gases 440
dnormant writes to tell us The New York Times is reporting that more than a dozen states are gearing up to sue the Bush administration for holding up efforts to regulate automobile emissions. "The move comes as New York and other Northeastern states are stepping up their push for tougher regulation of greenhouse gases as part of their continuing opposition to President Bush's policies. On Wednesday, Gov. Eliot Spitzer's administration is to issue regulations requiring power plants to pay for their greenhouse gas emissions, part of a broader plan among 10 Northeastern states, known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, to move beyond federal regulators in Washington and regulate such emissions on their own."
One problem with this plan (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One problem with this plan (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should there be an exception for "regular guys like you"? To the extent that you are contributing to the problem and enjoying the benefits of the power produced, it seems only logical that you should be required to help fund the solution. With any luck, requiring power companies to pay for the costs of the pollution they create (and presumably pass that cost on to their consumers) will motivate both the power companies and the consumers to switch to cleaner (and hence cheaper) methods of power generation... which is of course exactly what we want to have happen.
Re:One problem with this plan (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:One problem with this plan (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you have the option on your power bill to purchase "clean energy"? Now if there is some oversight of the power company that prevents them from passing the pollution costs on to people purchasing the electricity from solar and wind farms, then you have a strong economic incentive for the consumer which is the fastest way to create any large scale change. If if doesn't hurt people in the wallet, then everything will stay status quo.
Re:One problem with this plan (Score:5, Insightful)
Except suddenly nuclear, wind and solar will have a competitive advantage over coal, oil and gas; there's no luck involved. Energy providers have to compete to provide the lowest cost per kWH, and if carbon costs money, energy producers have incentive to cut it.
Free CO2 in the air is gonna cost somebody a lot of money someday. Collecting a fixed amount for it at the time of origination is a way of containing the risk, since climate change is liable to be more expensive and less predictable.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One problem with this plan (Score:4, Funny)
Re:One problem with this plan (Score:5, Insightful)
In this glorious deregulated California market you can specify green power, just don't complain about the rolling blackouts (which hit you regardless of where you buy your electricity.) :P In theory power grid deregulation was supposed to allow you to choose where you got your electricity from, but in practice it meant "as long as you bought it from Enron."
OTOH, It's not just about choosing who runs their lines to you. If you install solar panels on your roof, you'll essentially be buying around 50% of your power from yourself (carbon-free), depending on where you live and how much power you use during the day, though the initial cost is still pretty high. Same goes for a ground-loop air-conditioner, good insulation, really any technology that helps keep the energy you buy on your property. THAT stuff is where the big incentives should be.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason I don't agree with carbon credits for trees is that nations will claim plantations are trees, ero replacing native forrest with palm trees will garner even more profit than it does now. Also it i
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No. No it's not.
Nobody's forcing you to like Al Gore; Insurance Companies [cnn.com] are quite convinced they see a lot of downside risk in climate change going forward, and they're the ones that are going to see the bills first.
we deserve what we get -- which is the end of our superpower status
That was going to happen regardless of anything.
Re:One problem with this plan (Score:4, Insightful)
Looking at the greatest threat to our super power status right now, I would have to say that a severe reduction on fossil fuel reliance would benefit us greatly in the global superpower sense. If we have an renaissance of green tech in America two important things will happen: 1. We will have a new major tech export, reestablishing the strength of the dollar. 2. When oil loses it's supremacy then Middle Eastern countries will be economically and politically powerless until they transform into more globally harmonious cultures.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
if you lose your status through economic means, trust me, that's the good way. I'm from England, and we fought a lot of wars as we lost ours, so did the French, the Italian/Romans, the Greeks and pretty much everyone that was a major world power.
Empires don't last, their fall is inevitable. if you can let go of yours without losing thousands or even millions of lives, you did well.
Sensible nations act like the swiss, they stay out of wars, and trundle along happily
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First of all, companies will maximize profits. When they have to build a new plant, they will build the one that provides what they need for the cheapest amount even if they can supposedly pass on the added expense to the consumer. The problem is that as rates go up, people will use less electricity from the grid (whether by running air conditioners less or buying rooftop solar for homes or businesses), and reduce the profit of the companies.
Second, with sanctioned monopolies, they often cannot raise pr
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thus, the cost of power goes up, the pollution doesn't go down. Thus, the "Everyone else" keep paying for it anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Something I don't think your considering is that electricity is a regulated utility, not a commodity. Well, it is considered a commodity within the market itself but not as far as people outside the market is concerned. and as being a utility, there is a general need for it above and
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We are *NOT* a mob rule nation and we should not endow the federal government with the power and habit of punishing us to 'solve our problems'. Later on in the end it, with regards to our civil liberties, it will bite us in the butt. This is not a 'tax incentive' this is a tax punishment! This is like calling income taxes 'revenue' or 'investment' its a nice play on words but its not accurate. W
Re: (Score:2)
Not gonna hold my breath though. Been a cynic for too long.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.reutersinteractive.com/CarbonNews/73074 [reutersinteractive.com]
BTW, thanks for raising the quality of this thread.
Re: (Score:2)
In short, what this new plan does is, it increases the cost of running non-environment-friendly power plants, while staying away from the costs of "green" alternatives. The coal-burning company will raise their rates - and thus lose more customers to cleaner alternatives.
Granted, this will have a big effect on low-income households - but that can be helped with tax breaks & such.
Re:One problem with this plan (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You could argue that consumers aren't currently paying for the total cost of energy anyway, since the government is often responsible for cleaning up pollution.
Re:One problem with this plan (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How does it act as a disincentive when they can pass the cost directly to the consumer with no worry of losing business??
I can think of a few reasons, but keep in mind that I am not an expert in this area.
* Businesses are large consumers of energy, and they definitely consider power costs when they decide where to locate. Excessive power costs can prevent power company growth.
* As populations grow, outlying townships/suburbs/whatever will decide to incorporate. At that point they could choose instead of that power company, to form a municipal power company or join a co-op.
* The city can decide to dump the power company and f
Re: (Score:2)
The right way to go about th
Re: (Score:3)
(BTW, Upstate New York. We get fucked up the ass hard because of those dinks down in the big city.)
-uso.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, over the next 20 years or so other types of electric generation can be tried out. Nuclear doesn't appear to be an answer because of the hippy protests. Wind is basically unreliable over long periods - there are few places that have the wind blowing 24x7. Solar is interesting, but outside of Arizona and Nevada solar isn't very reliable either - and it is environmentally very expensive.
Doing something with the carbon emissions seems to be
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Those "dinks'" tax dollars are carrying you. Upstate receives a lot more in benefits than you pay out in taxes. And the laws regarding the makeup of the legislature insure that each upstater gets more of a voice in state politics than each city dweller.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a good thing if examined in a vacuum (assuming the ludicrous notion of CO2 being a pollutant, or that you could accurately figure out the damage caused by climate change within trillions of dollars).
When you consider China and India doing nothing to pass those costs on to their users, you don't h
Re:One problem with this plan (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Tell you what. Calculate CO2 per capita based on where the consumers are and not by where the producers are and then tell me that. The EU has essentially been exporting its manufacturing to the US and China. Except that in China more CO2 is produced per product than when it was in the EU due to the lax environment
Re: (Score:2)
The fewer countries that fail to make an effort to solve the problem, the less people the remaining bad actors will have to point to and say that they don't need to do anything.
What, you didn't think that the Chinese and the
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One problem with this plan (Score:5, Insightful)
Six Month Notice (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Notice how the writer dismisses the efforts as being part of the states' "continuing opposition to President Bush's policies"? It couldn't be because they are sick of nothing being done about greenhouse emissions. No, it has to be liberal vs. conservative, Right vs. Left, Good vs. Evil, The USA vs. Bush. It just
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly, it couldn't! That's why you'll never see democrat dominated states suing a democrat president. It simply wouldn't happen.
My guess? Now that Iraq is starting to look better, they need something new to hammer Bush with, lest he actually start to make gains in his approval ratings.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First off, the states don't sue the president...
Second, some democratic states have sued the federal government when a democrat was president. Washington State, for example, sued in 1998 to force the EPA to clean up a superfund site... who was president in 1998?
Re:Six Month Notice (Score:5, Informative)
As for states suing the Feds to force auto manufacturers to decrease emissions, why don't they just do it themselves? California has strict emission control policies. Why can't the rest of these states.
That isn't how air quality regulations work. Under the Clean Air Act, setting auto emissions standards is the exclusive responsibility of the Federal Government. However, because California had stricter emissions standards in place when the Clean Air Act was first passed, California (and only California) was granted a waiver to set its own standards which can be adopted by other states if they choose. This waiver doesn't apply to vehicular CO2 emissions. California (with other states) has already won a suit saying that EPA must grant such a waiver, however EPA has not done so. Thus, they are suing again, this time asking the court to order EPA to do so immediately.
As things currently stand, no state can regulate tailpipe CO2 emissions. When California wins their lawsuit, then states will be able to choose weather to follow CA CO2 regulations or to follow the Federal do-nothing approach.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What, five of them?
Those are the ones that don't get grants and do get fired. No wonder they don't speak out.
Ah yes, it's the great conspiracy. So tell me, when Republicans controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress, were these same scientists being denied federal grants? It seems to me that it's the Conservatives complaining about the silencing of critics,
Re: (Score:2)
Cars aren't even the majority of emissions (Score:2, Interesting)
So yes, cars are a part of it, but they are NOT the "things holding you up" here.
And if somebody could provide links on this, I'd be grateful.
Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions (Score:5, Insightful)
But I think the more drastic changes that will help meet Kyoto targets are in the area of where power comes from. When the wealth redistribution costs to a country outweigh the cost of installing solar panels on every rooftop, then there will be change in that country. The same holds true for making more efficient cars or mass transit or wind farms, they will only ever be "the norm" when they cost less than just burning more fossil fuels. That Kyoto-carbon-tax is helping to push that day a little closer.
Re: (Score:2)
Costs... (Score:2)
But I think the more drastic changes that will help meet Kyoto targets are in the area of where power comes from. When the wealth redistribution costs to a country outweigh the cost of installing solar panels on every rooftop, then there will be change in that country. The same holds true for making more efficient cars or mass transit or wind farms, they will only ever be "the norm" when they cost less than just burning more fossil fuels. That Kyoto-carbon-tax is helping to push that day a little closer.
Hmmmm.... define cost... what is meant by cost? Is it purely the monetary cost of using fossil fuels vs. building wind farms/putting solar cells on our roofs/building hybrid cars/using renewable energy sources wherever possible? Or are we allowed to count the extinction of entire species of animals and the environmental devastation caused by massive pollution and climate change as some of the costs of using fossil fuels? As far as I am concerned the cost of our fossil fuel addiction isn't just measured in
Re: (Score:2)
When the wealth redistribution costs to a country outweigh the cost of installing solar panels on every rooftop, then there will be change in that country. The same holds true for making more efficient cars or mass transit or wind farms, they will only ever be "the norm" when they cost less than just burning more fossil fuels. That Kyoto-carbon-tax is helping to push that day a little closer.
Would that not be self-defeating theft?
An example: Here in Oregon, we have a punitive tax measure on the ballot - an initiative to tax the unholy hell out of tobacco and use the dough to fund health care for kids... problem is, first off there's already taxes taken that fund such a program, and second, if everyone stopped smoking (or even if the numbers dropped appreciably on in-state consumption and population), those kids' parents are still going to demand free medicine and doctor visits... but how d
Re: (Score:2)
Canadians use far more energy per capita than Americans. FACT.
Canadians use most of their energy for heating.
The second highest usage is for industry (which includes it's own heating).
Thus, for Canada it's not just cars, trucks, planes, and trains.
You actually have to get more insulation in your homes and use solar where it makes sense. And switch your fuel sources from coal and heating oil to hydro, wind, tidal, geothermal, and other sources. For example, lik
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a simple state's rights/federal rights issue. The states want to *cough* create additional revenue streams *cough* improve the air quality and the feds don't want to screw with the free flow of commerce. (That commerce clause has frequently been used as a federalist beat stick)
However, if you don't li
Re:Cars aren't even the majority of emissions (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because a state fighting to improve air quality (and make no mistake, the poor air quality in many states is not controllable by that state, but the one next door) is treason, while the gross abuses of the constitution, like the 55 mph speed limit, national drinking age, and nearly everything controlled as "interstate commerce" is simply ignored. If states fighting for their rights to clean air is treason, I'd hate to see what you'd do to a woman that wanted to vote.
It's usually the other way around... (Score:4, Interesting)
Bwahahahahaha! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ron Paul is a Republican representative with a (farfetched) presidential bid, but he certainly seems to be a staunch supporter of states' rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. "States rights" isn't some sort of coherent ideology. It's the convenient political pose of whoever happens to be on the losing side of the votes. There's no such thing as a "states rights" conservative with any practical influence in Washington, and the ones you meet in everyday life or read on the Internet generally seem to miss the forest for the t
Re:Hell no! (Formatting is our friend ;) (Score:3, Informative)
Are you kidding, the past 10-20 years has seen growth in the south far out pace growth in the north both in terms of population and wealth.
In 1971 NY had 41 Electoral votes the about the same same as the sum total (42) of GA (12), NC (13), AL (9), SC (8). In 2004 NY had 31 compared to 47 for the four states listed above.
of the kids in my family (7) 4 moved away from NY for better emplo
Show Pony (Score:2, Informative)
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And really, this is just putting the negative externalities back on the producer. Source control is a lot cheaper than everyone purchasing a million air purifiers.
A little bit teched in the head, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or we can accept minimal controls, and keep your prices real low.
If you are looking for really low costs, consider moving to one of th
Arrrrgh! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Arrrrgh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironic.
Re: (Score:2)
Typical sue-ing mentality ? (Score:2, Informative)
If I'm not mistaken you can have different laws across states. One state can have a more closer or looser regulation on gun
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case [wikipedia.org]
Highlights for the lazy:
That "dumb old lady" was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you're so worried about the environment why don't you simply put your efforts into "cleaning up" your particular state instead of (more easily ofcourse) blaming it all on one man and start the (to me:) typical selfish American approach of sueing?
The problem with this logic is that even if I manage to make my state pristine in terms of energy use/pollution control/etc, the state next door can still spew all the pollutants it wants into the air I will be breathing. This was a classic issue for the acid rain issue a couple decades ago, where the polluting states were not the ones reaping the negative environmental consequences. But even more to the point in this case, the issue is that certain states want to require lower limits on allowable emissi
Nice (Score:2, Insightful)
Its a great indicator that the American people are more intelligent, responsible and honest than their leader.
Nice. (Score:3, Insightful)
Its a great indicator that the American people are more responsible, intelligent and honest than their leader.
Why the Global Warming debate is important (Score:4, Insightful)
For those of a conservative viewpoint, this is precisely the kind of thing that has been the worst of nightmares regarding the debate, where this is an attempt to broaden the power of the federal government and to enact legislation through judicial case law rather than through a body like the U.S. Congress.
From a strict constitutionalist viewpoint, state regulations are precisely what was envisioned by the founding fathers for issues like this. When faddish things like Global Warming (and concern about Global Warming is a fad right now, at least from a political perspective) come up, they should be debated by individual states and citizens of those states.
If left to develop on its own, without somebody crying "fowl" and demanding federal intervention, this "laboratory of American states" is precisely what is envisioned by the founders to see how political ideas like regulation of industries for CO2 gases was intended to develop. Legislation based upon the current wind of political thought was something the early founders of the American Republic feared the most, and it was intended to be a long and difficult process for a good reason, particularly when it governed the actions of individual citizens in relationship to each other, such as this sort of regulation is doing.
From a politically conservative viewpoint, you can still suggest environmental legislation. There is common ground that can come from this sort of debate and help us to genuinely protect the environment. But you need to frame it from a conservative viewpoint in terms of stewardship, liability, and responsibility. Cut the emotional garbage out about rising sea levels, rising temperatures, and a fear of the future. If you produce pollution, you need to clean up your own messes and be nice to your neighbors. You also shouldn't be wasteful of those resources that God has given to you, because ultimately you will be held responsible for your actions before HIM. Even if you dismiss God as a human construct, there is still the more vague "being held responsible by humanity as a whole" that still applies on some sort of level. I certainly don't mind government regulation that helps to reduce dependence on foreign energy sources and lowering of a trade deficit.
I also realize that some of this is about legislation that has already been through the meat grinder of Washington D.C., and these states are "merely" asking for those laws to be enforced. A problem here is that the legislation was deliberately vague, and the actual enforcement of these laws left to such broad interpretation, that nearly anything could be suggested in terms of what they really meant or how they can be put together. This lawsuit is a political move to force these national regulations (which arguably may not even be constitutional) to conform to a specific viewpoint that runs counter to the current presidential administration. A U.S. President shouldn't have even had this sort of authority delegated to him in the first place, but of course those pushing in support of this lawsuit already knew that, didn't they? So why should it be moved to the authority of nine men in black robes?
It is poor law and shouldn't have been enacted in the first place, no matter how lofty the goals were made. Going to the courts is just going to make an awful law even worse. It would be far better to go to the national legislature (aka Congress) and get new legislation passed that deals with this issue, if that is the ultimate goal.
A major problem I haven't seen mentioned yet (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason why Spitzer and this group are suing the government is that the Feds have established pollution control standards and Spitzer wants them made more restrictive. I am normally in favor of states' rights, but the issue in question here is more of a standards debate for me -- were each state given the ability to mandate their own efficiency requirements for cars, the result would be a broad range of such standards and car companies would have to meet the most efficient denominator, with a drastic (skyward) impact on the price of cars. The federal government sets the national standard, and now you don't have the purchasing power of 4 million Oregonians determining that the rest of us have to pay a premium for a super-efficient hybrid car we can't afford.
The single biggest problem I have with this bogus lawsuit is this: it's the government suing the government, with all the included lawyer fees. Let the tax dollars fly. With a lawsuit at this level, as well, those fees will not be trifling, and who will pay them but the lowly taxpayer. Residents of the states filing suit are taxed twice on this -- first by their states for their legal fees, and second by the federal government for its defense. Those of us living in states who aren't signed on only get to pay for a lawsuit we disagree with once at the federal level.
Residents of these states who support this: the proper way to get the EPA to change its guidelines is to have your federal legislators introduce legislation to change those guidelines. Then, those politicians get to convince a majority of their house of the legislature to sign on, which is absolutely necessary for a change with such a huge impact as changing EPA efficiency requirements. This underhanded lawsuit crap is the same tactic that generates so much scorn for SCO, the MAFIAA and other legal trolls -- why is it now okay?
One of the purposes of the Attorney General's office is to protect the rights of the consumer. The rights of the consumer are NOT being trampled in this situation. Everybody in America has the opportunity to buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle. The government's purpose in the matter should be to establish a baseline of efficiency on which people who can afford it, and innovation by car companies, can improve.
Re:A major problem I haven't seen mentioned yet (Score:5, Interesting)
-Ted
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What you're basically saying is that, you're in favor of states' rights, except when they make it more difficult for corporations to make money.
The "problem" you cite (individual states forcing higher standards on the country as a whole) is actual
Nice idea but wrong approach. (Score:3, Insightful)
The second problem is there is *no* real solution to the emission situation unless we change the fuel source we use to power our vehicles. No solution at all. Why? Because improving emissions on vehicles results in either: A) a reduction in performance by a vehicle, which results in higher fuel consumption, which makes the majority of the changes moot. Or B) Improving fuel efficiency, which results in people driving more often because it's cheaper. Again making the majority of the changes moot.
Quite frankly, outside of a massive investment by this country on the scale of projects like the interstate system and electrifying everyone's homes, or a sudden and surprising leap forward in technology, nothing is going to change significantly for some time to come. Money spent on improving emissions in the short term would be better spent on educating the populace so they make more informed decisions/alter their habits, and serious investment in long term alternatives like Fuel Cell technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In all honesty the States should control emissions standards from power plants. All powers not expressly granted to the Feds in the constitution were relegated to the States. Of course the federal government continually oversteps its bounds here. The EPA included, in my opinion.
There is no reason for the states to be suing the feds. Also, this whole lawsuit thing is utter bullshit. Until significant effor
Re: (Score:2)
You can ban atmospheric lead all you want in your state, you will never r
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now if they tried to apply this ruling to vehicles merely crossing through their state, as opposed to those registered to drivers in that state, with state license plates, then yes, I agree that
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Logical error. The government does not pass laws that violate the commerce clause if the Supreme court says they don't. That's how our government works.
Besides, I think you need to read up on Massachusetts vs. EPA. [wikipedia.org] This suit is probably going to be very similar considering that it was over much the same thing. MS v. EPA was an attempt to force the government to pe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hate to be a killjoy, but as human beings, we expel carbon dioxide as a part of daily life. Want to rethink that?
Give the man a see-gar! (Score:2)
If you think people are major emitters, though, you should have a look at farmland.
This sucker is a freaking gold mine!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, although cow farts are great for humorous comments on the issue, it's been known for some time that cattle produce most of their greenhouse gasses (methane and CO2) from their front end. The methane mostly comes from their complex stomaches, which are marvelous digesters for plant material, but also produce significant quantities of methane as a byproduct. Their large intestines do produce methane, as do ours, but
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's about the states wanting to write those laws, and the administration saying they can't because the Feds haven't.
Re: (Score:2)
Then wouldn't it be safe to assume that this is where most of the pollution is coming from?
Re: (Score:2)
One: Unlike the Northeast, we don't have a publicly-financed high speed passenger rail system. So we have to fly.
Two: Unlike the Northeast, we don't have commuter rail systems mostly paid for by federal taxes. So we have to drive.
Three: Unlike the Northeast, we live in wide open spaces. Sometimes the next town is 100 miles away or more. So we drive further.
I could go on.
But, at least we're trying to do something, instead of sticking our heads in th
Re: (Score:2)
Something about physics - it has a truthiness to it no amount of anti-evolution anti-reality arguing will fix.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But the reason you don't hear such doom and gloom over acid rain these days is because we started regulating sulfur dioxide emissions. SO2 is actually on
I'd STILL shut off the power to New York (Score:3, Insightful)
Were that true, I would agree with you, but you don't understand the people up there. If New York wanted clean power, they could build plenty of it. The state is mountainous and windy, there's ample tidal and offshore power, and plenty of rivers and oceans to build nukes on. The Northeastern USA has plenty of places to site solar, water, wind, and nuclear, all of which have no carbon impact.
But, no one there wants any power p