An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Saving EPA
Pat Bagley, Salt Lake Tribune
opinions powered by SendLove.to
17 Responses to “Saving EPA”
The Pimp’n Chimp. How appropriate. Cut’em Nancy!
The real question is what kind of regulations will the Clinton/Obama/Edwards Administration develop and propogate to lower greenhouse gases since greenhouse gas regulations cannot be controlled at the local level using air quality control regions.
I wonder how many people rememeber that the EPA is forbidden from considering environmental impacts when developing regulations. It is Congress’s role to make the environment/economic tradeoffs.
Clinton/Obama/Edwards Administration….glad to hear your early concession. Because of your cooperation, things will go better for you now. Resistance is futile.
White Agent,
I noticed that you did not address the point about what can be expected from any future administration. If Greenhouse gases are to be regulated on the same level as SOx, CO, PM-3, NOx, there severe actions will need to be taken.
Of course, American businesses will not be the only one affected. The soccer moms in the suburbs will have to give up the SUV, the BBQ, and vacations. But of course, none of the Democratic candidates is going to be willing to say more than they support a clean environment.
superdestroyer,
I think that is a bit of a mischaracterization. No one is saying people have to give up their SUV or BBQ. What they are saying is we need tougher standards on emissions… even China has higher standards than we do. And it is not like all the poor emissions vehicles and equipment we have now would be forced off the road. There would obviously be a cut-off date, as in cars built before a certain time would not be subject to the new tougher and environmentally friendly standards. However, because of better emission standards and better mileage, people will eventually by the new, more efficient car because in the long run it will be cheaper.
> The real question is what kind of regulations
> will the Clinton/Obama/Edwards Administration
> develop and propogate to lower greenhouse gases
Indeed. Aside from any outrage by normal people to environmentalist overreach, what will these people do when facing the desperate, dying United Auto Workers and members of Congress from Michigan?
What does Michigan have to do with this DLS? You mean auto manufacturing???? LMAO my state of Alabama has more auto plants than the whole state of Michigan now, the angle your taking show be to adress NAFTA to get the auto plants moved OUT of Michigan back from Mexico.
SD,
Blatantly untrue. The Clean Air Act expressly gives the EPA the ability to regulate many aspects of what would fall under any normal use definition of ‘environmental impact’. I would say these include, but probably aren’t limited to:
“Air quality”
“Ozone protection”
“injury to agricultural crops and livestock, damage to and the deterioration of property…”
“to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population”
kevin,
That has a mistake. I meant to write, economic impacts when considering environmental regulations. In other words, if a new regulations puts people out of work is of no concern to the EPA. The belief is that people can always get another job or industries can evolve. So yes, if you are a manufacturer of anything in the United States that admits greenhouse gases now is the time to start looking for a country where you can relocate your facility.
The problem is that the economic impacts are being massively undersold. John Edwards believes he can create one million jobs (such a round numbers means that his staff just pulled it out of their ass) while not killing any jobs.
ahh, ok.. sorry if I’m a bit jumpy.
I agree that if you don’t deal with this problem globally, you are creating local imbalances that can cause economics to go wonky. I wish there were some sort of Protocol for this type of thing or something…. =)
> What does Michigan have to do with this DLS?
How are auto emissions reduced? In large part (which so many know) by demanding higher fuel efficiency standards so less fuel is burned in the first place. It’s obviously not only an insistence on burning fuel more thoroughly (cleanly).
> my state of Alabama has more auto plants than the whole state of Michigan now
And less union costs that are crippling Michigan, to which redesign and increased vehicle costs would be added to make vehicles more fuel-efficient. I’m fully aware of the auto industry from Greenville around to Alabama and into Tennessee.
>John Edwards believes he can create one million job
>s (such a round numbers means that his staff just
> pulled it out of their ass) while not killing any jobs.
Edwards is also the guy who says he is pursuing federal health care even if he knows it will increase the federal deficit. Economic issues are not Edwards’s strong point. (Smiling and looking good apparently is.)
“what will these people do when facing the desperate, dying United Auto Workers and members of Congress from Michigan?”
Wow, thats the kind of thinking thats leading GM and Ford down the tubes. More efficient cars will be huge sellers. Toyota and Honda are doing great business with hybrids while GM sales are lagging and they still have the lions share of their marketing budget pushing Hummers while gas is $3 a gallon. They can sit there and blame it all on unions and healthcare costs when the reality is they’ve needed some innovation and better quality in their products for some time now.
There was an article on GM where an exec was saying they don’t make money on regular cars, just the high end and SUV’s. If you are a car company and can’t make money on cars you need to figure something out or get out of the business.
It was written:
> Wow, thats the kind of thinking thats
> leading GM and Ford down the tubes.
No, it is a question based on an accurate observation.
The UAW has been part of the problem, with unsustainable employee and retiree costs. The auto industry in the South is doing well.
> More efficient cars will be huge sellers. [...]
It will take time for the new line to get through, and it’s not only efficiency that matters but more attractiveness of the product as well as improvements still to the Big 3′s reputation for quality. “Build better products” (which is what the UAW says but also what auto buyers say) is the key, and is not restricted to efficiency, but extends to design, appeal, the rest.
Some innovation is in order, too — such as offering already existing good products that aren’t in the USA. Many people following the auto industry resent that there are some attractive vehicles that are available in other nations (many of which are efficient, by the way) produced by Ford and GM, but are not offered for sale here.
>There was an article on GM where an exec was saying
> they don’t make money on regular cars, just the high
> end and SUV’s.
The cost structure is one reason why, along with lower desireability of GM and Ford versus imports for cars.
> If you are a car company and can’t make money
> on cars you need to figure something out or get
> out of the business.
Ford and GM are heading out of business if they don’t seriously reduce costs (beginning with the end of the JOBS bank and lowering employee costs) as well as offer better products. (Why they don’t act more quickly to test-offer some foreign-market vehicles here is another matter.)
Good luck to Kerkorian or whoever else finally buys Chrysler (which Daimler is dumping). It will be interesting where the offices will be and where the production will be.
superdestroyer- American business? American business is become more irrelevant everyday in light of Red China, the corporate magnet sucking the life out of America. Republicans never could resist a quick buck. Forget it bub, ethanol is NOT your political savior. As if.
We should be leading the world with new technology to solve our carbon emissions problems, yet we deny the problem exists, and insist that the planet is just going through the changes it has been going through since the Ice Age. Our president has shackled the EPA and forbidden government scientists to agree with the concensus of the scientific community worldwide. We elect people to power like Tom Delay, who went into politics because his favorite pesticide was banned by EPA, so he set out to abolish it, along with the Dept of Education and the National Endowment for the Arts.
That is why I cannot vote for another Republican politician all they seem to care about is deregulating business, defending Israel, unlimited access to oil drilling, and giving huge contracts to defense contractors for weapons systems that we may never use.