BS: EPA, States Rights etc.

Subject: RE: BS: EPA, States Rights etc.
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Dec 07 - 02:13 PM

When we dump the Bush administration I hope the first act of the new Democratic president is to adopt California's environmental laws across the board. Stop all of this pussy-footing around. The current EPA has been eviscerated by the Bush administration. Something must be done to make up for the lost ground. I live in Texas, where there will be a lot of pain if they ever have to really pay attention to the environment. It has been a long time coming.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: EPA, States Rights etc.
From: Greg B
Date: 25 Dec 07 - 02:11 PM

Having lived in Kalifornia, I can say that it's stupid to have one
emission standard for the rest of the states and another for
California.

Like regulation of air traffic, and telecommunications, regulation
of the air which circulates around everyone is a Federal prerogative.

Californians have for years had to pay extra for a CA emission
certified cars. I don't know if it's still so, but it used to
be if you moved to California and brought your car from another
state, and it wasn't one that had the special CA certification (often
just a paper difference), you had to pay a several hundred dollar
'penalty' when first registering it.

There will always be Federal standards; to add yet another layer
is absurd.

What's worse is that California has such a large population that
letting them make a separate 'peace' as regards emissions removes
a big bloc of voter pressure to do things correctly at the Federal
level--- which is where such things really need to happen.

It's bad enough that things like drivers licenses run state-by-state
thus leading to a fragmented system. To regulate air quality standards
in a checkerboard fashion is just nuts.

Subject: RE: BS: EPA, States Rights etc.
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Dec 07 - 01:19 PM

Well, Dick, expecting anything like rationality, consistency, or even sentience from the current administration is a fool's errand.

No point in trying to understand the "logic" or motivation of a lunatic.

You're just gonna hurt your head.

Subject: RE: BS: EPA, States Rights etc.
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Dec 07 - 11:43 AM

Normal, Dick...

Bush will say anything but not back it up with actual policies...

I have two good musican friends who work for EPA... Both are real close to retirement but they are both disgusted with the people that Bush has appointed to various jobs within the an agency whose main purpose to to protect, ahhhh, the envirnoment...

But one thing that is promising is that even the Republican packed (7-2) Supreme Court has indictated that it will force the Bush administration to enforce the laws regarding carbon emissions and it's looking more and more like several states may join in a suit against the flat-earthers and corportists to have the right to enforce their own laws...

Funny how things change... Used to be that the racists used "sates rights" to keep the Feds at bay on civil rights and now it seems to be the progressives who are using "states rights" to further progressive causes???

Strange world, ain't it, Dick???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: EPA, States Rights etc.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Dec 07 - 11:11 AM

The automakers are behind it, and there is some logic to their reasoning - even if it is twisted in their favor. Should the controls be regulated nationally or locally? If we have 50 states with 50 sets of standards, requiring manufacturing of different products to meet the individual standards, wouldn't that drive up prices and have a negative effect on the consumer and business?

Of course the logical answer is to produce cars that will pass ALL pollution controls, but that would require logic and it is something that is very rare for big business and big government.

Subject: BS: EPA, States Rights etc.
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 25 Dec 07 - 10:59 AM

I'm a bit surprised that nobody has commented on the EPA's decision to block more-stringent pollution controls by individual states. Seems that the Administration is doing a 180 on reducing Federal Government control. Or do I read it wrong?