Bush Administration Squelches State Action on Automobile Emissions

Bush stops states from action on emissionsThe Bush administration has denied approval for California's plans to establish stricter vehicle emissions standards [ark | more2ark2 | search ] than federal law to fight climate change. Apparently President Bush and oil oligarchy pals are not satifisfied with scuttling international cooperative measures, and doing next to nothing federally, now they are stopping states from leading on the greatest crisis ever. The announcement was made just after modest, far-off increases in automobile efficiency were signed into law [ark] — national automobile fuel economy standards [search] are to be raised by 40 percent to 35 miles a gallon in 2020.

Thus the U.S. is to take 13 years to do what other nations and its own states are trying to do now. It is worse to stop others from acting than to do next to nothing yourself. It is difficult to capture in words the stupidity of this President, and as climate and ecosystems fail and the time of great suffering sets in, he and automobile and oil companies will be reviled. At least Bush, Cheney and Condi will be warm where they are going to spend all eternity.

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. Six million people to 6 billion people! That looks to me like unbridled, near exponential growth of absolute human numbers worldwide our the past several thousand years, with most of that growth occurring very recently. If we go from 6 billion people to 9 billion by 2050, as is projected by the UN Population Division, and people continue to conspicuously consume Earth's finite resources as we are ravenously doing now, what will be left to sustain the life as we know it for our children and their children, let alone coming generations?
    Are our current leaders missing something vital for future of life, human wellbeing and environmental health?
    Perhaps someone can take a moment to explain how a great democracy of 300 million good people becomes perverted by a tiny, selfish confederacy of wealthy and politically powerful dunces?
    Steven Earl Salmony
    AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population

  2. R. Gates says:

    Very simply: People get lazy and complacent in the consumer induced sleepwalking mode. As long as the shelves at Walmart are fully stocked and the have heat and electricity, people are happy, and worst of all, TRUST POLITICIANs TO DO THE RIGHT THING. But we know that politicians answer to those who gave them campaign contributions, which are of course, the oil and gas companies and the big military defense oontractors…the rest, falls into placc. Greed and corruption rule the capitalist roost…

  3. David B. Benson says:

    Given the precidents, this may well be actionable. I do hope that the State of California tries.

  4. ewoc says:

    In all likelihood, California and the other state plaintiffs will win this case when they litigate the EPA's decision. The law, science, and now the Supreme Court are all on their side.
    But that is not the point – the Bush Administration is trying to “run out the clock” so that any regulatory actions are delayed until well after next year's election. It's been a calculated strategy that, one must imagine, was shared with the lobbyists and representatives of the auto majors (a.k.a. soon to be auto dinosaurs, any Chinese govt entity interested in buying Ford? Bet the price will be cheap! They just bought part of Morgan Stanley) years ago.
    When the history of this period is written (if anyone is there to read it) we can hope that the Shrub is portrayed for the calculating, shrewd toady that he is. Or at least the figurehead who willingly handed over the keys to the kingdom to the very powers whose greed and arrogance and ignorance will seal the fate of our species.

  5. M says:

    I am just learning about the enviornment and all the change that needs to be done. I took an amazing quiz about it that I think all your readers should know about and take. It is important to get people not just to care but actually want change. The quiz is at: http://www.mystudiyo.com/activity.php?act=526

  6. Adeimantus says:

    I wonder if Steve Salmony thinks the world should adopt a 'one child only' policy like China? Or indeed, since even in China there are a million more births than deaths each week, perhaps a 'no child policy'? And does he think that a remotely workable proposition?

  7. Dr. Glen Barry says:

    I am not sure what Steve thinks, but I absolutely think we need a one/two child policy. This would use strong tax incentives and preferential access to education and other services to promote 0, 1 and 2 children families. The fewer children, the more the benefits.

  8. Adeimantus says:

    How come the IPCC are not pushing the one/two child policy, since it seems to me that if the population is to rise at current trends, any possible short-term 'gains' by restricting CO2 emissions would be wiped out (and then some) by population increase?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.