PDA

View Full Version : California speads it's wings



RCSignals
08-21-2005, 03:50 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9032645/

For Oregon, this mostly about spreading the beaurocracy od the OR DEQ vehicle emissions testing program.

I wonder what common thread WA, OR, and the NE states considering adopting the same regulations share?


West Coast states unite on cleaner car rules
Oregon, Washington set to adopt California’s vehicle emission standards
GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE
Eric Risberg / AP


http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050821/050821_california_air_vmed.wid ec.jpg
Under the federal Clean Air Act, California is allowed to set pollution standards for cars and trucks that are more stringent than federal standards. Other states can choose either California's standards or the looser federal rules.




SALEM, Ore. - Despite an effort by auto industry lobbyists to kill the move, two Pacific Northwest States — Oregon and Washington — are getting ready to adopt California’s new vehicle emission standards to reduce greenhouse gases.

When that happens, California’s newly implemented emissions standards — the toughest in the country — will be in effect along the entire West Coast from Canada to Mexico.

By 2016, all new cars, SUVs and light trucks sold in the West Coast states would have to comply with the tougher standards on emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, which are believed to be a leading cause of global warming. The 2016 date was set to give automakers plenty of time to comply with the new standards.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

At least six states in the Northeast are also moving to adopt California’s new tailpipe standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars.

It’s an environmental squeeze play — with states on the two coasts working to try to force the auto industry to turn out cleaner, more fuel efficient cars, since those states comprise nearly a third of the U.S. car market.

“People realize that having more advanced-technology cars on the road will enhance our oil security and begin to address global warming issues,” says Rob Sargent of the Boston-based National Association of State Public Interest Research Groups.

Under the federal Clean Air Act, California is allowed to set pollution standards for cars and trucks that are more stringent than federal standards. Other states can choose either California’s standards or the looser federal rules.

Most northeastern states have followed California vehicle emission rules for years, and now those states are making the change to reflect California’s latest rules regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.

While the movement has gained little traction in the Midwest and the South to date, it’s gotten a huge boost with the three West Coast states unifying around the tough new California standards.

Sargent said other states, such as Pennsylvania, Illinois and North Carolina, also are starting to look at moving to the new California standards.

“Despite what the Bush folks say, more people are realizing that global warming is a problem that we need to begin to address,” he said.

Climatologists have warned that if allowed to continue, rising temperatures caused by driving and other human activities will cause melting glaciers, rising sea levels and weather changes.

California lawmakers in 2002 directed the California Air Resources Board to develop rules to reduce vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases, a task the board completed last September. The regulations will be phased in starting in 2009, with all new cars, SUVS and light trucks required to be in full compliance by 2016.

The auto industry is suing California over its new standards, saying the state lacks authority to implement such regulations and that the rules would eventually add $3,000 to the cost of a new car.

“Consumers ought to be able to make the choices of options they want on their vehicle, and not have those choices made for them,” says Eron Shosteck of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a Washington, D.C.-based auto industry group.

Besides, Shosteck said, automakers have made strides in producing more fuel-efficient vehicles, including a growing number of gas-electric hybrids.

This year, the auto industry has fought to try to prevent the entire West Coast from becoming what environmentalists call a “clean car corridor.”

Washington state lawmakers voted to bring the strict California car-emissions standards to their state. However, as part of a compromise, lawmakers made their bill contingent on Oregon adopting the same standards. Both states’ regulations would take full effect in 2016.

Seeing an opportunity to kill the regulations in both states, auto industry lobbyists persuaded Oregon legislators to insert language into a state environmental agency budget forbidding the state from spending money to adopt or enforce California-style emission rules.

But Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski, who has aligned himself with environmentalists in the past, says he will use his veto authority to delete that provision from the budget.

That will clear the way for the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission to adopt the new tailpipe emission rules for Oregon by the end of the year, Kulongoski said.

The stiffer requirements would mean new cars sold in the state would have to emit 30 percent less carbon dioxide, 20 percent fewer toxic pollutants and up to 20 percent fewer smog-causing pollutants than the established federal standards.

Kulongoski, a Democrat, said Oregon and the other states need to act because the Bush administration has failed to take steps to curtail global warming.

“If the federal government doesn’t want to move forward on global warming, then the states are going to have to do it,” the governor said in an interview.

Besides the three West Coast states that are moving to adopt the new emission standards, six Northeast states are expected to finalize rules by the end of this year — New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine, according to Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, an association of state air quality officials from the region.

A seventh state, Rhode Island, is considering whether to adopt the new California rules or revert to less restrictive federal standards, the group said.
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

rocknrod
08-21-2005, 03:56 PM
Why is Russia's Putin Refusing to Sign the Global Warming Treaty?

http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2003/oct_2_03.htm



questioning the validity of Kyoto and the whole global warming theory. Two researchers from the Russian Academy of Sciences, Drs. V.S. Bashkirtsev and G. P. Mashnich, recently published a skeptical article in the journal Geomagnetism and Aeronomy. The Russian scientists say they see no evidence of man-made global warming.
The two Russians first note the 95 percent correlation between the length of the sunspot cycle and the surface air temperature of the Northern Hemisphere for the 128 years between 1861 and 1989. Secondly, they point to a 97 percent correlation between the average energy level of the solar cycle and the surface air temperatures in Russia averaged over the solar cycle. These two findings, they contend, mean the warming has been due to the sun, and "leave little room for the anthropogenic impact on the earth's climate."

They point out that solar variations explain a natural origin of the slight global cooling observed between 1950 and 1970. The global warming theory can't account for it. There were lots of greenhouse gas emissions during these years and the greenhouse theory says these emissions should have "forced" temperatures higher.

The Russians say. . . "The decrease in solar activity in cycle 20 is accompanied by the temperature fall [from 1950-1970] and the subsequent growth of solar activity in cycles 21 and 22 entails the temperature rise [of the past 25 years]."

Now THAT makes sence !

RCSignals
08-21-2005, 04:09 PM
I agree rocknrod. The Russian view is supported by other scientific findings as well, usually all quitely ignored.

I no longer have the link to the story, but one of the biggest proponents of the 'global warming' theory admitted that a single tree emits more unburned hydrocarbons and other 'polutants' than any automobile, but said words to the effect 'we can't control trees'

STLR FN
08-21-2005, 05:57 PM
I guess in the land of fruits and nuts common sense goes out the window...

I too have read that global warming is also atributed to nature's cyclical actions.

grzellmer
08-21-2005, 06:56 PM
Some basic logic is also missed. Lets say that today there are 3 times as many cars on the road as there were in 1970. But todays car puts out 10% (or less) of the pollution a 1970 model did. So, net pollution is about 30% of the 1970 level, right? (Never mind average miles per gallon is twice what it was in 1970)

2004 models reduced nitrogen by 77% more. SO 2004 and newer models will net 6.9% (77% of 30) of the 1970 total.

It would seem the West and East coasters are now spending thousands per car to save a few net 10ths of a percentage point. Thats OK, the rest of the country (or China) will be happy to take their jobs when the business environment becomes completely unbearable.

This is nothing more than "feel good" legislation.

Read the info for yourself at: "http://www.epa.gov/newengland/pr/2001/jun/010612.html"

Z

texascorvette
08-21-2005, 08:04 PM
When you take dozens of reasonably intelligent and well-intentioned people out of their normal environment and put them in the legislature, they all develop group stupidity. As a group they vote for and do things that they'd never put up with as individuals. Who knows knows why they all undergo that metamorphosis.

rayjay
08-22-2005, 07:23 AM
A few years ago the EPA setup a air pollution monitor in downtown Syracuse, NY. They detected high pollution readings at that one intersection on several dates. The net effect was that all the counties in the Syracuse metro area had to switch to oxygenated gas which is not as efficient as normal gas. It also reaked havoc on 2 cycle engines, ie: snowmobiles. The monitor had been setup at a intersection that was under a double bridge of I81... :shake:

DeepSea117
08-23-2005, 01:40 PM
From what I heard also, the amount of animals byproducts (****), especially with the number of birds in the polar regions, contribute a lot more to global warming than people take into account. You've seen those crap-encrusted rocks from seagulls! :puke:

If you think about all the cows burping and flatulating in one given area, like near the town of Coalinga off the I-5. With the amount of road apples and methane in such concentration, that can't be TOO good for global warming.

mcb26
08-23-2005, 02:16 PM
If you think about all the cows burping and flatulating in one given area, like near the town of Coalinga off the I-5. With the amount of road apples and methane in such concentration, that can't be TOO good for global warming.

Sounds like a good excuse to grill out a T-bone. :beer:

RCSignals
08-29-2005, 09:50 PM
As I indicated before it is about expanding Oregon DEQ across the State.
IOt's also political, the governor having stated he's doing it because 'the bush administration' hasn't implemented stronger regulations.

As pointed out in another post above, the question of 'tougher regulations' iis really all smoke and mirrors.



August 29, 2005

Governor Kulongoski moves ahead on auto emission limits

http://www.katu.com/news/images/stock2003/governor_kulongoski.jpg


SALEM, Ore. - Gov. Ted Kulongoski moved ahead Monday with plans to have Oregon adopt tougher state auto emission standards, a step that will give the three West Coast states the strongest restrictions in the nation.

The governor announced the members of a panel that will plan for Oregon to implement stricter tailpipe emission standards in an effort to reduce global warming. He also directed the state Department of Environmental Quality to prepare to adopt regulations.

Lawmakers sought to thwart the governor's plan by adding language to the DEQ's budget bill to prohibit the agency from spending money to adopt or enforce California-style auto pollution rules.

Kulongoski says he will use his veto authority to delete that provision.

The stiffer requirements would mean new cars sold in the state would have to emit 30 percent less carbon dioxide, 20 percent fewer toxic pollutants and up to 20 percent fewer smog-causing pollutants than the established federal standards.

The Democratic governor announced earlier this year that he wants the state adopt the tougher California-type emission standards. Washington state has approved the stricter rules, which take effect once Oregon follows suit.

The new rules would mean by 2016, all new cars, SUVs and light trucks sold in the West Coast states would have to comply with the tougher standards.

Kulongoksi also was to appoint a work group to develop a carbon dioxide reduction schedule for utilities and other large emitters of carbon dioxide. That was recommended in April by a global warming task force he had created, along with the suggested auto emission reduction rules.

(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Al Goguen
08-30-2005, 04:35 AM
Okay, here is an idea! Tell those States, that :lol: we (the manufacturers)
aren't gonna change our standards and just won't sell cars to those
States....See how fast the people there start dumping their polititions...LOL