Pages: 1

 

2008-01-02 19:20:13
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6978|Texas - Bigger than France
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22474944/

Basically California sues the EPA for not allowing the State to set its own standard, and others follow suit...

Facts:
California: All cars must get 36.8 mpg by 2016
EPA: All cars must get 35 mpg by 2020

So yada yada yada greenhouse effect yada yada yada.

I'm interested in a slightly different angle. 

First, California already has this standard...most states have a much lower standard.  So the EPA's law would make this a minimum level - states could always go their own way.  So sueing is the equivalent to being a big Arnold cock.  So if the EPA agrees and leaves it up to the states to decide mpg...does that mean I can drive my oil-burning Sanford & Son pickup all over Texas while you drive your lavendar Primus in San Fran?  Hoo-ha.   I think compromise is better than grabbing the headlines.  In my best David Spade voice: "Yes.  Greenhouse Effect is bad.  Hummers equals losers.  WE GET IT.  Go Fuck yourself Barbara Boxer".

Second, mpg is but one California standard.  If a concession is made...what about the others in just the EPA arena?  Does California have the right to dictate for the country?  Not that I think its bad but here's a bit of the list I'm aware of: water heaters, a/c units, roofing, insulation, refrigerators, trash, window tinting, public transportation, building materials for recycling purposes, paint, batteries, plants, etc etc etc.  Yeah, probably right, but do we want to force it as retroactive standard?  (Many new projects are more "green" everywhere else, but there's some retroactiveness to this decision).

And a precedent...as examples: the FAA bans smoking on planes but Florida decides to light up...Georgia brings back slavery...Wisconsin opens up it's own stock exchange without any rules...The FBI has no power in Texas, so if you commit a felony in Oklahoma, you won't be prosecuted if you are in Houston...what about spending tax dollars?  How about Ohio says "fuck you FEMA" and no funding goes to helping the wildfire victims in California?

Another precedent...Can't a town then do the same thing to a state?  Can little ol' Corpus Christi decide that all cars in Texas must have 50 mpg standard?  Or the reverse...a mere 12 mpg?  Can we then do the entire US?

Hello California...guess what?   Yeah, I know you got the best emissions standards, green living, etc etc etc...but there's just too many of you packed into a tiny place.  Yes, I admire the fact you want to reduce greenhouse emissions faster...but crawl down off the cross for a sec and look at the rest of the US, if you can see over the mountains to other states...assuming you can see through all that smog.  Try a compromise.

And lastly F-U Barbara Boxer.
2008-01-02 19:28:53
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6978|Texas - Bigger than France
Oh wait...here's another example...

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=88667
2008-01-02 19:31:46
=NHB=Shadow
hi
+322|6802|California
Hey Texas, can you super size for me? I need my healthy food.
2008-01-02 19:45:46
The#1Spot
Member
+105|6976|byah
you went from 1st to 3rd persons view many times.
2008-01-02 20:41:54
Chuckles
Member
+32|6984

Pug wrote:

I'm interested in a slightly different angle. 

First, California already has this standard...most states have a much lower standard.  So the EPA's law would make this a minimum level - states could always go their own way.
Which is exactly what California wants to do, it's the federal government via the EPA that is preventing the state from doing what it wants to do.

Pug wrote:

So sueing is the equivalent to being a big Arnold cock.  So if the EPA agrees and leaves it up to the states to decide mpg...does that mean I can drive my oil-burning Sanford & Son pickup all over Texas while you drive your lavendar Primus in San Fran?
Um....yes, it does in fact mean exactly that, so what could possibly be your problem?  What California wants to do is mandate that all new cars sold in their state by 2016 meet a certain minimum fuel standard.  You can set fire to barrels of gasoline in Texas and the people of California won't care.

Pug wrote:

Second, mpg is but one California standard.  If a concession is made...what about the others in just the EPA arena?  Does California have the right to dictate for the country?
No, of  course not.  They do have the right to dictate for the State of California though, which is all they are trying to do.

Pug wrote:

.....but do we want to force it as retroactive standard?  (Many new projects are more "green" everywhere else, but there's some retroactiveness to this decision).
I must have missed that.  What about this is retroactive?

Pug wrote:

And a precedent...as examples: the FAA bans smoking on planes but Florida decides to light up...Georgia brings back slavery...Wisconsin opens up it's own stock exchange without any rules...The FBI has no power in Texas, so if you commit a felony in Oklahoma, you won't be prosecuted if you are in Houston...what about spending tax dollars?  How about Ohio says "fuck you FEMA" and no funding goes to helping the wildfire victims in California?
Dogs and cats living together, it's mass hysteria.  Your examples are all counter to existing federal laws, not a tougher enforcement of federal laws like what California is trying to do.  Florida would be well within it's rights to ban smoking tobacco within it's borders.  Georgia would be well within it's rights to make Slavery punishable by the death penalty.  Wisconsin can have tougher laws regulating the exchange of securities....your other two examples are too bizarre to even rebut.

Pug wrote:

Another precedent...Can't a town then do the same thing to a state?
Yes.  I once lived in a town that banned pit bulls within their borders, but they were legal elsewhere in the state.

Pug wrote:

Can little ol' Corpus Christi decide that all cars in Texas must have 50 mpg standard?  Or the reverse...a mere 12 mpg?
"Little ol' Corpus Christi can't do much about cars sold outside it's city limits, but they could certainly mandate that all cars sold within the city limits have a 50 mpg standard.  They would  have to abide by federally mandated minimums for fuel standards (whatever they are now) and would apparently have to be at least 35 mpg by 2020.

Pug wrote:

Hello California...guess what?   Yeah, I know you got the best emissions standards, green living, etc etc etc...but there's just too many of you packed into a tiny place.  Yes, I admire the fact you want to reduce greenhouse emissions faster...but crawl down off the cross for a sec and look at the rest of the US, if you can see over the mountains to other states...assuming you can see through all that smog.  Try a compromise.
Hello Pug, guess what.  Unless you're a resident of the state of California and are just dying to purchase a new model "Sanford and Son" pickup in 2016, I'd say you should probably mind your own business.  And don't bitch about California trying to do something about air pollution and then make fun of them for their smog problem, they're tying to fix it!   By the way, what example are they supposed to see when they look at the rest of the US over the mountains and through the smog?  What is their compromise supposed to be?

Pug wrote:

And lastly F-U Barbara Boxer.
FYI, Barbara Boxer is a member of the US Senate.  She doesn't have anything to do with the laws that the state California passes.  She does have a duty to defend the rights of her state to pass laws and to oversee the EPA.
2008-01-02 20:48:58
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6927|Northern California
I was under the impression that California and 16 other states were sueing the EPA after it was already a done deal..until Dick Cheney met with automakers the hour the EPA changed their mind.  Call me a paranoid conspirator...but the EPA did change it's decision based on the meeting with Dick and the gas guzzlers club.  Now those 16 states who wanted the higher standard like California will not get it and go the slow road to cleaning the air.
2008-01-02 21:44:45
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7080

Pug wrote:

And a precedent...as examples: the FAA bans smoking on planes but Florida decides to light up...Georgia brings back slavery...Wisconsin opens up it's own stock exchange without any rules...The FBI has no power in Texas, so if you commit a felony in Oklahoma, you won't be prosecuted if you are in Houston...what about spending tax dollars?  How about Ohio says "fuck you FEMA" and no funding goes to helping the wildfire victims in California?
libertarian paradise.  ron paul supporters prefer this scenario
2008-01-02 21:58:30
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6841|North Carolina

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Pug wrote:

And a precedent...as examples: the FAA bans smoking on planes but Florida decides to light up...Georgia brings back slavery...Wisconsin opens up it's own stock exchange without any rules...The FBI has no power in Texas, so if you commit a felony in Oklahoma, you won't be prosecuted if you are in Houston...what about spending tax dollars?  How about Ohio says "fuck you FEMA" and no funding goes to helping the wildfire victims in California?
libertarian paradise.  ron paul supporters prefer this scenario
Eh...  pretty much....  On the one hand, I still prefer states' rights over heavy federal involvement, but Pug has made some good points here.

When it comes to environmental policy, however, I'm a staunch federalist.  The feds have to get involved in that, otherwise, there's not much point to having standards.
2008-01-03 09:18:45
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6978|Texas - Bigger than France
Chuckles, just trying the "rant" style for a change.  Not really my style as you can see.

In a sense, I applaud California for trying to do the right thing, but at the same time from previous experience doing business there is a drag.

Anyhow I'll clarify some stuff later...
2008-01-03 09:33:04
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7172|Salt Lake City

Just to clarify an error in the information.  It doesn't say that all vehicles must meet those mileage standards.  It's saying automakers must have their fleet averages to those levels.
2008-01-03 10:57:01
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6927|Northern California

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Just to clarify an error in the information.  It doesn't say that all vehicles must meet those mileage standards.  It's saying automakers must have their fleet averages to those levels.
Yep, and Dick Cheney promised them (probably for some sweet cash) the EPA would drop their agreement with the 16 states asking for the higher standard.  Gotta love that dick.
2008-01-03 11:08:05
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6978|Texas - Bigger than France
Ok, here's some clarification Chuckles.  Have to reference above to avoid the wall of text...

California has the right to set their own standards, but I see a larger issue here.

First, I used to work for a company supplying "California-only" versions of a product...which raised the cost of the product by about 35%.  But you couldn't get a 35% markup, only a 10% markup.  plus there's all sorts of extra taxes on employers - like ridiculous "employee training" tax for instance.  By the time your done with all the extra regulations, filings, restrictions, and taxes...well it ain't a rosy market to service. 

Since Cali is leading the charge and the rest are draggin', the options as a company are either to: a) sell a separate product to Cali at little profit, b) standardize on Cali products adding unneccessary cost to the product, c) don't sell there.  The thing is, if you want to have a large product line, one of the most important things is market share - so yes you have to design for Cali...but there's different rules depending on what state your servicing.  So by demanding a better standard, it's basically dictating the options for the rest of the nation.

Second, there's the option of setting up a shop in Cali that specifically modifies the product to the local standards.  And, from experience, I know that there's Cali-based companies that specialize in retrofitting for this purpose...which have the ear of the politicians...which then influence the legislation...etc.  Since I'm for standardization for the nation, what is then created is a little side market with different rules...sort of a legal semi-monopoly.

So that's what I mean by dictating to the rest of the nation.

The bigger point is that it's a national standard.  They are going to get their amendment...but why can't the EPA set the national standard?  It's the EPA.  Basically I contend that had the Cali political clout been more active in the lawmaking process perhaps this garbage could have been avoided.  It spills over into other areas as well, ridiculously as I pointed out...but my contention is that it should of happened UP FRONT instead of after the fact.

Or, more importantly...was it actually PLANNED?

Barbara Boxer (Dem-Senator Cali) and  Henry Waxman (Dem-Representative Cali) chair the EPA oversight committees.  So legislation of this magnitude passed and weren't able to standardized on 36.8 mpg in 2016?  Or they didn't get the Cali waiver put in?  Bullshit.  This is political grandstanding.  F-U Boxer...seriously.  What a waste of time & money.
2008-01-03 12:28:54
Protecus
Prophet of Certain Certainties
+28|6958

pug wrote:

First, I used to work for a company supplying "California-only" versions of a product...which raised the cost of the product by about 35%.  But you couldn't get a 35% markup, only a 10% markup.  plus there's all sorts of extra taxes on employers - like ridiculous "employee training" tax for instance.  By the time your done with all the extra regulations, filings, restrictions, and taxes...well it ain't a rosy market to service.
To a business person from outside of California, it may seem ridiculous, but you are used to a different set of rules for your economy. If these regulations have to go through, the Cali economy isn't picking on you; every single California business is going to have to meet it also. On a side note, do you work for a car manufacturing company? I'm not sure why this struck such a nerve.

pug wrote:

And, from experience, I know that there's Cali-based companies that specialize in retrofitting for this purpose...which have the ear of the politicians...which then influence the legislation...etc.  Since I'm for standardization for the nation, what is then created is a little side market with different rules...sort of a legal semi-monopoly.
Ha, if you think the eco-retrofit niche in the market has too much political pull, apparently you've never heard of the oil lobby. Or of the Adminstration thats been in office for the last 8 years.

pug wrote:

The bigger point is that it's a national standard.  They are going to get their amendment...but why can't the EPA set the national standard?  It's the EPA.
Normal, the EPA can be trusted to protect the environment. After all, it is the Environmental Protection Agency. Unfortunately, at least as of late, it has completely dropped the ball when it comes to actually doing its job. If California really wanted to be a progressive pain in the ass when it came to environmental standards, I'm sure there would have been many more lawsuits over the past years. It was only after the EPA (apparently with the "guidance" of Big Dick Cheney) stopped protecting the environment did California feel the need to step in.


And yes, California started the process, but as the article states, 16 other states are expected to join. So apparently its not such a crazy idea after all.
2008-01-03 14:00:45
Chuckles
Member
+32|6984

Pug wrote:

Ok, here's some clarification Chuckles.  Have to reference above to avoid the wall of text...

California has the right to set their own standards, but I see a larger issue here.

First, I used to work for a company supplying "California-only" versions of a product...which raised the cost of the product by about 35%.  But you couldn't get a 35% markup, only a 10% markup.  plus there's all sorts of extra taxes on employers - like ridiculous "employee training" tax for instance.  By the time your done with all the extra regulations, filings, restrictions, and taxes...well it ain't a rosy market to service.
Ahhh, now I see your point.  The government forces you to do business in the state under threat of public flogging, and it's more work and not as profitable.  That's too bad. 

Pug wrote:

Since Cali is leading the charge and the rest are draggin', the options as a company are either to: a) sell a separate product to Cali at little profit, b) standardize on Cali products adding unneccessary cost to the product, c) don't sell there.  The thing is, if you want to have a large product line, one of the most important things is market share - so yes you have to design for Cali...but there's different rules depending on what state your servicing.  So by demanding a better standard, it's basically dictating the options for the rest of the nation.
One would almost think that if market share were so very important perhaps the margins one receives on products sold in certain states could be a little lower, and chalked up to the cost of doing business.

Pug wrote:

Second, there's the option of setting up a shop in Cali that specifically modifies the product to the local standards.  And, from experience, I know that there's Cali-based companies that specialize in retrofitting for this purpose...which have the ear of the politicians...which then influence the legislation...etc.  Since I'm for standardization for the nation, what is then created is a little side market with different rules...sort of a legal semi-monopoly.
Gotcha.  Wait, what?  I thought we were all for the government protecting business.  Now you want to run off all these California based companies that specializing in retrofitting?  I'm just so confused!!!!

Pug wrote:

The bigger point is that it's a national standard.  They are going to get their amendment...but why can't the EPA set the national standard?  It's the EPA.  Basically I contend that had the Cali political clout been more active in the lawmaking process perhaps this garbage could have been avoided.  It spills over into other areas as well, ridiculously as I pointed out...but my contention is that it should of happened UP FRONT instead of after the fact.
Actually, it looks like they're not going to get their amendment unless their lawsuit is successful.  Sometimes people do have to sue to be able to do what they want to do.  Believe me, Detroit has just a little bit of political pull too.  I'm not sure what you mean about up front and after the fact.  And I think you're still missing the point that the EPA has set the national standard.  California would like the freedom to hold themselves to a higher standard.  Why can't California set the California standard?

Pug wrote:

Or, more importantly...was it actually PLANNED?  Barbara Boxer (Dem-Senator Cali) and  Henry Waxman (Dem-Representative Cali) chair the EPA oversight committees.  So legislation of this magnitude passed and weren't able to standardized on 36.8 mpg in 2016?  Or they didn't get the Cali waiver put in?  Bullshit.  This is political grandstanding.  F-U Boxer...seriously.  What a waste of time & money.
Again, Barbara Boxer still is not a CA state legislator.  And she and Waxman were not the chairs of the oversight committee when the legislation was passed. 

The law was passed.  California's Representatives wanted the standards to be more strict.  They were voted down, but their elected state representatives decided that California would set an example for the rest of the nation and hold themselves to the higher standards.  I guess I still don't see the problem.
2008-01-03 14:10:37
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6978|Texas - Bigger than France
For Protectus

No not cars - used to be construction components (a/c, insulation, rubber, etc).   Now a CPA, with a few clients out there.  The crap the companies have to put up with out there compared to other states is ridiculous.  So in my view, it is perpetuating a non-competitive environment...for doing business there from elsewhere or even relocating a business there.

On the oil lobby in the White House - bad analogy - it doesn't make it right does it?

I would think that if the ball actually got rolling when the CA Senator & Representative who chair the EPA oversight committe somehow "forgot" some stuff when the EPA announced it.  The political process isn't supposed to work like that...what a waste of time if its grandstanding...

If the EPA, at least of late, has completely dropped the ball when it comes to actually doing its job...isn't the oversight committee supposed to DO SOMETHING about it instead of public humiliation?

Last edited by Pug (2008-01-03 14:17:27)

2008-01-04 16:08:45
Graphic-J
The Artist formerly known as GraphicArtist-J
+196|6562|So Cal

Pug wrote:

... F-U Barbara Boxer.
...
I've been saying that since day one.
https://i44.tinypic.com/28vg66s.jpg
2008-01-05 09:48:19
Chuckles
Member
+32|6984

Pug wrote:

For Protectus

No not cars - used to be construction components (a/c, insulation, rubber, etc).   Now a CPA, with a few clients out there.  The crap the companies have to put up with out there compared to other states is ridiculous.  So in my view, it is perpetuating a non-competitive environment...for doing business there from elsewhere or even relocating a business there.

On the oil lobby in the White House - bad analogy - it doesn't make it right does it?

I would think that if the ball actually got rolling when the CA Senator & Representative who chair the EPA oversight committe somehow "forgot" some stuff when the EPA announced it.  The political process isn't supposed to work like that...what a waste of time if its grandstanding...

If the EPA, at least of late, has completely dropped the ball when it comes to actually doing its job...isn't the oversight committee supposed to DO SOMETHING about it instead of public humiliation?
First of all, the companies in California have to put up with the same "crap" that states outside the state do.  Everybody plays by the same rules.  How is that non-competitive?  It might be tough, but just because it's not easy doesn't make it non competitive.  It'd be non competitive if some people got to play by different rules.

Second, you keep contradicting yourself regarding the oversight committees.  They didn't forget anything, their state legislature passed a rule that said they wanted to hold the state to a higher standard than the rule change passed by the EPA (again, before they chaired the oversight committees).  What they don't like is the EPA sticking it's nose into California's business. 

And the EPA doesn't have feelings, so it's not going to be "humiliated".  It's a government agency.  The people who oversee it are going to investigate why this agency has a problem with a state going above and beyond the guidelines laid out by the said agency, as is their job.  Hell, the EPA should applaud California and worry about those who are doing less than what their standards are. 

Additionally, Barbara Boxer doesn't even come up for election until 2010, long after this issue will have been resolved.

Newsflash:  States sue the Federal government ALL THE TIME.  I'd wager every state in the union has a lawsuit pending or or party to some suit against the Federal government for one reason or another, from conservative bastions like Nebraska and Utah to California and Vermont.  It's what they do when they disagree.

It seems to me like you were jonesing to put up a post (as so many people here seem to do), saw this article that gave you a chance to "rant" and get a little screed in against Barbara Boxer.  Never mind that you didn't even take a minute to even try to understand the issue.  Next time you're looking to do something like this, take half a day and get your mind wrapped around the whole thing, and if you still think you need to rush to the esteemed and righteous D&ST forums on BF2s, then go ahead I guess.  But remember, there are no points for posting new threads, nobody thinks more of you.  Some might think less. 

And use the spell check feature.  It's there for a reason.
2008-01-06 05:34:28
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6978|Texas - Bigger than France
Yay, you missed the point.
2008-01-06 10:48:20
Chuckles
Member
+32|6984

Pug wrote:

Yay, you missed the point.
No no, I get it, "F-U Barbara Boxer".  They'll be talking about it in philosophy texts for generations.

Last edited by Chuckles (2008-01-06 10:48:35)

2008-01-06 13:21:12
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6978|Texas - Bigger than France
Yep.  Let's magnify the issue and waste more resources instead of being involved with the process up front.  The Cali law was already in place, but they chaired the EPA committee in 2007 when the EPA announced the change.  So let's make this a national story because its a great opportunity to gain political clout.

And second, my point is California is not business friendly, even for California businesses.  And I know from experience that some of the reasons are valid, but some of the laws are perpetuated to create an exclusive side market that only increases costs of products for those living there. 

Anxiously awaiting the next insult,

Pug

Last edited by Pug (2008-01-06 13:22:31)

2008-01-06 14:38:49
Chuckles
Member
+32|6984
So it's OK for the EPA to try to countermand a law passed by the state of California that it even more stringent than the rule the EPA is trying to enforce?  What happened to States Rights?  Under the Clean Air Act, California has the right to pass auto emissions standards that are tougher than federal ones, due to the smog difficulties you were making fun of them earlier for.  They simply need to get a waiver from the EPA when they choose to.  The EPA, since 1970 has given out such waivers 50 times, with no refusals. 

Stephen Johnson, the EPA official that denied the waiver, did so against the unanimous recommendations of the EPA's own technical and legal staffs.  Let me repeat that for you:  THE EPA HAS NEVER DENIED SUCH A WAIVER UNTIL THIS INSTANCE. And that, my friend, smacks of political grandstanding of the highest order. 

And I guess I just don't understand your fury at California's supposed anti business climate.  In a free market, if it's tough to do business somewhere then people won't do business there.  If Californians get gouged at the cash register because prices are high due to their states "anti business" environment, then they'll demand changes of their politicians. 

Finally, I still don't think you understand how oversight committees work.  The chairs of such a committee would be derelict in their duty if they didn't question an agency that had been following a procedure for 37 years and now suddenly breaks away from precedence. 

Anxiously awaiting your outrage at Mr. Johnson's political grandstanding, as I know how that kind of wastefulness sets you off,

Chuckles
2008-01-06 17:52:17
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6978|Texas - Bigger than France
Well, it looks like we are on different sides on this one then.  I'm of the belief the people should actively solve their own issues, by choosing to change their lifestyle instead of forcing companies to do it for them.  In other words, don't buy a Hummer and instead walk, don't tax businesses to help educate the workforce - tax the people, etc.  And I am aware of the extra hoops you jump through beyond fees & taxes, when compared with other states.  It's not "supposed" it's a fact.

And we ain't that far off, I'm saying if it was 36.8 by 2016, why didn't they get it instead of 2020?  I'm looking at the front end, you are looking at the back.  Doesn't matter, the EPA guy is gonna get fired anyway for attempting to do his job.

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard