Comments
... how changes in surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level are largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are completely stopped.
If, for a moment, we assume this report to be completely factual, we are left with 2 possible courses of action ..

1) spend the wealth of nations to roll it back the tiniest fraction
2) put the proverbial gun to our collective heads and “party like is 1999.”

… any possible 3rd way is wasteful

Effectively, the Earth is relegated to "hospice care".
"You matter because of who you are. You matter to the last moment of your life, and we will do all we can , not only to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die". —Dame Cicely Saunders
... it’s option #2



Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Well, it isn’t like you can just ban gold or lock up Japanese Americans via EO, so why worry?

Written By: Don
URL: http://
As I pointed out a few days ago, one of the things about an Executive Order is that it can be fairly easily reversed. Gives him some wiggle room.

Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
I might have some sympathy about the costs of government mandates on emission and fuel efficiency save for the fact that the Japanese have managed to meet those mandates and still make a handsome profit.

Yes, I am aware of the libertarian edict that says the government should stay out of the way of businesses. I argee with that. But don’t use the edictby incorrectly stating that US automakers are suffereing from the cost of mandates, when their competitors are able to make do.

Written By: Mike
URL: http://
I think it would be a hoot if the automakers simply refused to build cars conforming to the new mandates. It’d be interesting to see what the California legislature would do when a bunch of dealerships spring up just over the border in Nevada and Oregon.

Written By: prsTM
URL: http://
But don’t use the edictby incorrectly stating that US automakers are suffereing from the cost of mandates, when their competitors are able to make do.
The competition has been able to do so by previously developing that technology in the closed market of Japan.



Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I think this sets an interesting precedent. For better or for worse (and I agree that in this case, it’s definitely worse), Obama appears to be taking the side that the 10th Amendment applies here. I could see some interesting complaints/lawsuits/other later about policies X, Y & Z that say that the same thing should be done.

Written By: Nathan Mates
URL: http://
As a practical matter, the EO simply hastens what was already a foregone conclusion: California and the other states had already filed lawsuits to compel the EPA to reassess its waiver decision, and given Massachusetts v. EPA, which requires the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, they were going to win.

The underlying problem is the Clean Air Act. At the time it was being considered critics warned that its terms were so ridiculously broad as to encompass virtually any airborne substance imaginable, regardless of whether normal people would actually consider it a pollutant. Proponents of the bill scoffed, and swore that the Act would never be used that way. The proponents won the argument; freedom lost.


Written By: BC
URL: http://
Nathan, this has nothing to do with the Tenth Amendment and everything to do with the secular church of environmentalism. Obama couldn’t give the slightest crap about states’ rights.

Written By: BC
URL: http://
I might have some sympathy about the costs of government mandates on emission and fuel efficiency save for the fact that the Japanese have managed to meet those mandates and still make a handsome profit.
I don’t see how you can make that claim when those regulations aren’t in effect yet.

In fact, the Japanese have been right there in Washington with the Domestics and the Germans fighting these nutty mandates that have been coming down.

Actually these mandates enhance what was already put in place a few years ago. Those mandates pretty much will mean you’ll drive a hybrid at a $5000+ premium or a stripped down tin can on wheels. Basically any ’fun’ to a car will be completely sucked out unless you have money to blow. And when a car become a completely utilitarian experience, there’s no rush for a replacement.

Add to that this isn’t like the late 70’s where Carter implemented a series of regulations that fit existing Japanese cars almost like a glove. They will have to redo their lineup with about the same effort the domestic makers will need this time. They are not happy.

As for Toyota making a profit, they currently have about as much capital on hand as Ford and are concerned because they are burning through it.

Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
I seem to remember that California had differing standards back in the 70s/80s time frame, with the result that cars were manufactured separately for the California market.
Whether the automakers would want to do that under today’s circumstances is of course a different matter.
The core problem is not that Obama is directing the EPA to do something that Congress has legislated to be in the EPA’s power. He’s not grabbing power, he’s simply using power Congress willingly gave the Executive branch some time ago. The core problem is that Congress granted that power to the Executive Branch.

Written By: kishnevi
URL: http://kishnevi.wordpress.com
"...bunch of dealerships spring up just over the border in Nevada and Oregon." CA residents will not be able to register these cars in CA.

Written By: The Old Man
URL: http://
I think this sets an interesting precedent. For better or for worse (and I agree that in this case, it’s definitely worse), Obama appears to be taking the side that the 10th Amendment applies here. I could see some interesting complaints/lawsuits/other later about policies X, Y & Z that say that the same thing should be done.
I’m far from a legal expert, but it seems like the automakers could use that old libertarian bane of Wickard v. Filburn as precedent in their favor on this one, since California’s regulations would affect car prices in other parts of the country.

Written By: Joe R.
URL: http://leninvsmussolini.blogspot.com
Of course we’re right in the middle of bailing out our automakers.
A friend I called last night said this to me about The Clown™ and his EO: it is brilliant.

How, I said.

Because...now The Clown™ has foisted rules on the car makers to make their bottom line all the more precarious.

Isn’t that bad for the economy he wants to improve?

Yes and no. It hurts in the long run, because more people will ulimately lose their jobs. But in the short run, it helps President Numbnuts because now, when GM and Chrysler and Ford go to him for more bailout money, he can say, "Sure! I just f____ed you with my left hand, and now I am going to help you with my right hand." And he will get another $150 billion or so for them.

And it keeps his and the gubmint’s hooks in the car makers for a longer stretch.

My friend is right: it is brilliant, I have to admit. But, in reality, it is stupid. Because it will, as I said, in the long run hurt the car makers.

But, alas, The Clown™ doesn’t care about the long run. He wants to make sure he does what he can to get re-elected in 2012. If that happens, so what if Ford and GM and Chrysler all go belly-up? The Clown™ can either blame it on Bush or whoever succeeds him in 2017.

That is why this whole nightmare has me spooked about America. Because it is like being on the Titanic as it is slowly sinking, and we run to the captain’s quarters and find that Howdy Doody is in charge, and he has not one iota of a plan to get us out of this. But he is packing his crap so that HE survives.

Written By: James Marsden
URL: http://
The competition has been able to do so by previously developing that technology in the closed market of Japan.
Fine. So why haven’t US car manufactures not been able to develope similar technology? It is not like the US doesn’t have smart engineers.

Hey, I am as strong a supporter as anyone of the concept of keeping government out of business. But to blame (even partially) the troubles of US car companies on the mandates on fuel effeciency does not pass the smell test.

US car companies bet heavily on low gas prices and lost. Sucks to be them. Thye will either make cars people want to drive or they will go out of business. If the governmetn allows them to fail.

Written By: Mike
URL: http://
So why haven’t US car manufactures not been able to develope similar technology?
Because there’s been no market demand (other than the blip when gas prices skyrocketed) for such technology (given the price of gas).

Consequently, any "demand" for such technology has been driven only by government. It adds cost per unit without there being a market demand to pay for it.

They didn’t "bet heavily" on low gas prices - low gas prices were a reality. And, other than the spike, they still are. So they have been making cars people want to drive. This upcoming mandate has absolutely zip to do with that. This is all about a political agenda, not a market driven agenda.

Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools: Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment: