I found three article revelant to emission standards. These articles are:
1. Obama Affirms Climate Change Goals (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/us/politics/19climate.html?ref=politics)
2. Obama to order review of state's emissions bid (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/25/MNMF15GTPU.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1)
3. Text of President Barack Obama's inaugural address (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090120/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_obama_text)
My take on this issue is as follows:
In November 2008(1), before Barack Obama became president of the United States of America, he spoke to governors and foreign officials about his intention of pursuing the target on reducing emission that cause green house effect and global warming; “Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all….Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response (1).”
He emphasized this in his inaugural speech by stating:
“With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet (3)”.
So what does this mean? During the presidential campaign Obama was quoted as wanting to reduce climate altering carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by 2050, and invest $150 billion in new energy-saving technologies. Some industry leaders and members of Congress criticized this climate proposal for this climate proposal would impose too great a cost on an already-stressed economy (1) .
Obama’s White House (2) is living up to the campaign promise, and is letting the States to be sovereign and also responsible for cost-implications. Obama will order the Environmental Protection Agency to allow states lead by California, to impose tough vehicle emission standards. This move will break the Bush’s administration policy regarding State’s sovereignty and environmental policy, which rejected California’s request to enforce limiting greenhouse gases from cars and trucks. Obama’s order will only require EPA to consider the States’ request, but it is expected that the request will be approved.
What may be the implications of this move?
This analysis is not to be seen a criticism or endorsement of the move. However, we must understand the implications (2).
If EPA reviews and signs the waiver decision for California and the 18 other states that would trigger the green light to address global warming pollution from motor vehicles, this will determine that the Detroit vehicle market has to change, thus required to produce the cleanest, most efficient vehicles possible. These auto industries oppose California’s rules and have lobbied Congress for a single national standard.
If California's rule is enforced, this may imply the requirement that vehicles reduce their greenhouse gases by 30 percent by 2016. The transportation sector, because it is the single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the state, at about 38 percent of total emissions, would be the most affected. The state's rules require automakers to meet a fleetwide average of 36 miles per gallon by 2016. Obama's directive is also expected to force the Transportation Department to complete interim fuel economy standards to implement the 2007 law.
The Introduction
12 years ago
Thanks for your thoughtful analysis, Maria. I'll be interested in seeing what your peers think about this issue too.
ReplyDelete-Elizabeth
Your take is an important one, and the climate change phenomenon is one of the most important issues that face us, probably more so for reasons that are not as popularly advertised.
ReplyDeleteThe connection of climate change to tailpipe emissions is also a popular one, but the science is unclear as to the valid of any significant impact.
Science is very clear that climate change is occurring however human knowledge of climatic patterns is relatively unproven and it is very difficult to associate any alteration in the atmospheric chemistry directly to anthropogenic factors.
Granted if you balance certain equations the products yield does indicate it to be valid, but the conflict exists in volume of atmospheric gas present along with the nature cycles that occur.
I’m saying all of this because in a time of economic hardship it is very difficult to require any mitigation, reduction, or otherwise cost prohibitive policy even if the long-term benefits are clear.
I applaud President Obama for taking such swift action on this issue, and living up to his campaign promise, which hopefully is a sign of things to come.
I am in full support of the delegation to the State on this issue, as well as the spirit of the order however some states may proceed with caution on this.
I also hope that the EPA can successfully have CO2 listed as a criteria pollutant under the CAA.
I agree with Rick - I also totally support this move by President Obama. Any impact that this issue could have on employment (particularly in Detroit, in this case) is a scary possibility, but I think that the lack of attention to the need for an energy efficient, consumer-friendly fleet of vehicles on the market could be even more harmful in the long run.
ReplyDeleteA phenomenon that is especially apparent in the Phoenix-metro area is the broad expansion of the city geographically. In the face of this reality, most people need to travel long distances for work, school, and other regular tasks. Allowing states such as Arizona, California, etc to set their own emissions and gas mileage limits can help spark the auto industry to find new and innovative ways to produce efficient options. I sincerely hope that President Obama is able to follow through on his policy commitments, as this will pave the way for a trend of green industries outside of the automotive sphere as well!
Hi Maria, our posts are on the same topic. I think that Obama's actions on Monday could prove to be one of the most important first steps in policy towards curbing GHG emissions. His directives could lead to the EPA regulating carbon, and finally acknowledge it as harmful to the environment. My only concern is how this will play out. I think that if related policy making fails, if the EPA fails in some fashion, it could potentially close the door effective GHG regulation. The next step: Methane regulating methane!
ReplyDelete