When push comes to guv

Ahhhnold and friends tell the folks on the Hill to get with it

Posted by Kate Sheppard at 12:11 PM on 13 Jun 2007

Ahhhnold is calling out the U.S. government for being a bunch of girly men and women on climate change. On Monday, he teamed up with Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell, a fellow Republican, to chastise the folks on the Hill for "inaction and denial" on climate change in an open letter published in the Washington Post. Not only have they failed to take major federal action, they've also tried to thwart actions by progressive states like California and Connecticut, the governors said.

"It's bad enough that the federal government has yet to take the threat of global warming seriously," wrote the guvs, "but it borders on malfeasance for it to block the efforts of states such as California and Connecticut that are trying to protect the public's health and welfare."

They also called out the Bush administration for their milquetoast climate statements issued last week, which would give them until the end of 2008 to continue studying what they might sometime do about greenhouse gas emissions. It's a total cop-out, say the governors, since that's pretty much the end of Bush's term in office, and it really doesn't mean they have to do anything. Plus, that puts us another year behind on curbing emissions and slowing climate change.

"California, Connecticut and a host of like-minded states are proving that you can protect the environment and the economy simultaneously," the letter continues. "It's high time the federal government becomes our partner or gets out of the way."

For story: When push comes to guv
4 Comments | Post a Comment

ya think?

...borders on malfeasance?

by Flamingo at 12:31 PM on 13 Jun 2007

California Regs, Good and Bad

AS you may know, California ARB started making air quality reguations in about 1965 and many became a model for many EPA rules and the 1970 Clean Air Act. The ARB and interestingly, Pennsylvannia rules were then adopted in Texas (see, we're not all that backwards!). California was a model for new innovative regulations and for decades it worked.

But along the way California started adoped regulations for private fleets of mobile sources, such as trucks, port loading equipment, garbage trucks, buses, ships, locomotives, employee vehicles, and all kinds of things like ZEV (zero emissions vehicles). I mean they went freaking nuts. Their emission inventories went to heck worse and worse as more regulations were written. No other state desired to intrude upon private mobile sources as much as California and they're basically on their own in that regard.

A former mid-level chief at ARB exolained it to me. "It is just a crap-shoot and you have to maintain records for your fleet and the ARB will never audit you anyway unless something else comes up." Whaaaaaaat?

Folks, I am all for making the manufacturers of new mobile source equipment meet stringent emission standards but as a business owner, I don't want to have to jack with all that jive. If I want a 1965 bulldozer I should be able to have it as a matter of constitutional rights. If I want a clean new bulldozer meeting TIER 4 standards, well that's my right too.

Something bad happened on the way to the forum and California ARB really doesn't seem to be a leader anymore. They keep getting whacked by federal lawsuits and losing. Businesses are moving to other places because their regulations and tax structure really sucks (for Republicans this is NOT good). At the end of the day, Houston, Mexico, Seattle, and New York have a lot to thank for California being so anti-business.

If you notice, ofther NESCAUM (Northeast) states simply adopt their emission standards for new engines and not all that other fleet stuff. They're smart!
/sammie

Onward through the fog

by Sam Wells at 6:37 PM on 13 Jun 2007

The right to doze...

Folks, I am all for making the manufacturers of new mobile source equipment meet stringent emission standards but as a business owner, I don't want to have to jack with all that jive. If I want a 1965 bulldozer I should be able to have it as a matter of constitutional rights. If I want a clean new bulldozer meeting TIER 4 standards, well that's my right too.

Where in the Constitution does one have a right to own bulldozers?

by cavecanem at 2:00 PM on 14 Jun 2007
[ Parent ]

Arnold 2016

C'mon...we need to bend that Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 a little...don't we?

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 10:31 PM on 14 Jun 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.