Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Curb on Gas Emissions Is Stalled in California
NY Times ^ | 6/12/2002 | DANNY HAKIM

Posted on 06/12/2002 12:40:45 PM PDT by ZGuy

DETROIT, June 11 — A bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles has stalled in the California State Assembly, the latest legislative setback for environmental groups.

If passed, the measure would be the first to restrict automotive emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases thought by many scientists to be linked to global warming. The bill directs the California Air Resources Board to develop a plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by January 2005, to be put into effect for the 2009 model year.

The bill has met with staunch opposition from the auto industry, which is concerned that it could be used as a template by other states.

"It's ultimately going to cost consumers more if this passes," said Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. "The way you do this is to make cars lighter, smaller and less powerful, and that's not what California consumers want."

The bill was passed by the Assembly in January, but it was sent back after the Senate added amendments. This time, an advertising campaign by the auto industry has helped derail the proposal.

"We're a couple votes shy," said Julia Levin, California policy coordinator for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "The auto companies have definitely managed to peel off a few votes."

The bill does not offer specific goals on how far state regulators should go in cutting emissions, nor does it propose ways to do it. Instead, it tells the air resources board to come up with a plan for the "maximum feasible reduction" in emissions.

That open-ended mandate has led the auto industry, in advertisements, to suggest a number of possible outcomes. One ad, headlined "Who Decides What You Drive?" said the measure could result in higher gasoline taxes, lower speed limits, surcharges for sport utility vehicles and even fees for every mile driven.

Proponents say that less severe steps are likely, like requiring automakers to make improvements by using more fuel-efficient technologies or measures to expand public transportation.

John Dutra, a Democratic assemblyman from Fremont, outside San Francisco, said he voted for the bill the first time but was opposed this time. He said he had expected the Senate to add an amendment requiring approval by the Legislature of any plan the air resources board developed. "I don't think that decision should be made by a five-member appointed body," Mr. Dutra said, adding, "It's a decision that could have a serious economic impact."

Fremont is home to a large assembly plant that is a joint venture of Toyota and General Motors.

Fran Pavley, the sponsor of the proposal and a Democrat whose Southern California district includes Malibu, said the bill did give lawmakers a year to review the proposal but did not require a vote to approve it.

Referring to the air resources board, she said, "We put that gap in there to shine the light on A.R.B. and say `we're going to pay attention to these regulations and make sure they're cost-effective and achievable.' "


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; US: California
KEYWORDS: calgov2002; co2; smog

1 posted on 06/12/2002 12:40:46 PM PDT by ZGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
Oh, good, I thought this was about an attempt to shut Gray Davis up. ;-)

This bill should't be stalled; it should be killed.

Gray should just be sent home.

2 posted on 06/12/2002 1:16:13 PM PDT by Chairman Fred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
Ping
3 posted on 06/12/2002 1:24:28 PM PDT by ZGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
I say quadruple the requirements & the same for taxes. Let's see how long before the sheeple will get off of their butts & revolt. Probably would still hear 34 million excuses to stay dumbed-down. But let some poor shoe repair man increase his price.......
4 posted on 06/12/2002 1:29:53 PM PDT by Digger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
I say quadruple the requirements & the same for taxes. Let's see how long before the sheeple will get off of their butts & revolt. Probably would still hear 34 million excuses to stay dumbed-down. But let some poor shoe repair man increase his price.......
5 posted on 06/12/2002 1:32:16 PM PDT by Digger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
This is very strange. Usually Sacramento feels free to pass any loonie bill it wants.
I read it as some demoRats are very worried that a Davis failure in Nov. could throw out a bunch of Assembly Rats too.
6 posted on 06/12/2002 2:22:27 PM PDT by Zathras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zathras;calgov2002 ;Carry_Okie; SierraWasp; Gophack; eureka!; ElkGroveDan...
That would be good!

calgov2002:

calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. 

calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. 

Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register



7 posted on 06/12/2002 2:30:00 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dog gone;snopercod;randita;robert357
Sanity, in the California legislature, no less!
8 posted on 06/12/2002 2:31:23 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
That open-ended mandate has led the auto industry, in advertisements, to suggest a number of possible outcomes. One ad, headlined "Who Decides What You Drive?" said the measure could result in higher gasoline taxes, lower speed limits, surcharges for sport utility vehicles and even fees for every mile driven.

This evil bill is far worse than this even says!

Still, they only need 41 votes ... they may sneak it through before the August 31st deadline.

9 posted on 06/12/2002 2:32:42 PM PDT by Gophack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gophack
That would require His Doofiness to either sign the bill (great campaign fodder for Simon) or veto it (and say goodbye to the greenies). Hahahahahaha...
10 posted on 06/12/2002 3:41:11 PM PDT by TenthAmendmentChampion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
That open-ended mandate has led the auto industry, in advertisements, to suggest a number of possible outcomes. One ad, headlined "Who Decides What You Drive?" said the measure could result in higher gasoline taxes, lower speed limits, surcharges for sport utility vehicles and even fees for every mile driven.

Sanity, in the California legislature, no less!

I need to go to a Zen monestary and contemplate the words for a while..."Sanity in the California legislature"..."the sound of one hand clapping" Ohmmmmmmm

Sanity in the California legislature reminds me of sayings like "Military Intelligence," "political science," or my all time favorite "...friendly fire." How can one shooting at one's own troops every be described as "friendly?"(/sarcasm)

Now speaking of "Who Decides What You Drive?" It is good that the Auto Industry put the squeeze on the politicians. I guess they can't get too environmental in an election year!

11 posted on 06/12/2002 4:33:52 PM PDT by Robert357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach;Grampa Dave;Dog Gone;Phil V.
Cal Worthington and his dog Spot have been running ads sayin... "This isn't funny, folks!"

Another insane idea sponsored by DemonicRat DOPES!!!

12 posted on 06/12/2002 4:44:01 PM PDT by SierraWasp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
CO²? CO²? Hmmmmm.... Cut CO²? Did any of these Girly-Men out there ever hear of DRY ICE!??? F ire extinguishers?? When oh when will Drudge, Art Bell and Hillary join forces to kick off the campaign to BAN DRY ICE???? Shazam!!! Huge industry here ripe for destruction. BAN FIRE DEPTS!!! also while they're at it.
13 posted on 06/12/2002 5:07:05 PM PDT by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Waco
BAN FIRE DEPTS!!! also while they're at it.

With those clowns if some greenie came in
and gave them some money they would likely try just that!

14 posted on 06/12/2002 5:13:13 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp
Cal Worthington is only a manager and works for the auto company. When we built his agency in South Gate, Chrysler owned the agency and paid for it. Chrysler no doubt paid for the ads.
15 posted on 06/12/2002 5:20:47 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dalereed
"Go See Cal, Go See Cal, Go See Cal!!!"

Yup, he's justa mouthpiece. He's selling used hi-end imports on U.S. Hwy 50 between Folsom and Rancho Cordova (aka Rancho Cambodia). He not only has notariety, he's notorious!!!

16 posted on 06/12/2002 5:28:09 PM PDT by SierraWasp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

17 posted on 06/12/2002 5:28:36 PM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson