The first being that the auto industry will be on the Hill in March or April asking for more money. Once again, they will hold the proverbial gun of thousands of workers without jobs to the Congressional head. The forthcoming bailout requests will have nothing to do with future state based regulations which will not come into effect for at least a year and would, as many of these regulations are, be phased in. While I am not aware of the severity of the regulations, the time frame for their overall effect on the auto industry is up for debate.
Second, there is no question that reducing emissions is a good move for humanity and our environment. There is no debate that in major metro areas, like Louisville where I live, emissions from cars have caused severe respiratory stress for adults and children. Additionally, climate change is happening and it is being contributed to be the release of carbon through the burning of fossil fuels. I am certainly not an advocate for ending all fossil fuel use as of this year. That is a silly proposition considering most of our energy is produced using these fuels and we need this energy to survive. However, taking a long view and beginning to change our energy habits is wise and forward thinking.
Perhaps the most contradictory part of Inhofe's trouble with this change is his Party's commitment to the Federal system. I am generally accused of being a liberal, but in truth, I favor a system that extends states more ability to regulate their territory except in cases where the Constitution allows regulation. Areas of interstate trade, treasury, and national defense. Because I consider the use of energy a national defense matter as well as a major interstate economic matter, the Federal government does have the right to regulate it. However, if states desire more stringent regulations, so be it. Competition among the states ought to demonstrate whether or not these regulations will improve the lives of the citizens of those states or cause them to deteriorate. Shouldn't the party of "state's rights" and federalism advocate for this? This is exactly the kind of short-sighted politics that appears to be special interest related. I do not presume to know Senator Inhofe, but whether or not he believes in climate change is not the issue. The issue is, whether or not he believes states have a right to regulate their own emissions controls. It is a small victory in allowing states regulation control, but an important one.
More on this later when I review Article One, Section Two, and Rule 2. I think it may bring something to bear to this argument.
Posts
2 comments:
This sounds little like anything practical for the environment and more like a backdoor attempt to get government in the business of restricting where people can and cannot travel. Different emissions standards for different states? Hardly a workable or practical idea. Autos travel across state lines.
I can't see how this move restricts interstate travel in any way. The standards are for cars that are sold in the state and registered in the state. They will not be retroactive in as much as older cars meet the standards they were sold under.
Post a Comment