• On MovieTome: TRANSPORTER 3 gets a trailer!

December 20, 2007 6:10 AM PST

EPA says 17 states can't set emission rules for cars

EPA says 17 states can't set emission rules for cars
Related Stories

Green tech powers forward

January 16, 2008

FAQ: New Energy Act gets green light

December 19, 2007

Does GM now mean 'green motors'?

December 14, 2007

U.S. green-tech hot spots go coast to coast

December 13, 2007

Will taxes halt Calif.'s solar thermal ambitions?

December 11, 2007

FAQ: All about coal--a necessary evil

December 3, 2007
Related Blogs

Energy bill expected to lose renewable energy tax break


December 13, 2007

Cleaner and faster cars at the L.A. Auto Show


November 27, 2007

Chevy offers revised hybrid pickup


November 14, 2007

Energy bill signed into law by Bush pre-empts standards set by states, EPA says. Automakers applaud, environmental groups vow to sue.
The New York Times

The story "EPA says 17 states can't set emission rules for cars" published December 20, 2007 at 6:10 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.

Add a Comment (Log in or register) 83 comments (Showing first 20 comments)
What are these people thinking?
by the_piano_man December 20, 2007 8:58 AM PST
What in the heck is our government thinking? I cannot believe this. The corporations have us (and the government people) believing that a green economy will cause jobs to go away! What a joke. How many jobs have been moved offshore already and we don't have anything near a green economy? Give me a break. A green economy will CREATE jobs - you fools. The problem is we have to get off our collective lazy &###@# behinds and learn new skills. Maybe go back to school. (Oh my God we can't do that we'd be like kids - GET OVER IT - get your behind back to school and learn how to stop poisoning your next generations' water and air).

We are fighting a war to promote democracy (Remember? Just like the one in Vietnam) that is really a war for oil and many people have lost their lives. Our air is filled with pollutants causing asthma and cancer (on a foggy morning wipe off your car windshield with a white cloth and see how it turns black - really try it - we all are breathing that crap every single day). Our water is polluted in many places and filled with chemicals like bromates that are cancer causing substances. We need our oil reserves for DEFENSE not offense. We got our first heads up in 1973 during the oil embargo. That was 34 years ago. Basically nothing was done. And nothing was learned. How sad.
Reply to this comment View reply
Arnold Speaks
by freeman92011 December 20, 2007 10:27 AM PST
Our good governor states in the article that the EPA is blocking tens of millions of peoples? will. Let's think about this...If ten's of millions of people want very high mileage then why haven't the automakers produced such cars/trucks already. I?ll give you a hint: IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE. Cost equals resources so they are not efficient. Not being efficient means they are NOT good for the environment. The TRUTH is a select few of environmentalist want to control the rest of us who are NOT willing to pay for such fuel minimization.
Reply to this comment View all 4 replies
Political propaganda is NOT science
by DrColes December 20, 2007 10:49 AM PST
Political propaganda is NOT science. UK court says Gore is a fraud. August 2007 Update: Man-made Catastrophic Global Warming Not True. Unfortunately, Hansen is a political hack of George Soros. Further, flawed NASA Global Warming data paid for by George Soros. In order to be an intelligent reader you must have a basic knowledge. Please do your own homework; a starting point http://www.InteliOrg.com/ Remember CONSENSUS is NEVER science it?s always a POLITICAL STATEMENT (a Party Line).
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
Big Government
by wiscojason December 20, 2007 11:04 AM PST
I like how republicans always trot out the Big Government fear-mongering tactics... until it's a local issue that might disrupt business as usual for their corporate owners. Then all of a sudden a blanket federal program or policy is just what is needed. If they weren't such blind absolutists (according to their own propaganda) it wouldn't appear so strange. However, for people who berate our educational system endlessly for teaching relativism and situational ethics it appears as the absolute height of hypocrisy for them so engage in those exact same behaviors.
Reply to this comment View reply
Energy Bill Stupid
by atomicblast2000 December 20, 2007 2:08 PM PST
What the heck - this was the most retarded piece of legislation ever --- well maybe not ever but -- anyhow -- it: 1) took power from the states to best determine their emission rules and regulations and, 2) on top of this is set a mandate for 35mpg average on cars by the year 2020.

I don't know what planet these legislators live on but there are quite a few cars that exist at this very moment that meet these standards of 35mpg -- (mostly imports, and im not just talking about hybrids either) -- my 2001 VW Jetta diesel gets ave of 44mpg (the EPA sticker said 50MPG) what the heck! This MPG increase should take effect 2010 or sooner not 2020... for heavens sake if its the year 2020 and we still have cars (not trucks) that just get a lousy 35 mpg that would be a total shame - 10 years should at least get you to nearly double say say around 60+ mpg (there are some exotic cars that even today get this good of millage).

Second this legislation took power from the states to enact its own auto emission requirements from 17 states, (nearly all densely populated states) - if were ever going to try to cut back on the amount of natural resources we as a nation consume -- (last i recall it think the American population goes through 22 million barrels of oil a day) - and guess where all that $ goes - overseas, to countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc...

Hence the reason for our meddling in other countries like Iraq, you think if we really wanted to help people w would have helped the people in Darfur... (but then again theres no oil there...) this is going to be a hot topic in the coming election - this is just one more reason we need Ron Paul in there to reduce the power from the federal govt, get ti out of the hands of special interests, and corporations and return it to the states and the people. And until this but until power is restored to the people, which over the years has been stolen from us on both sides of the political spectrum (with unions, health care & defense companies being prime examples) - the American people will continue to be treated like dogs until the quest for greed and control ceases. So its time to face reality, and acknowledge that things have gone too far for some time now and there is little hope in the current system, which is why it is imperative for us not to divide the vote but to participate by running in local and state elections, changing the system from within by always voting to reduce the power of the federal government, and return power to the states and to the people. We are now outsiders, our country as been taken from us long ago - if you still you think you live in a nation of "we the people", and think that we live in a free country think again... our only real recourse in taking back out county is from within, and in working the system as best we can for the sake of freedom.


-- Go Ron Paul
Reply to this comment View reply
false premise
by factuality December 20, 2007 4:28 PM PST
Just because you throw more money at a problem doesn't mean you're going to arrive at a breakthrough.
Reply to this comment
State's rights?
by Schratboy December 21, 2007 5:28 AM PST
That which isn't defined in the Constitution reverts to the states....Just another example of how bloated and off course we've allowed things to occur. Google Ron Paul for some insights.
Reply to this comment View reply
And the flame war continues...
by Laserdisc December 21, 2007 2:08 PM PST
As for CO2 causing global warming... no one knows for sure. There's another theory that it's the sun causing dramatic climate change and that CO2 increase is the effect not the cause. Honestly, we just don't know BUT that's not to say we shouldn't reduce pollution. I am totally for reducing pollution whenever "feasibly" possible. States need their own emission standards because the pollution situation is different in every area. In a perfect world the EPA should collect all the emission standards from all States and select the toughest one to be the defacto standard for the nation. But what are the economic ramifications of implementing such a high standard for pollution emission?
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
in 1991 I had a 40 mpg mitsubishi 2 door.
by inachu December 27, 2007 7:36 AM PST
Wish i still had it.
40 mpg is easy to make.
Reply to this comment
 See all 83 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement

Latest tech news headlines

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.

More feeds available in our RSS feed index.

advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right