(Chicago, Illinois – January 3, 2008) On Wednesday, January 2, California, along with 15 other states, sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, alleging EPA unlawfully rejected California’s request to regulate automotive greenhouse gas emissions more stringently than national standards.
In rejecting California’s request, EPA noted greenhouse gas emissions do not have any state-specific qualities and are best addressed through national and international policy. Accordingly, California failed to show the “compelling and extraordinary” circumstances required for states to obtain an EPA waiver.
Experts contacted by The Heartland Institute offered the following comments about the EPA decision and the states’ lawsuit in response. You may quote from this statement or contact the experts directly at the phone numbers and email addresses provided below.
“California’s lawsuit is yet another example of lawsuit abuse, with sore political losers circumventing legitimate democratic processes and trying to get unelected judges to enact their political agendas. Congress, EPA, and the White House have all refused to enact alarmist global warming legislation. Unwilling to accept the results of our democratic processes, environmental extremists and their allies in California are now seeking to induce unelected judges to boss people around on their behalf.”
James M. Taylor
Senior Fellow
The Heartland Institute
[email protected]
941/776-5690
“Federal preemption is squarely applicable here. The Ninth Circuit in the earlier case acknowledged the global nature of this warming but nevertheless held greenhouse gas regulation was warranted. That case involved uniform and nationwide federal regulations, though, not merely California regulations, as this case does.”
Maureen Martin
Attorney and Senior Fellow
The Heartland Institute
[email protected]
920/295-6032
“California’s latest installment of global warming posturing rests on the least credible rationale possible: that various federal programs designed in whole or part to reduce emissions amount to ‘doing nothing.’ Not only is the U.S. the global leader in growing the economy while reducing the rate of CO2 emissions growth since Kyoto was agreed to in 1997, but it is inarguable that California’s economically disruptive demand would in fact ‘do nothing’ about the climate.”
Chris Horner
Senior Fellow
Competitive Enterprise Institute
[email protected]
202/331-1010
“EPA’s denial of California’s application for a waiver for state greenhouse gas emission controls for new motor vehicles is both good law and good policy. EPA clearly has the authority under the Clean Air Act to deny the waiver. And by denying the waiver, the federal government is protecting citizens from overly burdensome state regulations. This was a good decision by EPA.”
Daniel Simmons
Director, Natural Resources Task Force
American Legislative Exchange Council
[email protected]
202/466-3800
“It is particularly galling to this Californian, and I believe many others, that the California Air Resources Board has ignored the scientific advice of their own Deputy Chief, that the California standards will not provide any measurable impact on global emissions nor climate. The rule for a waiver is ‘compelling and extraordinary,’ which the California standards pass only by being extraordinarily expensive and compellingly ineffective.”
Tom Tanton
Vice President, Institute for Energy Research
Fellow, Pacific Research Institute
[email protected]
“California’s stretch to attempt at using its snow pack as a specific justification to force EPA to grant the waiver and provide an endangerment finding in its proposed carbon dioxide regulation is a blatant political ploy to create an avalanche of greenhouse gas emission regulation under the Clean Air Act. Such an outcome would force EPA to declare CO2 a pollutant under Title II of the Act. Previous litigation under the Clean Air Act has indicated that only Congress can extend that authorization.”
Sandy Liddy Bourne
National Legislation Manager
The Heartland Institute
[email protected]
703/517-3585
“If EPA had granted the waiver, and allowed states to regulate mobile emissions of CO2 under the auspices of the Clean Air Act, the usual suspects would surely have launched a new round of lawsuits to compel EPA to regulate CO2 from hundreds of thousands of stationary sources under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program and to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for CO2–atmospheric concentration standards that even complete de-industrialization of the United States might not be enough to attain. By denying the wavier, EPA arguably avoided an economically devastating regulatory morass.”
Marlo Lewis
Senior Fellow
Competitive Enterprise Institute
[email protected]
202/331-1010
For more information about The Heartland Institute contact Harriette Johnson, The Heartland Institute’s media relations manager, at 312/377-4000 or at email [email protected].
