Ounced Now with no hands!

Major WTF to the EPA

As some of you might have heard, the EPA has decided to deny California the right to set stricter emission standards than the Federal Government currently allows.

Did you read that right? They denied a state to set higher standards on emissions from cars. Fucking denied!

Really, there are no words that can explain the level of anger I’m at right now. But this is a blog and a blog is made of words, not the expletives that are currently exiting my mouth.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson said that California did not show “compelling and extraordinary conditions” required to grant a waiver to implement the tailpipe rules.”

Did not show? Who the fuck needs to show anything in order to help the environment?

Now there are he said she said bullshit running around about why Johnson came to that decision, but I still call BS.

California was not the only state denied this right. 16 other states were also denied, including Vermont. But apparently both California and Vermont have been through this before, and when this did happen in the past, they sued the EPA, and won.

From what I read, California will be suing EPA’s ass because of this and will keep suing until they do win. And I’m behind them every step of the way.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. The astounding thing here is that Bush proves he is no where near being a Republican, but rather the oil industry patsy we all know he is. Republicans believe in State’s rights over the Federal Government. He likes to play that card for gay marriage issues, but not environmental ones? BULL SHIT.

@ajt: I’m surprised you didn’t know about this already, but yeah I didn’t know how big the problem was but to know that Bush has his fingers in every single fucking put to screw us over is a major disappointment. Like he wasn’t already.

I remember seeing something about there being an in-house investigation to see if someone was bought out.

The way I see it is one of jurisdiction. The question of whether the Federal government (here being the Administrative branch) has a qualified interest in regulating interstate commerce (vehicle sales) or whether the foreseeable operation of these same goods within the boundary of the state can be said to be the state’s concern. In much the same way that Alabama can institute a ban on sex toys, I suppose. Such things are argued to be the sovereignty of the state, and that’s the issue

The question is if there is a vested interest in making it easy for manufacturers to sell in all 50 (united) states versus how much leeway the states are allowed regulating in their own best interests for their own particular genitals. Oops… I meant citizens.

Anyways, it’s not like Bush and Co. are courting votes in California of all ungodly places.

@orin: All those are very good points. But at the same time…

We all have to breathe the same air, why in the fuck would someone want to prevent the measures that would help reduce emissions?

@Caitlin: I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if someone has been.