Bush against California's 
Zero Emissions Requirement for Cars 

PETE YOST / AP 10oct02

mindfully.org note:  Does it make sense to oppose clean air? In case you haven't noticed it yet, it's time to see the pattern. Mr. Bush* is against doing whatever makes sense to do. Whether it would benefit the air, water, land, humans, animals, plants, insects, and so on, he's dead-set against it. If there is such a thing as being a genius at stupidity, he's the prime example. In other words, he's found some new ways to prove he's a greedy fool. What should we do? The first thing is to voice your opinion, and not just once in a while, but on every occasion that shows itself. Write to your representatives, the newspapers, place calls to radio talk shows, cancel subscriptions to publications that won't voice the truth. The list is long, but everyone needs to be a few steps ahead of Mr. Bush, rather than behind.

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration sided Wednesday with auto manufacturers in opposing a California requirement that a percentage of passenger vehicles sold in the state achieve zero emissions, meaning reliance on all-electric cars.

The Justice Department maintained that federal law overrides any state effort to regulate fuel economy for cars and trucks.

In a 37-page filing with a federal appeals court in San Francisco, the department lawyers argued that California's zero emission mandate impinges on what is solely a federal responsibility.

"The Energy Policy and Conservation Act provides that when a federal fuel economy standard is in effect, a state or a political subdivision of a state may not adopt or enforce a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards," the department argued.

In its court papers, the state of California says there is an exception to the federal Clean Air Act permitting the state to regulate auto emissions.

But the Justice filing maintained that Congress has never authorized California or any other state to enact regulations related to fuel economy standards.

California's zero emission mandate, covering an increasing percentage of new cars and trucks, was to have taken effect next year, but General Motors Corp., DaimlerChrysler Corp., and several California auto dealers won a preliminary injunction that delays implementation for two years.

The standard says that for model years 2003 through 2008, at least 10 percent of the passenger cars and light-duty trucks in California must emit no pollution. The state argues that the auto companies have various technologies to meet the new standards, but the federal court which granted the injunction found that these are impractical.

Neither the Justice filing, nor the court case, is related to a separate California law, enacted earlier this year, that limits vehicle emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases believed to contribute to global warming. Automakers, who have threatened a lawsuit against that law as well, have said the only way they can reduce carbon dioxide coming out of tailpipes is to sell cars that use less fuel.

* The man is addressed as Mister because he is neither the President nor presidential material.