|
States Must Be Allowed to Reduce Global Warming Pollution from Vehicles
Thirteen states, representing over a third of the U.S. auto market, have adopted clean car standards to reduce global warming pollution from vehicles. And many more states are currently considering adopting the standards as well. But on December 19, despite overwhelming public support, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Stephen Johnson denied the states the waiver they need to implement these crucial standards. In doing so he not only went against historical precedent, but also rejected the advice of EPA advisors, directives of two federal judges, and the Supreme Court! Please tell EPA Administrator Johnson how profoundly disappointed you are with his decision. By denying the states the waiver they need to regulate vehicle pollution, he is shirking his legal responsibilities under the Clean Air Act, and instead playing politics with our health and the environment. Send a letter today! Please make your letter personal by adding in your own thoughts and concerns. Every letter makes a difference, but customized letters have the greatest effect! Click on "tell me more" to get more details and background to help you with your letter.
Dear [ Decision Maker ] , As established by the Supreme Court, and recently reinforced by federal judges in Vermont and California, the EPA's responsibilities to reduce global warming pollution from automobiles is independent of fuel economy standards. There was therefore no legal or sensible reason for you to reject the waiver that states required to move forward with enacting clean car standards. A waiver of this sort has never been rejected since states gained this opportunity in 1967. Much like the United States finally accepting the unified voice of the world's governments in the Bali climate negotiations, you must listen to the voice of U.S. citizens who know that the technologies and fuels needed to meet these common sense standards in every vehicle class already exist. We want these options on our roads so we can do our best to help be part of a sensible climate solution. You had the opportunity to stand with the Clean Air Act, the environment, and the U.S. consumer. You chose instead a dubious political tactic that even your advisors say is unlikely to succeed in court. I would ask that you listen to your own scientists, analysts, and lawyers--as well as the American public--and immediately reverse this ill-conceived decision.
Sincerely, |
Campaign Launched: |
| Background Information |
States Must Be Allowed to Reduce Global Warming Pollution from Vehicles
In mid-December, a federal judge threw out an auto industry challenge to California clean car standards. Federal District Court Judge Anthony Ishii rejected U.S. automakers' claims that federal law pre-empts the state standards which would more strongly regulate global warming pollution from vehicles. This represents "strike three" for the automakers, building on the April Supreme Court decision directing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate global warming pollution from autos, and the September Vermont court decision upholding states' rights under the Clean Air Act.
This victory has added momentum for the adoption of the landmark clean car standards by California and 13 other states - including New Mexico, which just adopted the standards in November. UCS activists in New Mexico sent more than 300 letters in support of the clean car standards, part of a record setting public comment period in the state. Nationwide, UCS activists sent more than 16,000 letters to the EPA asking Administrator Stephen Johnson to obey the Clean Air Act and make a ruling on the waiver California and all other states need to implement the clean car standards.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration continued to stall on a decision all the way through the president's signing of the increased fuel economy standards in the Energy Bill. As promised, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger initiated a lawsuit against the EPA in November. Interestingly, states besides California and the 13 other adopters are weighing in on both the standards and the waiver. For example, the state of Illinois, which hasn?t decided to adopt the standards, has joined California?s lawsuit against the EPA and has also joined in a letter signed by 16 attorneys general, including Iowa and Minnesota, demanding that Congress not attempt to legislatively stop states from considering the clean car standards.
On December 19, Administrator Johnson denied the clean car waiver, citing the Energy Bill?s fuel economy standards as rationale. In doing so he rejected historical precedent, as no waiver of this kind had been rejected by the EPA since 1967, when California was granted the authority to establish regulations stronger than those made by the EPA. He also rejected the clear directives of Judge Sessions in Vermont, Judge Ishii in California, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Their decisions clearly indicated that the court considers fuel economy standards, meant to protect U.S. energy security, and global warming pollution standards, meant to protect the health and wellbeing of Americans, to be distinct standards.
This decision gave no legal basis for the EPA to reject California's waiver petition. California Attorney General Jerry Brown promised a lawsuit at the earliest possible date. This was to be expected. Indeed the Washington Post reported that the EPA's lawyers and policy staff had reached the same conclusion. In a PowerPoint presentation prepared for the administrator, aides wrote that if Johnson denied the waiver and California sued, "EPA likely to lose suit."
We will continue to press Administrator Johnson and the Bush administration on this critical issue. You can start by sending a letter to the administrator expressing your profound frustration with this short-sighted decision.
