California goes alone

First of all, forcing automakers to build cleaner cars, especially if they'll only be sold in a fraction of the country, will inevitably drive prices up, causing people to hold onto their old cars longer than they might have before.
Second, the breakneck pace of growth in (and subsequent increases of CO2 emissions from) China and India will probably more than offset any CO2 reductions made here, especially if our politicians continue to limit their attacks to just automobiles.
Which brings me to my third point: If Al Gore himself can realize and make it clear that the auto industry is not the lone culprit, why can't our so-called leaders do likewise? Oh that's right; the auto industry is about the only industry not buying off our elected officials right and left. It's probably a lot like the mafia: Energy companies, chemical manufacturers, interntaional shipping companies and others pay protection money in return for $acramento types not mounting reelection-inspired smear campaigns. It all makes perfect sense!

There *are* and *can*be* just TWO legal standards under the CleanAirAct:
the minimal federal standard,
and the stricter California standard.
Other states can pick between the TWO.
There are NO other standards that can be made into state laws. NO other state is authorized to set standards separate from those TWO choices.

And California *does*not* "go it alone" and *has*never* done so, except for *extremely*brief* periods of time in which other states passed laws to follow the contemporary California standard.
Even the lawsuit in which the SupremeCourt upheld California's right to set stricter standards was joined&supported by the other states which follow the California standard.

In the late 1960s when California was formulating its exception approach to smog control, Los Angeles had a uniquely severe problem so there was some value to California's more strict emission requirements. If the current campaign for a California exception were motivated primarily by a desire to reduce real pollutants (particulates and toxins) the argument might be more convincing. But it's not. The politically-correct but misguided, fictional notion that global warming is anthropocentric has made this latest campaign for exception a component of an anti-carbon agenda. Folks, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. And even if all of California's fleet were non-emitting of greenhouse gases, there would be no impact whatsoever on the natural drivers of climate change. The climate is always changing, getting warmer or cooler. Using carbon dioxide emissions goals to indirectly set mileage standards is going to be a repeat of the ill-considered and unsuccessful 2% dictum on electric cars in this state back in 1990. This time, there is no need or leverage in California exception.

There are other good reasons to burn less oil, but a more rational national objective is more likely to succeed. Moreover, given that portable, liquid fuels are essential to transportation, we should be focusing on stationary power generation and other fixed sites of energy-related pollution first. This attempt to set a separate standard for CO2 emissions is misguided, ineffectual, counterproductive and political pabulum.

Don misunderstands the process. There are only two standards. California has the right to set stricter auto emissions rules than the federal standard (with an EPA waiver). Other states can adopt California's, and a number have.

Let well enough alone. You, the car buyer, holds the trump card.
Make a statement: kill two birds with.....I forget the rests of it.
a) do not buy a new car until Detroit builds a car that needs YOUR "standards." You not spending money on these sleds; you get
Detroit to change their ways without a change of planes in Sacramento;
and b) making one trip in your "old" car do the work of three trips, ie:
supermarket, post office, cleaners in one trip. Drive few miles, Sacramento
gas tax revenues go down (like few cigarette smokers reduce Sacramento
tobacco tax dollars). Sacramento screams: "What the hell is happening."
c) this works; don't buy a new car in year three or four, either.
Year five: you are a winner, winner, winner. And, zowie; well enough
is alone.

True that we need hire fuel economy standards for the entire country, but it has to start somewhere. I am proud that California is taking the lead.

California NEEDS to go at it alone. We have often been the cause of effective change in environmental areas. Once California adopts these rules, many states will follow, and ultimately, when the feds see it's possible to emit less toxins into the atmosphere, the nation will follow.

-Noga Rosenthal

The idea that 50 states will have 50 different requirements of the automobile industry is preposterous. We need one standard for the country.

The "interstate commerce" clause is one of the most abused in the Constitution--here's an example of where it actually should be invoked.