Daily Archives: January 3, 2008

Uncategorized

States Urge Environmental Protection Agency to Actually Protect Environment

1 Comment

(always great to have DMI cross-posting their stuff here from Tort Deform. – promoted by Julia Rosen)

California is pressing on in its challenge against the EPA for turning down its proposed emissions rules, adopted by 12 other states and supported by three more as well. ( NYT, BBC) The proposed standards would provide tighter protections to the public against the harmful effects of vehicle emissions on the environment, an issue screaming in its relevancy these days.

From the New York Times:

“An analysis released by state air regulators showed their 2004 tailpipe regulation would be faster and tougher than the federal fuel economy rules… By 2016, California’s standard would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that vehicles produce by 45.4 million metric tons a year in California and the 12 other states that have already adopted the rules. That’s nearly double the 23.4 million metric tons the report forecast would be cut under the federal fuel-efficiency standards, according to the analysis, which was based on EPA air pollution modeling.”

But the EPA said “no thanks” to this proposal, preferring its apparently looser standards to California’s plan. This is the EPA’s “first time denying California a waiver under the Clean Air Act since Congress gave the state the right to obtain such waivers in 1967,” according to the NYT.

The EPA’s decision has been described as a victory for the auto industry. Automakers opposed the California rules as too strict, saying they would “reduce their selection of vehicles and raise prices in states that adopted California’s standards.” So in other words, it’s better to have a ton of cheaper cars to choose from, regardless of how badly they’re polluting the air we breathe.



Now if that ain’t like driving off a cliff in a brand new beemer, I don’t know what is…

For formality’s sake, here are some (I hope, not too annoyingly obvious) thoughts on why this lawsuit a) is important and b) further demonstrates the importance of our civil justice system as a means for checking corporate/government cronyism and the bad policies that are produced as a result:

Tort “reformers” argue that if aggrieved individuals and groups want things to change, they should change the rules of the game through legislation. First they say, “So sue me!” But if they actually get sued, they insist that the issue is better suited for the legislature than the courtroom. They paint this picture of whiney, attention-seeking plaintiffs making an overblown fuss about corporations letting off a wee bit too much smoke for their overly sensitive, air-greedy little lungs. (Geez, people can get so dramatic about their ability to breathe.)

But here’s what’s interesting in this scenario: there are clearly no whine-bags here. Here we have a bi-partisan effort, which legitimately went through the legislative process and was signed by the Governor. We have standards that have the support of at least 15 other states. Yet this effort was obstructed by the government agency charged with protecting our environment, although in the past the EPA has granted California’s waivers to impose stricter environmental standards.

This situation demonstrates clear as day how important it is to have a strong civil court system dedicated to administering justice to the public. In addition to the legislative process, we need our civil justice system as a means of providing public oversight of the federal government when its decisions conflict with the public’s interest and/or with our cherished democratic process.

According to the NYT, Schwarzenegger said that EPA officials ”are ignoring the will of millions of people who want their government to take action in the fight against global warming.” This lawsuit is California’s way of saying “We refuse to lose something we need and treasure–a right to a healthier environment–without a good fight.” Several other states are expected to join California in its claim.

Well I say sue on, Cali. Your day in court is ours, too.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Budget

You Can’t Actually Cut 10% Across the Board, Arnold

Arnold has tried to promote a 10% across the board budget cut as the cornerstone of his plan to address the $14 billion deficit – but as Judy Lin noted in a recent SacBee article, he cannot do that:

But while such efforts have been talked about in the past, budget experts say straight reductions are impossible in a world filled with legal, financial and political obstacles.

“Can he get across-the-board cuts comprehensively? No,” said Jean Ross, executive director of the California Budget Project, a nonpartisan group that advocates for poor and middle-class families. Not only does the state have to comply with various laws and court orders, it has debts to pay, paychecks to deliver, and everything from schools to prisons to maintain.

“I could go on and on and on,” Ross added.

The Schwarzenegger administration has pledged to spread cuts in a way that “no department shoulders a disproportionate share,” said finance spokesman H.D. Palmer.

Yet the governor’s aversion to taxes has left him little choice but to make cuts that are certain to attract political resistance on multiple fronts, from Democrats who control the Legislature to powerful interest groups such as the teachers and the prison officers union.

So what IS likely to face cuts when Arnold’s proposals are released next week? Education and health care.

A 10% cut to education budgets would require suspension of Prop 98, and would have a devastating effect on schools in the middle of the school year. Here I disagree with Judy Lin, the author of the SacBee article, who claims that the cuts to education would affect things like school buses and field trips – a 10% cut WILL mean cuts in classes and layoffs of teachers. There’s not that much flexibility in the budgets of most K-12 districts, certainly not in higher ed.

As to health care, Hanh Quach of Health Access California explains what a 10% cut would mean:

• A 10% cut in Medi-Cal eligibility would mean denying coverage to 680,000 of the 6.8 million Californians on Medi-Cal–largely low-income children, parents, seniors, and people with disabilities.

• A 10% cut in reimbursement rates in Medi-Cal would be hard, given that Medi-Cal has one of the lowest rates in the nation already (it’s one of the things we are trying to fix with health care reform).

• A 10% cut in benefits would mean having to deny millions of people key services. In the previous budget crises, proposals called for denying coverage for a range of benefits in Medi-Cal, including coverage for prosthetic limbs, medical equipment like asthma inhalers and diabetic test strips, and durable medical equipment like wheelchairs.

Given the likelihood of cuts being disproportionately visited on health and education, things that Californians have repeatedly demonstrated their support for protecting, it seems that Democrats have a strong opening to contest Arnold’s entire approach to the budget.

More importantly, Arnold is trying to reopen the current budget. Whereas in the summer Democrats were under pressure to get a budget done and ensure that schools and health care got the funding they needed, there is no such pressure now. Democrats can delay until July if they like and these vital public services and the Californians who depend on them will be spared. Dems are in the driver’s seat here, as long as they resist the temptation to agree to dramatic cuts so as to not jeopardize Prop 93’s chances.

What this also makes clearer is that spending cuts are not the answer – we MUST seek a revenue solution to this ongoing budget problem.