Smog and States' Rights

[Pexster]

From today's L.A. Times editorial page --

Assault on State's Air Rules

Last summer was the smoggiest in the Los Angeles Basin in six years. Look for even more days of watery eyes and wheezy chests if the federal government succeeds in hobbling local air quality officials.

President Bush and his congressional allies seem bent on blocking progress made by California in recent years. Their challenges, clothed in erudite language about state versus federal powers, are really outright concessions to car and engine makers and oil refiners. When Southern California cities or their private contractors replace worn-out diesel-engine buses, trash trucks and street sweepers, they are required to do so with cleaner-fuel vehicles. Nearly 60% of local transit buses — more than 3,000 of them — now run on natural gas or other clean fuels, along with hundreds of airport shuttles, school buses and dump trucks.

The White House is backing a lawsuit that would invalidate these local fleet rules adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District over the last three years. On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the suit, brought by diesel engine makers, arguing that only the federal Environmental Protection Agency can set such fleet rules. However, Congress specifically allowed California to impose more rigorous pollution standards.

The administration is also pushing legislation that would weaken limits on ozone, the primary ingredient of smog. In 1997, the EPA toughened nationwide ozone limits. Those rules work, in part, by forcing cooperation between agencies accustomed to working independently to cut emissions. For example, in fast-growing Charlotte, N.C., local highway planners, meeting with air quality officials, have produced a plan that allows for new road construction while keeping a lid on smog. The region is now investing in light-rail transit to get commuters out of their cars and encouraging developers to mix new commercial projects with residential units.

With 70% of smog-forming emissions coming from cars and trucks, the joint planning is just common sense. Yet the president's transportation funding bill, now before Congress, would do away with it.

Finally, only last-ditch lobbying by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and others kept Congress from killing new state rules intended to clamp down on smoke-spewing small gasoline engines that power lawn mowers, leaf blowers and chain saws. Engine makers and their political allies almost succeeded on their shaky argument that the requirement, which takes effect in 2007, would cost jobs.

The gray-brown haze that so quickly dulled the San Gabriel Mountains' snow-capped sparkle after last week's rains is a good measure of how smoggy the Southland remains. Californians want more progress, not less.

Just goes to show that this Administration is all for limited federal government and returning power to the states; unless it's something that irritates big business (or the state is California! ). Now which way will the Supremes go? And if they side with the Administration and the diesel engine manufacturers, won't that open the door to gut California's more stringent auto pollution standards -- those that have been in place for what, over 25 years? And have made it again possible to breath in the L.A. basin?

[daveleau]

It'd be nice if they'd tell exactly what parts of these legislations that the current administration has a problem with and why. It'd also be nice if they would tell exactly how the current admin is doing away with the protections in place and what if any replacement legislation is going to take effect. These broad generalizations seem to be meant to illicit an emotional response without giving much in the way of facts. No one (civilians or govt officials) wants LA to be made more of a smog pit, but it is hard for realists to see what is going on here without more facts.

[Pexster]

I believe the rule in question doesn't deal with diesel emissions, per se, but dictates that replacement fleet purchases be "clean air" fueled vehicles. Many diesel-powered buses have been replaced with such alternatives over the last few years. It's interesting, when the National Park Service buys buses and trams for Yosemite, for instance, they don't buy a diesel. Yet we're supposed to have 100s or 1000s of them on the streets of L.A.?

Anyone who's ever sat behind a diesel bus accelerating from a stop light knows how obnoxious they are. Common sense would indicate that if they can't be made less polluting, get rid of them!

[daveleau]

I agree. The majority of pollution now comes from mass transit since emissions are so strict on automobiles. I do not understand why cities buy these diesel hogs to ferry around 1 or 2 people an hour (most busses in Charleston, SC, Greenville, SC, Shreveport, LA and San Antonio, TX are somewhere around 80% empty whenever I have seen them- a huge waste and a huge emissions issue.).

[MTAtech]

It's more interesting to what to see what the Supreme Court says. In recent years they have ruled in favor of state's rights against the Fed gov't in areas of worker protections and other protections. If they are consistent with the state's rights question, they should also rule in favor of Calif. In Ewing v. California, the SC upheld California's "Three Strikes" sentencing statute. If a life sentence for stealing a video tape doesn't violate the Eighth Amendment's "cruel and unusual punishment" challenge the words have no meaning.

[daveleau]

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-6978.ZS.html
Interesting reading on MTAtech's example. (sorry you just peaked my curiosity.)
[/thread-jacking]

[Pexster]

I think there are two reasons that diesels have escaped efforts to restrict them -- 1) powerful business interests and 2) diesel exhaust, while obnoxious and unhealthful, is not a major contributor to smog. I can see the Supremes ruling against the SCAQMD on this one. They may go with the "EPA or FTC trumps all" argument. They do this kind of thing when it fits their agenda (sorry, but I'm cynical about this stuff).

[daveleau]

I have read studies and heard people speak on how the mass transit is the major producer of smog. Granted I don't live in a smog problemed area, but could you let me know why you think this either here or via PM. I'm interested to hear your views.

[Pexster]

I'm not suggesting mass transit is the major player in smog, nor diesel for that matter. But diesels do spew mass quantities of pollutants -- soot and nitrogen oxides, for instance. Consider how much freight is moved in our country via diesel tractor-trailers. I'm just speculating here, but these are major business interests. Caterpillar, for instance, is one of the DJIA stocks. I find it interesting that after all these years of pollution control aimed at cars, diesel efforts lag far behind. Are the technological hurdles too great or is it just resistance to change?

[daveleau]

Actually, there have been tremendous advances in diesel engines in the past few years. Instead of lasting 3-400,000 miles, the new improvements will make the engines last well over a million miles. I just think the emphasis has been on things other than the environment in this field. I don't know if diesel trucks are checked for emissions in the same way as cars. If it is a similar process, it would be easy for them to have a residence in an area with lower requirements to save $$$. On my CB in my trail Jeep, I have heard several conversations on how truckers try to avoid weigh stations to save money and time. I would assume they would go to the same lengths to resist emissions, if they could.