Taijitu
Forum Meta => Archive => General Discussion Archive => Topic started by: Anniane on December 20, 2007, 04:43:25 PM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/washington/20epa.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/washington/20epa.html)
The article quotes several people as calling California's emissions laws part of the "patchwork" of "inefficient", "confusing" rules as opposed to a national standard. Firstly, I find it curious, though not unexpected, that the Bush administration here is on the side of a centralized effort. More ironic, the "national" standard of Bush's EPA is far less strict; it seems somewhat compromised by demands (and logrolling according to the article) by the auto industry. But must environmental regulation be done on a national level, or else cause mass confusion?
-
Personally I don't see global warming as entirely man's fault and would continue even if we stopped putting out any CO2, and thus make environmental regulation unneeded. An increased fuel mileage and lessening our dependence or foreign, nonrenewable resources is dandy though.
But yeah, if it's going to be done, I agree it needs to be done on a national level.
-
Nobody can tell me what to do with my money. I'm against income tax, I'm against universal healthcare, it's only natural for me to object to a law inhibiting my right to drive or do whatever I want. If I want to drive an SUV that gets 7 mpg, I will drive an SUV that gets 7 mpg, and no one should be able to tell me otherwise.
By the by, I use paper towels in the bathroom out of spite.
-
Problem is, if you want to drive something with even halfway decent gas mileage, you can't find it. So you couldn't "choose" to drive one with 7 miles to the gallon, you would basically be told to by the car manufacturers.
-
POWER TO SCHWARZENEGGER!