Boehner to Waxman: No on California Emission Changes
Friday, November 21, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Well, it didn’t take long for House Republicans to recognize that having Henry Waxman atop the House Energy and Commerce Committee is a greater threat to the GOP’s agenda than having John Dingell perched there.
In a Nov. 21 letter to Waxman, who defeated Dingell for the E&C chairmanship yesterday, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) urged the California liberal not to use his new powers to push legislation allowing his home state to set stricter vehicle emissions standards. California, along with more than a dozen other states, has submitted a waiver with the Environmental Protection Agency to install new allowances. The waiver, which would cut emissions 30 percent by 2016, was denied by the Bush administration. Dingell is also a fierce opponent.
Boehner, in his letter, outlines the reason that the automakers and their Washington supporters disapprove.
“This change would effectively bar the American auto manufacturers from competing in the largest market in America,” Boehner wrote, “unless they make substantial changes in manufacturing that would increase costs to consumers, making the “Big 3″ even less competitive — and making their collapse even more likely.”
There are several holes in that argument. First, the states currently waiting in line to adopt new standards sell 45 percent of the nation’s vehicles, meaning the change would force the automakers either to produce two sets of cars, or make California’s plan the national model. Daniel Becker, directer of the Safe Climate Campaign, said approval of the waivers would create “a de facto national standard.”
Second, many experts attribute the industry’s current troubles to a failure of the Big Three to produce the smaller, cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars that Americans want to buy. The very manufacturing changes Boehner suggests will kill the industry, these observers say, are actually its only lifeline. Lawmakers like Dingell who have resisted these reforms in the name of helping the industry, they add, have really just protected it to death.
David Jenkins, director of Republicans for Environmental Protection, said GOP leaders like Boehner should be careful not to go after Waxman and others who would push environmental reforms supported by the public. “That would be a big mistake,” Jenkins said. “If the party gets on the wrong side of that [the environmental debate], they’ll be on the wrong side of history — and they’ll be out of power for a long time.”
The debate might be unnecessary. President-elect Barack Obama, who also supports the California waiver, will have the power (through the EPA) to approve it without any congressional action. Indeed, he has already vowed to do just that.
3 Comments
Comment posted November 21, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
Well, I suppose Boehner's statement puts proof to the Republican and Bush's failed policies being the same thing. Hopefully, the Senate Republicans won't be too much of a roadblock in finally implementing the start of real emissions regulations.
Interestingly, it was a very conservative friend of mine who's position was tremendous national investment into the retooling of our domestic auto manufacturing base to both compete in the marketplace and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I think the Republican party needs a philosophical retooling of a similar nature if they too want to compete in the political marketplace.
Comment posted November 22, 2008 @ 9:51 am
The objection to the waiver is exactly why the auto dynasty is in trouble.
What you have here is California telling them what Congress should have told them about CAFE standards.
The fuel prices which were hardly a surprise, except to the consumer, should have been anticipated by the auto industry in AT LEAST one of their models. That way they would have had their toe in the market and a foot in the retooling of cars to meet the need for alternate fuel cars.
If the republicans want to use government to legislatively “protect” the car makers its going to have to assume the bailout function when they don't respond to the market. You can't have it both ways.
Comment posted November 22, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
The objection to the waiver is exactly why the auto dynasty is in trouble.
What you have here is California telling them what Congress should have told them about CAFE standards.
The fuel prices which were hardly a surprise, except to the consumer, should have been anticipated by the auto industry in AT LEAST one of their models. That way they would have had their toe in the market and a foot in the retooling of cars to meet the need for alternate fuel cars.
If the republicans want to use government to legislatively “protect” the car makers its going to have to assume the bailout function when they don't respond to the market. You can't have it both ways.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
rss