Last week California State Attorney General Bill Lockyer joined fellow liberal state AGs in suing the Bush Administration over proposed reforms to New Source Review program. “I would rather spend our limited budget suing a polluter than suing the federal government,” Lockyer said. “But, unfortunately, the two are synonymous these days.”

FACT: In February of 2000, California government officials allowed one of California’s largest polluters to increase toxic discharges into San Francisco Bay shortly after the company donated $70,500 to Democratic Gov. Gray Davis. Despite a widespread popular outcry, State Attorney General Lockyer declined to investigate the matter.

The Sierra Club announced its “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly” for February 24. We were shocked—yes shocked—that the Club put Sen. James Jeffords’ “Clean Power Act” (S. 556) in “The Good” category.

FACT: The Jeffords bill is very bad—ugly even. According to a July 2001 report by the Energy Information Administration, the Jeffords bill would increase consumer electricity prices by as much as 32 percent by 2010. It would impose a cap on carbon dioxide emissions, which is, according to the Congressional Budget Office, equivalent to a regressive energy tax on the poor. And it would create energy supply problems (EIA) by decimating the coal industry, making us more dependent on foreign energy sources.

 

A coalition of 14 state attorneys general announced its plan today to sue the Bush Administration over its “failure” to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide from the nation’s power plants. These legal solons charged that “the administration’s current policy regarding CO2 emissions violates the federal Clean Air Act…”

 

FACT: Curiously, the state AGs are suing EPA for…abiding by the law. During consideration of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, Congress specifically rejected proposals to authorize EPA to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide. That means EPA has no authority to do so. As the Supreme Court has said: “[f]ew principles of statutory construction are more compelling than the proposition that Congress does not intend sub silentio to enact statutory language that it has earlier discarded.”

 

It’s difficult to gainsay the intensity of feeling among environmental groups over CAFÉ. “The auto industry and their friends in Congress should stop holding fuel efficiency hostage. It's time to fix our gas guzzlers,” roared the always-dyspeptic US PIRG. “The U.S. auto industry remains stuck in a CAFE pit stop that has lasted for more than two decades,” according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. For such groups, raising CAFÉ to uniform 40 mile per gallon standard (up from 20.7 mpg for light trucks and 27.5 mpg for passenger cars) is an urgent necessity; indeed, as they see it, a 40 mpg standard will eradicate America’s most pernicious social and environmental ill: the SUV. Of course, because many Americans own and prefer SUVs, this goal is never explicitly stated. Instead, huge increases in CAFÉ are touted as consumer friendly and economically beneficial. Thus the Natural Resources Defense Council: “Raising CAFÉ standards [to 40 mpg] can save Americans money.” There’s more: “Failing to do so will needlessly harm the health and lighten the wallets of everyone who breathes and everyone who drives.” This is, the group assures the world, “the best choice for America and Americans.”

 

FACT: CAFÉ levels advocated by extremist groups will cost Americans more money, not less, and will result in greater congestion, according to a new study by the Congressional Budget Office. Interestingly, CBO’s conclusion is predicated on CAFÉ increases that are much lower than those preferred by green groups. Raising fuel economy standards to 31.3 mpg for cars and 24.5 mpg for light trucks, CBO found, would cost an additional $3.6 billion, or $228 to the price of every new vehicle sold. CBO also found that fuel economy increases—again, those that are less stringent than what green groups support—could worsen social welfare by increasing traffic congestion and accidents (for more data on the latter, read the 2001 NAS study on CAFÉ and traffic fatalities). “Higher CAFE standards would lower the per-mile cost of driving, providing owners of new vehicles with an incentive to drive more,” CBO said. “While the increase in driving associated with higher CAFE standards might be relatively small, some studies suggest that the resulting costs of the increased congestion and traffic accidents may nevertheless be large.”