http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119482485706289507.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

Arnold's Imperialism
November 12, 2007; Page A16

"Our future depends on us taking action against global warming right
now," Arnold Schwarzenegger said at a press conference last Thursday.
And so California has sued the Environmental Protection Agency to
force the EPA's hand on local laws that regulate carbon emissions from
California automobiles. "We sue again, and sue again, and sue again,
until we get it," the Governor promised.

His vision of endless litigation is really an attempt to pull off an
elaborate bait-and-switch. Experimentation in the states is good -- as
long as a state makes its own taxpayers the guinea pigs. But Mr.
Schwarzenegger and the environmental lobby want to impose the costs of
their climate-change gestures on everybody else: both on citizens in
the rest of the country, who never voted for Californian politicians,
and especially on Detroit auto makers. Call it California as a
laboratory of imperialism.

In 2002 California passed legislation to limit the tailpipe emissions
of greenhouse gases -- mainly carbon dioxide -- for all cars and
trucks sold in the state. By the end of 2005, the state got around to
asking the EPA for permission. Over the years California has been
granted about 40 waivers to the Clean Air Act, which allow air-quality
laws more stringent than national standards.

All the waivers addressed pollutants like NOX and SOX to combat smog,
say, over Los Angeles. Carbon is different. The EPA has always
considered CO2 the natural and unavoidable byproduct of fuel
combustion -- or, for that matter, human breathing. The greens took
the Bush Administration to their favorite policy venue, the courts, to
reverse this longstanding position.

The Supreme Court obliged. April's Massachusetts v. EPA broadly
interpreted carbon as a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act, basically
because it goes into the air. Yet the Court narrowly held that the EPA
"has significant latitude as to the manner, timing, content, and
coordination of its regulations." Now California is demanding that the
EPA use this judicially invented power to give the state its way on
CO2 emissions.

There's a hitch, though. Although the carbon content for gasoline can
be modified with additives like ethanol, once you pump a given blend
into your car, the carbon emitted per gallon is constant. There's no
viable technology that can capture or limit CO2 as that gallon is
burned. When California says that it wants to "reduce" CO2 emissions
from cars, then, it actually means that it wants cars that get more
miles to the gallon.

Ring a bell? That clanging noise is coming from Congress, which may
ratchet up national fuel-efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon.
Such an indirect tax is pointless for reducing oil consumption or
affecting climate change. But at least Congress's new auto mandates
would be reached through a deliberative legislative process -- and
applied consistently nationwide. The so-called "Cafe standards"
specifically pre-empt state regulation.

Mr. Schwarzenegger knows he's intruding on federal prerogatives, so he
is trying to jimmy the lock on the EPA backdoor. For the purposes of
its lawsuit, California claims that it's not regulating fuel economy
per se, only CO2 emissions. That's a meaningless distinction: Because
of fixed per-gallon carbon content, both measure the same thing. And
anyway, what does supposedly world-wide warming have to do with "clean
air" in California?

The reasons for a uniform fuel economy standard are obvious. The
national auto market can't be sliced up into 50 scraps, each with
multiple sets of rules. It would be impossible to police, and the auto
makers would be compelled to adopt the most stringent mandate. The
federal government can't cede de facto control of environmental
policy, car design and pricing, and interstate commerce to the latest
whim out of Sacramento.

But Mr. Schwarzenegger is unbowed. "The fact of the matter is, what
I'm saying is, Arnold to Michigan: Get off your butt," he said at a
speech at Georgetown earlier this year. The economic costs, of course,
wouldn't be borne by Arnold's blue-state constituents but by the Big
Three and their blue-collar workers.

There is, however, one policy experiment that the Governor could
conduct that wouldn't require federal permission or hurt other states.
Why doesn't he raise excise taxes so that gas costs $5 a gallon in his
state? A direct tax on consumer consumption would definitely cut down
CO2 emissions. Then again, California's gas tax is already the highest
in the nation and voters don't like paying $3 for gas now, so we'll
see if Arnold gets off his butt for that one.

There's also a more dangerous regulatory snare hidden in his demands.
The EPA, pursuant to the Supreme Court's instructions, is in the
process of crafting a carbon policy. But California can't get a waiver
-- an exception to some rule -- if that rule doesn't exist. The
Schwarzenegger lawsuit is partly a confidence trick to trap the EPA
into making an "endangerment finding" on CO2.

If the Administration used its discretion to rule carbon hazardous, it
would be a major step toward a new and onerous global warming
bureaucracy. An agency under different political auspices could run
wild. The last thing the Bush EPA should be doing is paving this road
for the next Administration.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119482485706289507.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

Imperialism
November 12, 2007; Page A16

"Our future depends on us taking action against global warming right
now," Arnold Schwarzenegger said at a press conference last Thursday.
And so California has sued the Environmental Protection Agency to
force the EPA's hand on local laws that regulate carbon emissions from
California automobiles. "We sue again, and sue again, and sue again,
until we get it," the Governor promised.

His vision of endless litigation is really an attempt to pull off an
elaborate bait-and-switch. Experimentation in the states is good -- as
long as a state makes its own taxpayers the guinea pigs. But Mr.
Schwarzenegger and the environmental lobby want to impose the costs of
their climate-change gestures on everybody else: both on citizens in
the rest of the country, who never voted for Californian politicians,
and especially on Detroit auto makers. Call it California as a
laboratory of imperialism.

In 2002 California passed legislation to limit the tailpipe emissions
of greenhouse gases -- mainly carbon dioxide -- for all cars and
trucks sold in the state. By the end of 2005, the state got around to
asking the EPA for permission. Over the years California has been
granted about 40 waivers to the Clean Air Act, which allow air-quality
laws more stringent than national standards.

All the waivers addressed pollutants like NOX and SOX to combat smog,
say, over Los Angeles. Carbon is different. The EPA has always
considered CO2 the natural and unavoidable byproduct of fuel
combustion -- or, for that matter, human breathing. The greens took
the Bush Administration to their favorite policy venue, the courts, to
reverse this longstanding position.

The Supreme Court obliged. April's Massachusetts v. EPA broadly
interpreted carbon as a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act, basically
because it goes into the air. Yet the Court narrowly held that the EPA
"has significant latitude as to the manner, timing, content, and
coordination of its regulations." Now California is demanding that the
EPA use this judicially invented power to give the state its way on
CO2 emissions.

There's a hitch, though. Although the carbon content for gasoline can
be modified with additives like ethanol, once you pump a given blend
into your car, the carbon emitted per gallon is constant. There's no
viable technology that can capture or limit CO2 as that gallon is
burned. When California says that it wants to "reduce" CO2 emissions
from cars, then, it actually means that it wants cars that get more
miles to the gallon.

Ring a bell? That clanging noise is coming from Congress, which may
ratchet up national fuel-efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon.
Such an indirect tax is pointless for reducing oil consumption or
affecting climate change. But at least Congress's new auto mandates
would be reached through a deliberative legislative process -- and
applied consistently nationwide. The so-called "Cafe standards"
specifically pre-empt state regulation.

Mr. Schwarzenegger knows he's intruding on federal prerogatives, so he
is trying to jimmy the lock on the EPA backdoor. For the purposes of
its lawsuit, California claims that it's not regulating fuel economy
per se, only CO2 emissions. That's a meaningless distinction: Because
of fixed per-gallon carbon content, both measure the same thing. And
anyway, what does supposedly world-wide warming have to do with "clean
air" in California?

The reasons for a uniform fuel economy standard are obvious. The
national auto market can't be sliced up into 50 scraps, each with
multiple sets of rules. It would be impossible to police, and the auto
makers would be compelled to adopt the most stringent mandate. The
federal government can't cede de facto control of environmental
policy, car design and pricing, and interstate commerce to the latest
whim out of Sacramento.

But Mr. Schwarzenegger is unbowed. "The fact of the matter is, what
I'm saying is, Arnold to Michigan: Get off your butt," he said at a
speech at Georgetown earlier this year. The economic costs, of course,
wouldn't be borne by Arnold's blue-state constituents but by the Big
Three and their blue-collar workers.

There is, however, one policy experiment that the Governor could
conduct that wouldn't require federal permission or hurt other states.
Why doesn't he raise excise taxes so that gas costs $5 a gallon in his
state? A direct tax on consumer consumption would definitely cut down
CO2 emissions. Then again, California's gas tax is already the highest
in the nation and voters don't like paying $3 for gas now, so we'll
see if Arnold gets off his butt for that one.

There's also a more dangerous regulatory snare hidden in his demands.
The EPA, pursuant to the Supreme Court's instructions, is in the
process of crafting a carbon policy. But California can't get a waiver
-- an exception to some rule -- if that rule doesn't exist. The
Schwarzenegger lawsuit is partly a confidence trick to trap the EPA
into making an "endangerment finding" on CO2.

If the Administration used its discretion to rule carbon hazardous, it
would be a major step toward a new and onerous global warming
bureaucracy. An agency under different political auspices could run
wild. The last thing the Bush EPA should be doing is paving this road
for the next Administration.