question archive In the Clean Air Act as amended, Congress allowed California, which has serious problems with air quality, to adopt its own standards for emissions from cars and trucks, subject to the approval of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) according to certain standards
In the Clean Air Act as amended, Congress allowed California, which has serious problems with air quality, to adopt its own standards for emissions from cars and trucks, subject to the approval of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) according to certain standards
Subject:EconomicsPrice:2.87 Bought7
In the Clean Air Act as amended, Congress allowed California, which has serious problems with air quality, to adopt its own standards for emissions from cars and trucks, subject to the approval of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) according to certain standards. The Act also allowed other states to adopt California’s standards after EPA approval.
In 2004, California adopted emissions standards for all new passenger vehicles and lightduty trucks sold in California beginning in 2009. The standards imposed decreasing limits on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHG) through 2016.
While EPA approval was pending, other states adopted the California standards. A group of industry associations, automakers, and new car dealerships filed suit to block state adoption of the standards (including California).
(a) Under the Environmental Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), a designated federal agency sets fuel economy standards for new cars. The plaintiffs argued, among other things, that the EPCA, which explicitly prohibits states from adopting separate fuel economy standards, preempts states from adopting their own emission standards. Is the plaintiffs’ argument valid? Discuss.
(b) Do the state emissions rules impose on the efforts of the federal government to address global warming internationally? Who should regulate GHGs, the states or the federal government? Both? Neither? Discuss.
(c) The plaintiffs also argued that they would go bankrupt if they were forced to adhere to a different GHG standard for each state. Should they be granted relief on this basis? Does history support their claim? Discuss.
Purchase A New Answer
Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts
GET A QUOTE
Answer Preview
Answer:
A) California might have had much difficult pollution problems, but any deviation from the standard procedures of emissions could be a dangerous precedent, The reason is simple every state would in principle have different set of environmental standards which would complicate and damage vehicle manufacturers bottomline
B) Globally standards regarding environment are very different, Some countries do not have environmental standards all together, Global warming is a complex problem it would just not be resolved by tweaking your vehicle engine by mere 1-2%, It would require complex architecture of power plants, etc. Vehicle emission standards are just a tip of iceberg.
C) Ofcourse Plaintiff is right, They would have to produce different model of vehicles to different states adhering to different laws, Finally you will all recieve a very inferior product all together..
