News outlets are reporting that the U.S. Postal Service is considering dropping a delivery day to meet budget shortfalls. The self-supporting agency's revenues have dipped in recent years, reportedly due to the increased use of electronic mail and rising delivery costs.
Interestingly, this may be good news for the nation's air quality. According the USPS website, the agency owns and operates the world's largest civilian vehicle fleet. Each year, over 219,000 USPS vehicles drive 1.2 billion miles and use 121 million gallons of fuel. Presumably, the USPS would still transport mail on its off days, but home delivery miles might be reduced by 1/6.
Numerous companies, in 'going green,' have switched to 4/10 work weeks to reduce the environmental impacts of car commuting. In asking skeptical lawmakers to rewrite the 26-year-old law that mandates 6-day-a-week delivery, the USPS could play a green hand as well as the financial.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Misdirection in NYT debate
While I applaud the New York Times' effort to provide a forum for discussion regarding Obama's first-day decision ordering the EPA to approve California's application for a waiver on auto emissions, I was disappointed in the newspaper's publication and highlighting of erroneous understandings of the Clean Air Act. Specifically, the Times pulls this text from Robert W. Hahn's brief comment:
The president’s decision to revisit the question of whether individual states should be allowed to go their own way on fuel economy standards raises another important issue. Balkanizing these regulations would likely raise the cost of producing vehicles. In the extreme, imagine if Toyota had to produce Camrys tailored to the demands of each of 50 states.
Additionally, Jonathan H. Adler writes in a classic federalist argument:
Where environmental concerns are more localized, there are powerful reasons to let states set their own course, as state citizens will both reap most of the benefits and bear most of the costs of their efforts. Not so when it comes to addressing transboundary (let alone global) environmental or regulating products sold in interstate markets.
Finally, Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute echos Adler's remarks:
The idea behind federalism is that we should look suspiciously at state action that imposes costs on people in other states — and California state fuel efficiency standards will most certainly do that by dictating to some degree the mix of cars manufactured for sale outside of California (whether the benefits of those fuel efficiency standards exceed the costs is a separate question). Why does California get to dictate the nature of the auto fleet for the rest of us?
Each commentator displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Clean Air Act works. First of all, there cannot be 50 different standards for a Camry. In reality, there can only be two. The Clean Air Act preempts state efforts to control auto emissions, but written into the law is an exception for California to apply for a waiver to seek greater controls. As Congress passed the CAA, it was obvious the smogy LA basin needed a larger dose of medicine to deal with the problem, and Congress recognized that. In fact, Congress considered California a laboratory for innovation in dealing with air pollution: an underpinning of federalist thought that these commentators have chosen to ignore. U.S. Supreme Court Justices have suggested for nearly a century that states act in this fashion - an argument made by Justice Brandeis in 1932 - but most recently noted by Sandra Day O'Conner in her dissent from Gonzales v. Raich (holding California's medical marijuana law intruded on the federal government's Commerce Clause power). No other state may apply to waive the CAA's preemption, thus there is no chance of a slippery slope leading to rampant state regulation. However, other states may adopt California's standards. Thus, no matter whether the 49 states choose California's or the EPA's emission standards, there can only be two standards in the U.S.
The other two commentators focus on on the economic impacts of allowing one state to make unique rules for a predominately interstate industry. Clearly, our jurisprudence has discouraged this practice since the Supreme Court recognized the theory of the dormant commerce clause (preempting state efforts which unduly burden interstate commerce) in cases regarding state regulation of the railroads. Congress immediately passed the Interstate Commerce Act in 1886 intending to normalize railroad regulations, its first great exercise of the commerce clause.
The commentators argue that California is placing a burden on all of us by raising car prices, hinting that it is without our consent. And here the argument fails. The waiver exists within the federal Clean Air Act. In national consensus, we afforded California this opportunity.
Jerry Taylor asks "[w]hy does California get to dictate the nature of the auto fleet for the rest of us?" Because we asked it to.
The president’s decision to revisit the question of whether individual states should be allowed to go their own way on fuel economy standards raises another important issue. Balkanizing these regulations would likely raise the cost of producing vehicles. In the extreme, imagine if Toyota had to produce Camrys tailored to the demands of each of 50 states.
Additionally, Jonathan H. Adler writes in a classic federalist argument:
Where environmental concerns are more localized, there are powerful reasons to let states set their own course, as state citizens will both reap most of the benefits and bear most of the costs of their efforts. Not so when it comes to addressing transboundary (let alone global) environmental or regulating products sold in interstate markets.
Finally, Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute echos Adler's remarks:
The idea behind federalism is that we should look suspiciously at state action that imposes costs on people in other states — and California state fuel efficiency standards will most certainly do that by dictating to some degree the mix of cars manufactured for sale outside of California (whether the benefits of those fuel efficiency standards exceed the costs is a separate question). Why does California get to dictate the nature of the auto fleet for the rest of us?
Each commentator displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Clean Air Act works. First of all, there cannot be 50 different standards for a Camry. In reality, there can only be two. The Clean Air Act preempts state efforts to control auto emissions, but written into the law is an exception for California to apply for a waiver to seek greater controls. As Congress passed the CAA, it was obvious the smogy LA basin needed a larger dose of medicine to deal with the problem, and Congress recognized that. In fact, Congress considered California a laboratory for innovation in dealing with air pollution: an underpinning of federalist thought that these commentators have chosen to ignore. U.S. Supreme Court Justices have suggested for nearly a century that states act in this fashion - an argument made by Justice Brandeis in 1932 - but most recently noted by Sandra Day O'Conner in her dissent from Gonzales v. Raich (holding California's medical marijuana law intruded on the federal government's Commerce Clause power). No other state may apply to waive the CAA's preemption, thus there is no chance of a slippery slope leading to rampant state regulation. However, other states may adopt California's standards. Thus, no matter whether the 49 states choose California's or the EPA's emission standards, there can only be two standards in the U.S.
The other two commentators focus on on the economic impacts of allowing one state to make unique rules for a predominately interstate industry. Clearly, our jurisprudence has discouraged this practice since the Supreme Court recognized the theory of the dormant commerce clause (preempting state efforts which unduly burden interstate commerce) in cases regarding state regulation of the railroads. Congress immediately passed the Interstate Commerce Act in 1886 intending to normalize railroad regulations, its first great exercise of the commerce clause.
The commentators argue that California is placing a burden on all of us by raising car prices, hinting that it is without our consent. And here the argument fails. The waiver exists within the federal Clean Air Act. In national consensus, we afforded California this opportunity.
Jerry Taylor asks "[w]hy does California get to dictate the nature of the auto fleet for the rest of us?" Because we asked it to.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Introduction
After President Obama's inauguration at the beginning of this year, the environmental community waited in anticipation. Over the course of his campaign, Obama made many promises regarding his commitment to improving the nation's environment. However, I felt some trepidation during his first days, hoping he'd follow through on his promises. He did. Yesterday, Obama directed the EPA to grant California a waiver to impose stiffer auto emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, a waiver California routinely received until President Bush took office.
Unfortunately, conservatives, usually advocates for states' rights, are already misdirecting the debate over whether California should have this opportunity. In my first commentary post, I plan to analyze the conservative and libertarian positions published in the novel New York Times section, "Room for Debate." Sadly, the Times, in an effort to explore all sides of the debate, allowed commentary from conservatives that plainly misunderstands how the Clean Air Act operates.
Unfortunately, conservatives, usually advocates for states' rights, are already misdirecting the debate over whether California should have this opportunity. In my first commentary post, I plan to analyze the conservative and libertarian positions published in the novel New York Times section, "Room for Debate." Sadly, the Times, in an effort to explore all sides of the debate, allowed commentary from conservatives that plainly misunderstands how the Clean Air Act operates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
