California Tells EPA It Doesn't Have To Obey Washington Policies

*** SPOILER ALERT! ***

California feels federal vehicle emission laws are "pathetic", not doing enough to curb greenhouse gasses, so California intends to have its own, more aggressive low-emissions agenda. In other words, California wants to be *cleaner* that (allegedly ineffective and pathetic) federal law mandates.


This is where "the other side" gets to chime in, asserting that massive global climate change is a hoax, and isn't happening / if it were, humans are not a substantial contributing factor / we need more debate on the topic / etc.

Actually - this is NOTHING new - California has - in the past - had different emissions regulations for cars.

Massive climate change is a fact - it cannot be denied that the earth is warmer than it was 50 years ago - and 100 years ago. What has caused it - and how the earth responds to it is at question -

My Biology/Botany professor at college would LAUGH at the suggestion that Global Warming can directly be tied to emissions - since we do not have the Hundreds of Thousands of years of data to prove that. It is likely that the earths temperature has varied over time - and will continue to do so. While the earth is warming right now - we are actually heading toward the next ice age. (In ten thousand years or so). AND it is nature that brings these things under control.

BUT - there is NO question that - especially in cities and West of the Rockies - the Air pollution is affected by cars and manufacturing plant emissions - and the need to have breathable air - requires controlling emissions into the air. Air has measurably improved due to the efforts - and this has NOTHING to do with whether emissions cause the warming too. If you had been to china - you would see that in some cities they actually have days off - to allow the air to improve because it is so toxic to humans and they are late into controlling emissions from manufacturing. And these are TWO different issues.

@TomM wrote "My Biology/Botany professor at college would LAUGH at the suggestion that Global Warming can directly be tied to emissions - since we do not have the Hundreds of Thousands of years of data to prove that. It is likely that the earths temperature has varied over time - and will continue to do so. While the earth is warming right now - we are actually heading toward the next ice age. (In ten thousand years or so). AND it is nature that brings these things under control. "

You probably went to college a very long time ago, as evident that the info above is completely obsolete. Below is an excerpt from NOAA website:

"Over the last 800,000 years atmospheric CO2 levels as indicated by the ice-core data have fluctuated between 170 and 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv), corresponding with conditions of glacial and interglacial periods. The Vostok core indicates very similar trends. Prior to about 450,000 years before present time (BP) atmospheric CO2 levels were always at or below 260 ppmv and reached lowest values, approaching 170 ppmv, between 660,000 and 670,000 years ago. The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 ppmv, in the Vostok core, around 330,000 years ago. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased markedly in industrial times; measurements in year 2010 at Cape Grim Tasmania and the South Pole both indicated values of 386 ppmv, and are currently increasing at about 2 ppmv/year."

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/ice-core

For the reading impaired, below is the link to a NASA page that tells the same story: http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/


Atmospheric CO2 level already exceeded 400ppmv today - highest level ever recorded in nearly a million years - and which has accelerated in the last 100 years. There have been no extraordinary naturally occurring events that contributed to this rise - human activities are solely responsible for the increase.

The oceans are trying to do their best to absorb the excess CO2, and as a consequence oceanic acid level (due to CO2 absorption) has increased and caused massive coral reef collapses. There will be more environmental disasters before the next ice age arrives.

The anti-climate change camp (Trump, Perry, ...) are trying the disinformation propaganda by mixing the natural cycles which occur over very slowly over thousands of years with this man-made effect. They can fool some people some time, but the truth is in the number and true science don't lie.

Trump can VERY EASILY put California in check. Punishing California for their idiocy needs to be Job 1.

States Rights allow California to enact more rigorous regulations then the Federal government. Businesses can chose how to address that market. Problems arise when California regulations are adopted by the Feds and imposed on other states that don't want them or whose citizens cannot afford them. California is a nation by itself as the picture depicts. It's elite citizens have very different views than the rest of the nation, as witnessed by the fact that if one takes California out of the equation, Trump won both the Electoral College and the popular vote. There is something to be said for Calexit.

Be careful what you wish for or you will need to find new sources to pay out the Republican graft:

Total IRS Tax Collected (Billions)
#1 $369.2 California
#2 $265.3 Texas
#3 $250.6 New York
#4 $154.4 Florida
California contributes more to the Federal Government that the bottom 25 states combined.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/federal_revenue_by_state.php

Federal spending as a % of State GDP:
#1 42.3% District of Columbia
#2 32.9% Mississippi
#3 30.6% Virginia
#40 15.7% California

Federal Spending/$ Pad in Federal Tax
#1 $4.70 Mississippi
#2 $4.26 New Mexico
#3 $4.23 West Virginia
#36 $1.18 California
https://mises.org/blog/which-states-rely-most-federal-spending
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

Form the data, the Republican controlled states pay less in to the Federal Government and yet take the least out.

Looks like you have piss poor understanding of how to run a business, otherwise you wouldn't be suggesting cutting off your top revenue source while keeping all of the Republican assets with negative cash flow.

Try these numbers on a per citizen basis. That's what counts. There is wealth in other states with smaller populations.

I thought we were talking about states? If a state pays more into the Federal Government, yet takes out less than the red states, why does it matter if a state somewhere has isolated pockets of old money/mafia money? On a per capita basis, the District of Columbia is #1 for taxes paid, and the largest spender, yet what do they produce other than politicians?

Should states be valued on exports since this is a net inflow of cash into the US? (a good business decision):
#1 Texas: US$251.1 billion (17.1% of US total)
#2 California: $165.4 billion (11.3%)
#3 Washington: $86.4 billion (5.9%)