虽然布希签了节能法案，但对某些人还是不能期待太多... 最近一件热门话题， 就是加州跟联邦政府的汽车排放标准大战， 下面有环资的新闻， 再来有今天卫报报导EPA内部专家的爆料， 那个EPA的头，用布希已经签署节能法案为理由， 否决加州自己订立汽车排放的权利， 只能用硬凹来形容...Orz ------------------------------------------------------------------- http://e-info.org.tw/node/29273 美环保署否决加州汽车温室气体排放法律 环境电子报摘译自2007年12月19日ENS美国，华盛顿特区报导； 吴萃慧编译；审校 美国环境保护署（EPA）否决加州对机动车辆设定温室气体排放限制的要求， 而这是美国环保署在「清净空气法案」（Clean Air Act）规范下 第一次否决这种减少污染的要求，加州官员也开始准备他们对此的诉讼案。 加州政府是以「清净空气法案」（Clean Air Act）所赋予执行的职责， 寻求降低联邦的排放标准，使加州可以采用更严格的标准。 加州法律要求其辖区要在2016年达到减少30%机动车辆温室气体排放量的标准， 而在同期间美国联邦政府却完全不规范温室气体排放。 加州检察总长小布朗（Edmund G. Brown Jr.）12月19日表示， 此次环保署的否决将促使加州对环保署兴讼。 他指出：「布希政府否决这项要求完全没有法律依据。 史瓦辛格州长和我正准备要在最快时间内提出告诉。」 其他16个州也已经或正准备采用加州的排放标准。 这16个州包括亚利桑纳州、科罗拉多州、康乃迪克州、佛罗里达州、缅因州、 马里兰州、麻州、纽泽西州、新墨西哥州、纽约州、奥勒冈州、宾州、罗德岛、犹它州、 佛蒙特州、华盛顿州。同意加州提议的减量标准表示这些州的标准也会同时生效。 环保署行政主管强森（Stephen Johnson）表示，否决加州的要求， 是因为布希总统19日所签署立法的能源法案是一个「全国性解决方案」， 比一个「令人迷惑且片面的州立法规更好，更能减少美国从汽机车产生的气候足迹」。 虽然这个「能源独立与安全法案」确实指示要在2020年达到每加仑35英哩 （约合每公升9.2公里）的燃料经济标准，但是它并没有规范温室气体排放。 两个政策的不同处在於「加州清净汽车计画（California Clean Cars Program）」 会以2009年为标准年，比联邦能源法案所要求达成每加仑35英哩标准的年份早了10年。 ------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2231927,00.html Cheney accused of blocking Californian bid to cut car fumes Dan Glaister in Los Angeles Monday December 24, 2007 The Guardian （摘要： EPA专家与员工们匿名报料， 他们之前EPA内部会议结论都认为， 加州申请更严格的排放标准於法有据， 符合过去40年采行的程序， 他们也数次建议EPA头头Johnson应该同意加州的申请， （这个Johnson是布希指派的） 甚至警告他如果否决，可能会被加州政府告上法院。 但是在众车商跟副总统钱尼会面， 克莱斯勒总裁又写出「给EPA的一封信」之後， Johnson就决定一意孤行否决到底。 在宣布否决的前一个月， Johnson完全不再请教专家的意见， 只在最後告知「心意已决」， 要求下属找出否决加州的法源依据。 结果阿诺州长当然没在怕， 马上决定状告法院（已经拖两年了，居然还用这种鸟理由否决!?）， 纽约时报的编辑专栏也炮声隆隆， 直指EPA的决定是「权利的傲慢、意识形态的盲目，与对汽车工业的政治酬庸」 我的结论：果然有阿诺当州长，就有好戏连台....XD） The US vice-president, Dick Cheney, was behind a controversial decision to block California's attempt to impose tough emission limits on car manufacturers, according to insiders at the government Environmental Protection Agency. Staff at the agency, which announced last week that California's proposed limits were redundant, said the agency's chief went against their expert advice after car executives met Cheney, and a Chrysler executive delivered a letter to the EPA saying why the state should not be allowed to regulate greenhouse gases. EPA staff members told the Los Angeles Times that the agency's head, the Bush appointee Stephen Johnson, ignored their conclusions and shut himself off from consultation in the month before the announcement. He then informed them of his decision and instructed them to provide the legal rationale for it, they said. "California met every criteria ... on the merits," an anonymous member of the EPA staff told the Times. "The same criteria we have used for the last 40 years ... We told him that. All the briefings we have given him laid out the facts." In an editorial, the New York Times described the decision as, "an indefensible act of executive arrogance that can only be explained as the product of ideological blindness and as a political payoff to the automobile industry". Johnson said that because Bush signed an energy bill last week which raised fuel economy standards, there was no justification for separate state regulation. The president, the agency said, had provided a "clear national solution" and there was no need for a "confusing patchwork of state rules to reduce America's climate footprint from vehicles". But Johnson's staff gave him the opposite advice, warning him that should he block California, the state would probably sue him in the courts and would probably win. The state's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, immediately announced that he would challenge the EPA's ruling in the courts, describing it as "legally indefensible". California had wanted to implement a 2002 law limiting greenhouse gas emissions from cars and lorries. Had it been successful, 16 other states had said they would follow suit, effectively creating a national standard that car makers would have been obliged to follow. --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 69.234.110.214 ※ 编辑: Waitingchen 来自: 69.234.110.214 (12/25 05:18)