If the EPA Limits Emissions, it Could Affect Those Who Drive Older Cars

One sure sign that we're in a different Presidential administration is the actions of the Environmental Protection Agency who now give a lot more adamant warnings about things than when under control of the Bush Administration. Their warnings are as dire as you'd expect, including the alarming problems associated with emissions from cars that haven't been repaired to do otherwise. The current and emerging power of the EPA on this issue alone has the power to change the whole fabric of our economy when many think it shouldn't. Yet for many who are concerned that we have to act now to avert any more global warming, the EPA having more power than it ever has is a godsend. For those suffering economically, though, it brings up a new issue that'll have to be addressed if new emissions rules are put in place as a federal or state law: Will everybody be able to afford to make their cars eco-friendly?

As usual, Republicans don't want the EPA to have any power on their own, despite that being for the larger issues of changing what fuels we use and how industry hums along. Chances are they aren't going to have any concern whether people can afford to upgrade their cars so emissions don't spout from their vehicle's tailpipe. It'll probably be painted later as a small issue compared to the rest of what the EPA wants to do, despite it being more than a major factor in the economic turmoil predicted.

California could be the first state to snowball the EPA standards on car emissions if they have their way. For Oregonians one state up, there may be a bit of envy when Oregon seems to start everything, even though major environmental issues aren't one of them so far. As influential as Oregon is in snowballing controversial laws, California getting the go-ahead by the EPA soon to cut those tailpipe emissions will assure a slow spread of the plan across the United States. Right now, 13 other states are interested in doing the same thing at some unknown point. But all eyes are on California where it seems most of the biggest environmental actions we've ever seen in American history will become reality.

Of course, California returned big numbers for Obama during the election. Our President's plans to cut all our greenhouse gas emissions to an extensive and workable level within the next few decades goes right along with the inner core of what California wants to do and the EPA's current philosophy. The chances are finally good, with or without T. Boone Pickens in tow or not, that major environmental laws are going to be in place before Obama's first term is even over. Much of it is good and necessary in the abstract. Because of the portents of the economy being ruined, though, you can expect that only a quarter of the United States will ultimately acquiesce to cutting emissions from not only vehicles but industrial plants.

This obviously means big business is still out to keep the status quo, hell or high water, literally. It'll always be that way, despite economic problems. Right now, the economy is the best excuse for them to not do anything about it in the immediate term. The biggest deal will be coal plants in states that prosper by it where those in control of these plants are already barking loud about the EPA forcing them to cut emissions.

If done correctly, it wouldn't really put the economy into a tailspin. It's those who own an older vehicle, as noted earlier, who could ultimately end up not affording an upgrade to the point of no longer driving.
_____

Well, the thought of many people not driving any longer sounds like a perfect environmental plan. For those who need to drive by necessity, yet have no disposable income to fix their cars, it could potentially mean trouble. The only question is how much the cost would be to upgrade cars so they don't emit emissions from their tailpipes. Would state governments who choose to do this sooner rather than later decide to monetarily help those who can't afford to upgrade? If not, it means another debacle could occur: Those being pulled over by a police officer because their car isn't safe enough for the environment.

Mind you, most of us wouldn't mind seeing someone in a SUV that emanates ten tons of emissions into the air get pulled over by the police and reprimanded for continuing to drive it around town. For those on fixed incomes and families who only have one small car they can't afford to upgrade or change, it'll be a different story. Based on the adamancy of this law, chances are a person violating it will end up either going to jail or paying a stiff fine if caught driving a vehicle that hasn't been upgraded.

For those suffering the most financially, this is a big worry in the states where it's being considered. There hasn't been an outcry about it yet, but you'll likely be hearing about it later once the EPA plows through in changing things. Their plans could be profoundly effective if the balance of the environment with the complex realities of the economy are analyzed and given compromise. And Republicans in Congress will beat this issue to a pulp without thinking about the middle and lower class pain involved if things don't go right.

Should 13 states manage to go this far with cutting emissions, then you'll see other states go forth faster than some might want. Sure, there's plenty of irony with that 13 states/13 colonies connection. As with the early days of America and expanding the union, what catches on spreads faster than a flu virus. Whatever catches on will presumably contain contingency plans to safely and non-belligerently get everybody on board for our first profound attempt at saving the environment.

If that means another small bailout to help people buy new cars or to help pay a bill to get a vehicle upgrade, then so let it be as an uncritical plan built on the shoulders of the EPA...

Source:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-epa-climate18-2009apr18,0,5583357.story