雖然布希簽了節能法案，但對某些人還是不能期待太多...
最近一件熱門話題，
就是加州跟聯邦政府的汽車排放標準大戰，
下面有環資的新聞，
再來有今天衛報報導EPA內部專家的爆料，
那個EPA的頭，用布希已經簽署節能法案為理由，
否決加州自己訂立汽車排放的權利，
只能用硬凹來形容...Orz
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://e-info.org.tw/node/29273
美環保署否決加州汽車溫室氣體排放法律
環境電子報摘譯自2007年12月19日ENS美國，華盛頓特區報導；
吳萃慧編譯；審校
美國環境保護署（EPA）否決加州對機動車輛設定溫室氣體排放限制的要求，
而這是美國環保署在「清淨空氣法案」（Clean Air Act）規範下
第一次否決這種減少污染的要求，加州官員也開始準備他們對此的訴訟案。
加州政府是以「清淨空氣法案」（Clean Air Act）所賦予執行的職責，
尋求降低聯邦的排放標準，使加州可以採用更嚴格的標準。
加州法律要求其轄區要在2016年達到減少30%機動車輛溫室氣體排放量的標準，
而在同期間美國聯邦政府卻完全不規範溫室氣體排放。
加州檢察總長小布朗（Edmund G. Brown Jr.）12月19日表示，
此次環保署的否決將促使加州對環保署興訟。
他指出：「布希政府否決這項要求完全沒有法律依據。
史瓦辛格州長和我正準備要在最快時間內提出告訴。」
其他16個州也已經或正準備採用加州的排放標準。
這16個州包括亞利桑納州、科羅拉多州、康乃迪克州、佛羅里達州、緬因州、
馬里蘭州、麻州、紐澤西州、新墨西哥州、紐約州、奧勒岡州、賓州、羅德島、猶它州、
佛蒙特州、華盛頓州。同意加州提議的減量標準表示這些州的標準也會同時生效。
環保署行政主管強森（Stephen Johnson）表示，否決加州的要求，
是因為布希總統19日所簽署立法的能源法案是一個「全國性解決方案」，
比一個「令人迷惑且片面的州立法規更好，更能減少美國從汽機車產生的氣候足跡」。
雖然這個「能源獨立與安全法案」確實指示要在2020年達到每加侖35英哩
（約合每公升9.2公里）的燃料經濟標準，但是它並沒有規範溫室氣體排放。
兩個政策的不同處在於「加州清淨汽車計畫（California Clean Cars Program）」
會以2009年為標準年，比聯邦能源法案所要求達成每加侖35英哩標準的年份早了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專家與員工們匿名報料，
他們之前EPA內部會議結論都認為，
加州申請更嚴格的排放標準於法有據，
符合過去40採行的程序，
他們也數次建議EPA頭頭Johnson應該同意加州的申請，
（這個Johnson是布希指派的）
甚至警告他如果否決，可能會被加州政府告上法院。
但是在眾車商跟副總統錢尼會面，
克萊斯勒總裁又寫出「給EPA的一封信」之後，
Johnson就決定一意孤行否決到底。
在宣佈否決的前一個月，
Johnson完全不再請教專家的意見，
只在最後告知「心意已決」，
要求下屬找出否決加州的法源依據。
結果阿諾州長當然沒在怕，
馬上決定狀告法院（已經拖兩年了，居然還用這種鳥理由否決!?），
紐約時報的編輯專欄也砲聲隆隆，
直指EPA的決定是「權利的傲慢、意識形態的盲目，與對汽車工業的政治酬庸」
我的結論：果然有阿諾當州長，就有好戲連台....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.
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 69.234.110.214