Bait and Switch

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119482485706289507.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Today’s Wall Street Journal editorial provides some interesting insight into the conservatives playbook in the environmental debate. Schwarzenegger is leading California into a lawsuit against the EPA to get Federal approval for California’s strict limits on CO2 emissions on all new cars sold in the state. 

The Journal first deplores the governor’s efforts as terrible state interference in federal affairs. The journal rightly points out that auto makers faced with 50 different fuel efficiency requirements would comply with the most strict one and thereby be able to sell a single model of vehicle all over the country. The Journal however, instead of calling for national legislation to rectify the latest conflict in our federal system, pans efforts in Congress to raise national efficiency standards to 35mpg as a new tax on the nation. 

The Journal also goes on to fearfully contemplate the notion that California’s lawsuit, if successful, would force the EPA into ruling that carbon emissions are dangerous enough to warrant attention and regulation, a move they are currently contemplating. Besides exposing the blatant hypocrisy of its federalism concerns, the Journal makes an interesting value judgment here. We should NOT regulate carbon emissions; increasing efficiency standards are a tax, not measures to keep US industry competitive. 

The last few sentences of the journal’s bait and switch of federalism concerns to OMG efficiency bad provides the most insight into conservative thought and provides the most hope for the future:   

“If the Administration used its discretion to rule carbon hazardous, it would be a major step toward a new and onerous    global warming bureaucracy. An agency under different political auspices could run wild.The last thing the Bush EPA should be doing is paving this road for the next Administration.”

It is heartening to know that the good people of the Wall Street Journal Editorial board expect “the next Administration” to journey down this dreaded road of fuel efficiency standards and carbon emission regulation. What sort of “next Administration” could possibly make these editors squirm so? 

Sasha R-K