Current News and Media Videos

It’s easy to see why Time Magazine likes high gas prices. They spell it out pretty clearly in an article about it. The top 10 reasons to like $4 gas, according to Time Magazine:

• Jobs once outsourced overseas come back to the States
• Urban sprawl slows down
• Four day work weeks (give me a break!)
• Less pollution leading to more lives saved
• People are more frugal
• Fewer traffic deaths as motorists drive slower
• Driving less leads to cheaper insurance
• Less traffic and more public transportation usage
• Police officers drive less and walk their beats more, making neighborhoods safer
• People are getting slimmer due to less driving and more walking and biking

I’ve been seeing more and more SUVs parked with For Sale signs on them. That’s good. And when gas hits $5 per gallon the world will be a better place.

$5/gallon gas prices has many consumers worried about the economy. They are saying they will cut back on expenses (and many already have) and down-size their vehicles to something more affordable. That’s good!

An overhaul in Americans’ driving habits has been necessary for a long time. SUV hogs have encouraged oil producers to keep doing things they way they’ve always been done. If it wasn’t for the booming 1990s and the rise in use of SUVs we might have had alternative energy sources by now. But Americans have relied on oil from the Middle East, propping up a false security at home based on undue optimism, and now look at the boat we’re in.

To top it off, Bush’s unjust war in Iraq and the long-term occupation of Afghanistan aren’t helping energy prices at all. The U.S. military is the largest consumer of petroleum products and as long as we continue our occupation efforts, we will need the oil and we are the mercy of oil drillers in the Middle East. President Bush has done us no favors with his foreign policy initiatives and it will be a long time before the U.S. recovers from its self-induced economic problems.

In 2003, the EPA said that because green house gasses were not air pollutants, they had no power to set emission standards for vehicles under the Clean Air Act. Later that year several states and environmental agencies brought suit against the EPA. The suit progressed through the DC circuit and despite challenges brought by the EPA, finally made it to the Supreme Court.

In their 5-4 decision, the court did not say the EPA should step up and regulate vehicle CO2 emissions, but did clearly state the agency had authority to do so.

It never ceases to amaze me the arguments political stiffs can get into. The question before the Supreme Court was, Does the EPA have the authority to regulate vehicle emission standards. Not, should they, but could they if they wanted to.

The Bush Administration argued no, clearly because they want to shirk their responsibilities as chief executive to enforce the law. The historical conservative position is that the federal government should not be involved in environmental regulation. I agree with the position, but the federal government is involved in environmental regulation, like it or not. The president’s job is to enforce the nation’s laws. The EPA falls under the executive branch of the government. Therefore, if environmental regulation is the law of the land then the president is obligated to enforce those laws.

From a philosophical perspective, if the Bush Administration doesn’t want to regulate automobile emissions and it isn’t currently a part of the EPA mission then the Bush Administration doesn’t have to pick up the mantle on would-be regulation it disagrees with. But to argue that the EPA doesn’t have the authority is a bit absurd. Here’s the clear mission statement of the executive organization:

The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect human health and the environment. Since 1970, EPA has been working for a cleaner, healthier environment for the American people.

If the mission of the EPA is to protect human health and auto emissions contribute to ozone depletion and environmental destruction then it follows to reason that the president’s job is to ensure the EPA does just that. So how does the Bush Administration get off trying to argue that the EPA doesn’t have the authority to do the job the Congress and the Executive Office defined for it? It’s a position in character with this administration to shirk its responsibilities to enforce the law rather than interpret it or create it. President Bush has spent his entire term trying to be all three branches of government and it’s high time the other two branches step up and kick the SOB square between the legs where it will count the most.

News and Media Blog