California is battling with air pollution for a long time. In order to combat air pollution, California adopted "the Fleet Rules" in 2000, which required certain fleet operators (street sweepers, public fleet vehicles, public transit vehicles, garbage trucks, airport transportation vehicles, school buses, and heavy duty fleet vehicles) to limit automobile emission by purchasing low emissions vehicles. In the same year, the Engine Manufacturers’ Association (EMA) filed a lawsuit against the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for adopting "the Fleet Rules" on the basis that "the Fleet Rules" is preempted by section 209 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Although the lower court was in favor of SCAQMD, the Supreme Court vacated that
…show more content…
California has a serious air quality problem. 1400 people in each million are at cancer risk from the polluted air. Among them, 71.2 % airborn cancer is caused by outdoor air that is contaminated by the mobile engine exhaust. Therefore, California needs special measures outside federal ones to reduce health risk. California’s problem is well understood. Therefore, California has a waiver from EPA to regulate mobile sources pollution as mentioned in section 209(b) of CCA. Other states can adopt California’s mobile source standard. For example, New York is adopting California’s air quality standard from automobile …show more content…
California’s environmental consciousness is well known throughout the history. For example, California planned to regulate automobile emissions well before a decade of the 1965 Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act. The Fleet Rules are also a milestone in California’s environmental consciousness. According to SCAQMD, the Fleet Rules would have reduced 4,870 tons of emissions in 2010 if not haulted by the lawsuit.
4. The Court failed to interpret “standard" apart from dictionary meaning. According to EPA, “the word ‘standards’ connotes a numerical value setting the quantitative level of permitted emissions of pollutants by a new motor vehicle.” Surprisingly, EPA is absent from the court briefing although “EPA’s own historical understanding of “standards” for the purposes of section 209”.
Conclusion
Considering the above arguments, I think ‘arguments in favor’ wins over ‘arguments in against’. Therefore, I disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision. The Supreme Court should consider California’s unique air pollution problem and help the state to progress with its innovative pollution reduction
California has a serious air quality problem. 1400 people in each million are at cancer risk from the polluted air. Among them, 71.2 % airborn cancer is caused by outdoor air that is contaminated by the mobile engine exhaust. Therefore, California needs special measures outside federal ones to reduce health risk. California’s problem is well understood. Therefore, California has a waiver from EPA to regulate mobile sources pollution as mentioned in section 209(b) of CCA. Other states can adopt California’s mobile source standard. For example, New York is adopting California’s air quality standard from automobile …show more content…
California’s environmental consciousness is well known throughout the history. For example, California planned to regulate automobile emissions well before a decade of the 1965 Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act. The Fleet Rules are also a milestone in California’s environmental consciousness. According to SCAQMD, the Fleet Rules would have reduced 4,870 tons of emissions in 2010 if not haulted by the lawsuit.
4. The Court failed to interpret “standard" apart from dictionary meaning. According to EPA, “the word ‘standards’ connotes a numerical value setting the quantitative level of permitted emissions of pollutants by a new motor vehicle.” Surprisingly, EPA is absent from the court briefing although “EPA’s own historical understanding of “standards” for the purposes of section 209”.
Conclusion
Considering the above arguments, I think ‘arguments in favor’ wins over ‘arguments in against’. Therefore, I disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision. The Supreme Court should consider California’s unique air pollution problem and help the state to progress with its innovative pollution reduction