October 2004

Moderator: Here we go.  I’ll start it off myself by asking Dr. Green to set up the situation for us.  What exactly is the CARB and how did they come to this decision?

Green: CARB stands for the California Air Resources Board – they are the highest air quality control agency in the state. 
The decision to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions of the California vehicle fleet evolved over time, but it was originally proposed by Fran Pavley about 3 years ago.
CARB’s regulation was intended to fulfill a California Assembly bill, 1493, which directed CARB to achieve “maximum feasible” reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Moderator: Richard in Oklahoma asks:
Californians seem to be itching to shoot themselves in the foot with this type of legislation and state spending. As a non-Californian, why should I care? Won’t it mean that California businesses will move to more business friendly states like mine?

Green: It does sometimes seem that California has an economic death wish.  But the answer to your question is fairly complicated. First, California does have massive market power when it comes to buying automobiles. Nearly 20 percent of all the new cars bought in the US are bought in California.
So, they can force the automakers to incur higher costs, at least in the California market. Of course, to get people to buy these cars (that will cost about $3,000 more over the life of the vehicle), they’re probably going to have to subsidize the market in California by raising vehicle rates somewhat in other states. And, other states tend to copy California on these things, so it probably won’t only be California that does it.
The other reason you should care is that, in truth, California’s economic prosperity contributes to overall economic prosperity in the United States. If California’s economy suffers, ripple effects spread throughout the country.

Moderator:  Phil in Florida asks:
Will California lose jobs to other states because of this policy?

Green: It’s somewhat too early to tell. It’s one thing for California to have passed a foolish law, it’s another thing for them to implement it. The National Academy of Sciences has observed that the technology for what CARB is requiring simply doesn’t exist, and isn’t on the immediate horizon.  So, as with the electric car fiasco, this could wind up being a rule that just isn’t met, and lead to endless rounds of “compromise” proposals that sock the automakers for money to be dumped in California through research projects.
What we do know is this: If California raises the cost of transportation, they’ll hinder their economic growth. If that happens, people will lose jobs, and many of those, one presumes, will seek greener pastures.

Moderator: May in Louisiana wants to know:
When most experts say that the California law will do virtually nothing to curtail greenhouse gases,  what’s the real agenda for this restrictions on car emissions?

Green: I think there are several agendas at play. One is simply that “environmentalists” hate cars. They always have. They particularly despise sport utility vehicles. In the past, they’ve tried to get people out of cars, and into trains, by raising fears of oil depletion and air pollution. Both of those problems have been largely corrected, so now the excuse is climate change.  As an agency, CARB is subject to the problem of “public choice” theory. That is, the people who work there, like everyone else, wants to advance in his/her career, and that advancement is through growth.
Growth of their department, growth of their sphere of authority, and so on. As air pollution dies out as a real threat, what’s an Air Resources Board to do?

Moderator: Ned in California wonders:
Will there be an increase in price that it costs vehicle owners to inspect their car?

Green: I doubt that there will be a change in the way that cars are tested through Inspection and Maintenance programs, though I suppose it’s possible. The real cost is going to be in the initial price of the car.  According to a report by Sierra Research, for a new passenger car sold in 2016, when the new rules are tightest, will cost $3,357 more than they would otherwise.

Moderator: Mary in Virginia asks:
Where is Schwarzenegger coming down on this issue?  What power does he have as Governor to effect it?

Green: Well, judging from his recent media circus over his hydrogen-powered Hummer, one has to assume that Schwarzenegger won’t want to change the regulation. On the air pollution and environmental issues, Schwarzenegger seems to have decided to just throw in the towel to environmental groups. As Governor, he could certainly effect change in the regulation. For one thing, I believe that several of the appointees to the governing board of the Air Resources Board are appointed by the governor.

Moderator: Alex in Virginia is worried:
As an enthusiast of older automobiles, I have read that the CARB standards would put the squeeze on older automobiles, especially ones that don’t have any emissions controls from the factory. CARB has already impacted on my hobby as there are fewer choice cars and bodies for restoration. California “Junk car” laws encourages that they be crushed instead. Is this only going to get worse? What can we do to stop the destruction of our hobby?

Green: That’s a great question. The new CARB standards for greenhouse gas emissions will only apply to new car sales, and, I believe, that classic cars are exempted from even air pollutant standards. It is true that there’s a pressure to just scrap the older cars that are just being driven, rather than treated as a classic car. I can see where that would make it harder to find parts for restoration. I can’t say how that might be remedied, other than, perhaps, to seek your parts in other states, or other countries.

Moderator: Katherine from Maryland asks:
Is it becoming a trend that states (and of course, their attorneys general) are more and more deciding that they will ignore federal regulatory agencies, in this case, NHTSA, and do their own thing?

Green: Yes, states, and particularly their AGs are, more and more often, simply setting their own agenda regardless of the federal government. They tend, not surprisingly, to do that more when the federal government is seen as not being aggressive in a given area of public policy.  Greenhouse gas control bills are popping up all over the US, as are lawsuits by the Attorneys General involving greenhouse gas emissions. The motivations for this proliferation of state actions, to me, seem to involve the prospect of generating massive state revenues through law suits, or to force the federal government to implement strong greenhouse gas controls by threatening to create such a crazy-quilt of regulation that the feds have no choice but to try to create a uniform regulatory playing field.

Moderator: John from Virginia asks:
It seems clear that CARB and green community place far more credence in global climate computer models than the proven fact (National Academy of Sciences among others) that downsizing vehicles results in more deaths and injuries.  The only way to reduce CO2 is to reduce fuel consumption.  And there are only 2 ways to reduce fuel consumption:  Use more expensive materials and technologies OR downsize the vehicle.  The consquence of Option 1 is pricing consumers out of the market, meaning that more older, polluting vehicles stay on the road longer.  The consequence of Option 2 is increasing traffic at California morgues.  How are they getting away with this literal trade of blood for oil?

Green: Well, CARB has never been averse to simply restating mistruths, until the public buys into them. In the case of the new greenhouse gas controls, you’re going to get a double dose of danger: the cars will have to be lighter, AND they’ll also be more expensive, and they may, if we’re silly enough to use hydrogen as a fuel source, be more likely to explode.  The bottom line is, the new rules will hurt motorists not only in the wallet, but also in their safety. And, those who are sensitive to our ever-lower levels of air pollution are going to see a set back in the elimination of those emissions because people will hold onto older cars longer, rather than buy the new, smaller, higher-priced, less-capable cars and trucks that will result from the new rules.

Moderator: Elizabeth in Florida wonders:
It sounds as if California is trying to force new technologies.  Have there been any prominent successes in low-emission vehicles? 

Green: The planner-types at California’s environmental agencies have long suffered from the fatal conceit, that somehow, they know better than all the people acting in free markets, about what future technologies will win, and which will lose. They have a dismal track record, however, as do all governmental agencies. The most obvious example is the electric car fiasco. Billions of dollars were spent to try to conjure up battery-cars that a consumer would want to buy. They subsidized the building, and the selling, and the charging stands, and they still couldn’t get people to buy their prize electric cars for a very simple reason: they didn’t have nearly the capability of a regular economy car.

Moderator: Patrick at an undisclosed location asks:
What states are most likely to follow California down this road?

Green: It’s hard to say. New York is a distinct possibility, as I believe that they also copied California on their “Zero-Emission Vehicle” standards. There is a group of states that have basically adopted the practice of cloning California’s emission laws, and implementing them.  Of course, we can hope that some of those states might have learned from the electric-car fiasco, and be more hesitant to adopt the new greenhouse gas standards. Either way, what I think is most likely to happen wherever they adopt these rules is simply failure. The deadlines will come, the automakers will have to spend a fortune proving they can’t meet the requirement, some deal will be cut, and the automakers will pay some hefty research bill in some politician’s home town. Motorists will pay one way or the other, as whatever costs the automakers incur in dealing with these rules, it’s ultimately the consumer who pays for it.