Ah, yes. We did this emission testing thing in Florida a while back. The annual "Sit in line to pay ten dollars to have a pole stuck up your car's tailpipe."

Until one day one of our state senators had the misfortune of having to take his own car in to one of the testing centers. I don't remember which senator it was. Might have been Bob Graham. But don't quote me on that. Anyway, after our fearless leader sat in line for an hour, he was so peeved at the process that when he got back to Tallahassee, an investigation was launched.

Result: The gentleman private entrepreneur who secured the government contract to oversee the annual transmission testing was keeping something like eight of the ten dollars per vehicle. The State of Florida was getting like fifty cents after taxes and further payoffs. Meanwhile, emission testing did nothing to alter the driving habits of millions of tourists coming across the border. Nor did the emission testing have anything in common with the hundreds of thousands of boats coming in from up north or the islands. Not to mention there was no control over the countless numbers of airplanes winging in even more tourists.

Emission testing in Florida came to an abrupt end.

Final Result: Lake Okeechobee is still a cesspool, thanks to the combined efforts of the Sugar industry and the machinations of the Army Corp of Engineers who have absolutely no understanding of how nature and cement don't always mix. The Everglades is all but dead. Condo and housing developers have made sure that fresh water in Florida has been intruded by salt water.

And we find out the that the drinking water in New York City is about a hundred times cleaner than Florida drinking water.

Fred call

Sent by fred call | 10:48 AM ET | 09-13-2007

On the other hand, here in California, with the largest population of any state in the union, in terms of carbon intensity we've been doing pretty well overall. The national annual per-capita greenhouse-gas emissions average 20 metric tons, while Californians per-capita emissions average 12 metric tons, according to the California Energy Department. Since the 1970s, the Golden State has been a leading promoter of energy efficiency, cleaner technologies and renewable energy. California passed legislation in 1988 to assess the impact of climate change, eventually becoming the first government to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from vehicles. The state government set a Renewable Portfolio Standard requiring 20 percent of electricity to be produced from renewables by 2010 and established the first state-sponsored climate-change research program. It also opened the California Climate Action Registry to assist public and private reporting of greenhouse-gas emissions.
Per-capita electricity use has remained practically unchanged since the mid 1970s, compared to a growth in the national per-capita electricity use of about 1.5 percent, per year. A recent California Energy Commission report estimates that if 2 percent of new homes built next year throughout the state had 2.5-kilowat solar arrays that could feed their excess power into the grid, it would add nearly 10 megawatts of new capacity.
Our governor (who in my not-so-humble opinion is one of the few Republicans NOT sinking with the Bush ship) has said "The debate is over. We know the science, we know the time for action is now. Global warming, pollution and the burning of fossil fuels that caused it are threats we see here in California and everywhere around the world."

While the system here is far from perfect (it is general knowledge that if you go to enough smog check places and are willing to pay a little extra off the books, you'll find one where someone will sign that bit of paper saying your car meets standards even though it doesn't), nevertheless, doing nothing and caving in to the myopic hysteria of the auto industry is not longer an option for California. The choice is actually simple. Do people care more about the profit margins of the auto industry or their own lungs?

Sent by John R. Otten | 2:01 PM ET | 09-13-2007

It's going to take more people like this judge to get the automakers to clean up their act and stop pretending like they're incapable of meeting tougher standards on fuel economy and emissions. It calls into question why exactly the automakers lobby so vigorously against such legislation, when it's clear that it's for the betterment of society and the environment. What do they have to gain by making cars and trucks that pollute and guzzle gas?

Honda and Toyota currently make the most fuel efficient and cleanest burning cars on the road, and it's no coincidence their cars are selling while the American automakers are in such financial trouble.

When was the last time we saw a truly innovative product from an American car company? Instead of fighting legislation to increase fuel economy and emissions standards, why not embrace it and put cars on the road that beat out their Japanese competitors in those categories?

It's an obvious solution to their plight. Unfortunately, they're firmly in the pockets of the oil companies, and until the automakers get sensible, they deserve the financial turmoil they're in.

Props to this judge. Let's hope the other states catch on.

Ben
Seattle, WA

Sent by Ben Hopper | 2:06 PM ET | 09-13-2007

What I would like to know is, what EXACTLY is the problem with higher environmental standards? Do these automakers fly home to to Jupiter after a hard day's work? Or do they live on the same planet that we do?

Frankly, I am surprised that it took this long for someone to decide that driving a Hummer H2 through a suburban paradise of level pavement was maybe just the tiniest bit wasteful.

If we, as Americans, really do pride ourselves on being such an advanced nation, pride ourselves on posessing some of the world's greatest minds among our citizens, prode ourselves on our humanitarianism, then why can't we decide that taking care of our planet is something to be proud of as well?

Sent by Elissa Nyerges | 8:04 AM ET | 09-14-2007

we as americans relese 32% of the greenhouse gasses in the entire world, but, we only make up 5% of the population in the world... Is it just me, or in this a little outrages? does this hint somthing to someone? It says to me"wow your 'great' country isn't that great after all with GMC and HUMMER. What is so bad about trying to make this country a country that in enviormentaly aware?

Sent by Andrew Jin | 7:00 PM ET | 09-26-2007