Post-Gazette Editorial – 9/21/06

This page was last updated on September 21, 2006.

Breathe easier / The state takes a welcome step on vehicle emissions; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; September 21, 2006.

This is the second time within a week the PG has published an editorial telling us we don’t know what’s in our best interest and thank goodness government is there to protect us from ourselves.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“That classic poem by Robert Frost about two roads diverging in a wood had a Pennsylvania moment this week. A state board decided to take the road less traveled, and it promises to make all the difference.

“The issue involved vehicles and air quality, always a politically volatile mix in this state -- as the past 12 months bear witness.

“In the Legislature, a couple of unhelpful bills were put forward to stop the commonwealth from adopting a California standard rather than a weaker federal rule aimed at cutting back smog related to vehicle exhausts. Their sponsors said Pennsylvania would be ceding some of its sovereignty and new cars would end up costing more.

“Fortunately, good public policy appears to have trumped populism. On Tuesday, the state Environmental Quality Board adopted the benchmark California standard by a 16-2 vote for all new cars and light trucks sold in Pennsylvania starting in 2008.”

[RWC] Just as with the Pittsburgh stadiums and the tunnel under the Allegheny, the PG is saying, “thank goodness government is protecting the people from themselves.”

“Adopting the California standard may be the road less traveled, but Pennsylvania will have some important company. If the state’s Independent Regulatory Review Commission approves the decision within 30 days, as is expected, Pennsylvania will be one of 10 states to go this route. They include big neighbors New York and New Jersey.”

[RWC] Why should we care what neighboring states do? As my parents would ask, “If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you follow them?”

“On the question of sovereignty, Pennsylvania and other states see their long-term interest in willingly adopting the California standard. And as Kathleen McGinty, secretary of the state Department of Environmental Protection, has testified, it is important to note that Pennsylvania has not adopted the California program in its entirety.”

[RWC] This gets confusing. We’re told accepting California regs are good, yet we’re told “Pennsylvania has not adopted the California program in its entirety.” Why not?

In fact, why not just accept California law in toto? That way we could eliminate the General Assembly.

“Some environmentalists do anticipate that new vehicles may cost more, although by how much is disputed. At the same time, the new vehicles will travel farther on a tank of gas, leading to offsetting savings.”

[RWC] The first sentence is amazing for one of two reasons. First, it’s easy to determine if the vehicles will cost more. Just ask the car manufacturers what their prices are for “California” cars vs. “non-California” cars.

Second, if these guys really don’t know what the cost difference may be, what business do they have making a decision without taking economics into account?

Who claims “the new vehicles will travel farther on a tank of gas?” When comparing apples to apples, historically, tougher emission standards meant added cost, lower performance, and lower fuel economy.

“The wisdom of this decision resides in the state’s circumstances. Some 37 counties, including Allegheny, are in the nonattainment category for ground-level ozone. The federal Clean Air Act requires that something be done about this. Since one-third of the state’s smog-producing emissions come from vehicles, the choice is making vehicles cleaner or putting the burden on static sources -- like businesses and the jobs they sustain.

“This is a no-brainer, and it is one that also will benefit the thousands of Pennsylvanians who suffer from respiratory diseases. Motorists may not like it, but it will make a difference -- perhaps not all the difference -- in cleaning the air. Besides, more people breathe than drive.”

[RWC] What a crock!

“More people breathe than drive?” What about the number of people who use cars, whether as driver or passenger?

Using this logic, shouldn’t the PG have opposed the Pittsburgh stadiums? After all, far more people don’t attend ball games than do. It must be nice to be able to compartmentalize your mind like this.