the advantages and disadvantages of using standards instead of fees to regulate emissions.

answer

watching

views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

You have 0 free answers left.
Get unlimited access to 3.8 million step-by-step answers.

Get unlimited access

Already have an account? Log in

Casey DurganLv2

28 Feb 2018

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.

Already have an account? Log in

Related questions

1. Describe the advantages and disadvantages of using taxes and bounties to regulate negative externalities.

2. Describe the advantages and disadvantages of allowing individuals to sue to regulate negative externalities.

Thanks!

byzantiumgrasshopper785

Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using a negotiable instrument instead of money.

Your response should be approximately 750 words (2.5 to 3 pages in length).

In the Clean Air Act as amended, Congress allowed California, which has serious problems with air quality, to adopt its standards for emissions from cars and trucks, subject to the approval of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) according to certain standards. The Act also allowed other states to adopt California's standards after EPA approval.

In 2004, California adopted emissions standards for all new passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks sold in California beginning in 2009. The standards imposed decreasing limits on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHG) through 2016.

While EPA approval was pending, other states adopted the California standards. A group of industry associations, automakers, and new car dealerships filed suit to block state adoption of the standards (including California).

(a) Under the Environmental Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), a designated federal agency sets fuel economy standards for new cars. The plaintiffs argued, among other things, that the EPCA, which explicitly prohibits states from adopting separate fuel economy standards, preempts states from adopting their emission standards. Is the plaintiff's argument valid? Discuss.

(b) Do the state emissions rules impose on the efforts of the federal government to address global warming internationally? Who should regulate GHGs, the states or the federal government? Both? Neither? Discuss.

(c) The plaintiffs also argued that they would go bankrupt if they were forced to adhere to a different GHG standard for each state. Should they be granted relief on this basis? Does history support their claim? Discuss.