On Feb. 29, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Stephen Johnson issued a statement explaining why he had earlier denied California the right to enact stricter emissions control standards.
 |
In his statement, Johnson claimed that the state of California does not have the “compelling and extraordinary conditions” required for a waiver under the Clean Air Act, because California is not the only state to suffer from global warming.
“In my judgment, the impacts of global climate change in California, compared to the rest of the nation as a whole, are not sufficiently different to be considered ‘compelling and extraordinary conditions’ that merit separate state GHG (greenhouse gas) standards for new motor vehicles.”
This is like a doctor telling an infirm patient he or she does not need any treatment because other people are sick too.
To further highlight the absurdity of the EPA’s logic, one should not forget that the EPA had claimed in 1999 that it had no authority to regulate greenhouse gases at all. A coalition of states and environmental groups took the case to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the EPA did indeed have the power to regulate the gases.
The recent decision to block California’s stricter emissions controls and the EPA’s statement were applauded by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the National Automobile Dealers Association.
“By rejecting a confusing multistate approach, the administrator recognizes the need for a single national solution to address energy security, tailpipe emissions and global climate change,” said NADA vice president Andy Koblenz.
A single national solution would be nice—but when exactly does the EPA plan to introduce it? Johnson has said he still has not decided whether or when to issue a national plan for reducing greenhouse gases from new cars. Clearly, the EPA does not feel any kind of urgency in fighting global warming, which threatens not only California but the entire world with drought, famine and disease.
One might think the EPA would want take action to avoid catastrophic climate change. However, not only the United States but the vast majority of the world today is dominated by an economic system based on the quest for ever-expanding profit.
In that context, the EPA’s unwillingness to act makes perfect sense. The EPA is part of the capitalist bureaucratic apparatus and, despite its name, exists to protect capitalist interests, not the environment. Stricter automobile emissions control would hinder the automakers’ ability to maximize profits.
There is no organized body in the United States, let alone in the world, capable of forcing the capitalists to adopt measures to forestall the worst global warming catastrophes. Only such a body would be able to halt the devastating excesses of capitalist production. That form of organization can only be born out of revolutionary struggle of workers and oppressed peoples.
Climate change affects everyone, but it disproportionately affects working-class people and poor, oppressed countries. This is why the planet needs socialism.
There are more workers than capitalists. However, the working class still lacks the necessary organization and consciousness of its own power. If we unite, we can overturn this irrational capitalist system and begin to build socialism—a system based on economic planning that makes people’s needs the top priority.
A workers’ state could impose mandatory emissions controls. Emissions reduction technology could be implemented in a coordinated, rather than piecemeal, fashion. This is what would be needed on a global scale to avoid the worst-case scenario of climate change. If we want to save the planet for future generations, socialism is the only choice.
