He'd rather be sued by California than by the auto industries?

WASHINGTON — Environmental Protection Agency head Stephen Johnson was told by staffers that California had a compelling case for the federal Clean Air Act waiver that he later denied and that the agency was likely to lose in court if sued, Sen. Barbara Boxer said Wednesday.

EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar didn't dispute Boxer's conclusions, based on a Senate committee investigation.

"Her staff has been shown all the information unfiltered," Shradar said. "What this shows is that the administrator was provided a wide range of opinions upon which to make his decision. He feels he made the right decision."

Johnson's denial of the waiver stopped California from moving ahead with its tough laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. Sixteen other states were prepared to follow California's lead had the waiver been issued.

Boxer, D-Calif., heads the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which is investigating the EPA's rejection of the waiver. Under the Clean Air Act, California is the only state that can obtain a waiver allowing it to have tougher emission standards than those imposed by the federal government. But once the waiver is granted, other states can adopt similar rules.

[snip]

Investigators were permitted to look at the full documents and take notes from them, however. At a news conference Wednesday, Boxer released excerpts from the notes showing that EPA staffers apparently believed that California had a solid case for the waiver.

The notes quoted Johnson's briefing memo as saying that the agency was likely to be sued regardless of what decision it reached. The memo said that the EPA was "almost certain to win" if a lawsuit was brought by the auto industry because the waiver had been granted and that the EPA was "likely to lose" a suit brought by California if the waiver was denied.

So... ignoring the added pollution to a state fighting a losing battle with a burgeoning driving population, it was easier to side with the auto manufacturers? Really? Nothing to do with supporting corporations over common sense? Nothing to do with Republican indifference to human suffering? How would letting auto makers make more gas guzzling polluting cars help anyone in the end? They'd rather sue the EPA than go back to the designs they had during the 70s when some cars had 30 to 40 mpg ratings?

The next car I buy will be a fuel efficient one. That means car buyers like me will go to Japanese or other foreign cars. Which hurts the US auto industry. Which apparently they are unable to understand.

Just an hilarious side story: We get several paper deliveries up and down our street, The Los Angeles Times and the local Daily Bulletin, a few New York Times. Usually these papers are thrown out of the windows of old cars in the early morning onto our driveways.

But some nut is driving ... a Hummer ... to deliver papers. A HUMMER.

Words fail me...