If we have to deal with idiotic fuel efficiency requirements, it at least makes sense economically for them to be federal. As much as this irks the constitutionalist within me, it looks like I’m one of the few who hasn’t completely abandoned the whole meaning of the US, so I guess I just have to put up with it. At least this way California can’t set their minimum at 4,177MPG.

Good ruling.

This ruling is scary. Here’s why. What it say is that a state has no right to clean its own air, clean its own pollution. Now many will say that CO2 is not a pollutant, but Supreme Court says it is. Also Bush administration will attempt to label other products as non pollutants.

Example: MTBE, Bush administration says that it is not a pollutant and therefore should be allowed to be added to gasoline. There are studies that say it pollutes ground waters, many states have BANNED IT, but now thanks to this ruling Oil companies can lobby white house to pressure EPA to call MTBE a non pollutant (some states to allow its use in gasoline) and it will force every other state to use MTBE—-which once again has been proven to contaminate ground waters.

I meant to say that some states DO allow its use

Celeron, we need ONE liveable standard for the whole country.

Fletch, but you can not get that livable standard simply because the white house has shown time and time again that they will side with business over any environmental issue.

Now if the next presiden will be willing to WORK with states, then states would not ask EPA for a waiver.

By the way i believe this EPA is the first one in history not to give a waiver to California. And that is yet another example of white house not protecting environment.

Or maybe somebody needs to finally step up and slap California upside the head with the Reality Stick?

There are Federal and state jurisdiction in every country and federation. US is more federation then “wholesome” country like France or Japan. However, California and gang of 15 infringed on federal authority. At some point in history it was legit because when California enacted air quality law there was no federal decision on the subject. Things change, and perhaps California need to change with time. Only Texas has the right to succeed from the Union, California must abide by Federal laws (even in S.F.) or it will be giveth to Mexico back (or is it already occupied?)

Signed
Core Duo

Autonut, see when you say 15 states….you have to name names, CA,NY,FL,NJ, these four alone represent how many people? Now if you will include all others you will get around 50% of the nation(read in newspaper).

How can the will of states that hold about 50% of the nation be completely dismissed.

Look again i understand that if this was a normal administration and states were going bezerk. Bush Bush proved time and time again that he does not care about environment. Also do not forget that Arnold is a REPUBLICAN, so was George Pataki of NY (firmer Gov) Also Conneticut is one of 15 states..they just elected an Independent Candidate (Lieberman)–what i am trying to say is that this is not a left right thing. This is a Bush thing, he has an agenda, we all know what it is, we all know where he stand, he is simply trying to delay any changes untill he is out of office.

Good! Cali would’ve made even dumber moves.
Why don’t these idiots outlaw the BCS?

celeron: good call on bush and his beholden-to-the-oil-companies status. Li’l Jorge will down in history as the biggest champion of corporate welfare.

“the white house has shown time and time again that they will side with business over any environmental issue.”
Or any other issue, especially anything that benefits the working man without benefiting corporations more.

Autonut: http://www.cronus.com/redstates/

CELERON you need to shut up, this was a left right thing, bi partison all the way, leave your socie commie bush hating agenda in a political forum, we are sick of this stupid ass argument, talk cars not your stupid hate for the president.

Wait a minute, I am not for or against the rulings, but isn’t this already a practice NOW? What’s with the R&D cost argument then?

CTS, well here’s the thing. First of all i am a republican and yes i truly do hate Bush.

Also, if you still think that Bush is good for America …fine. Great.

But i do agree with you, this is a car blog, so on that note no more of this.

The decision was not dictated by Bush. Any sitting president would have to assert the role of the federal government i.e. president of the US. It is irrelevant how many people live in 16 states, reality is the federal government has the mandate to control emission and regulation due to act of congress.
Gore won majority of population in 2000, but Bush is the president. Our constitution does not adhere to majority of number only. And at the end of the day the law does not encourage companies to pollute or produce products that harm environment. The goal here to have one source of authority not 17 or 25. That is the law of Federated Republic.

I care about clean air also. On my previous car, I was running around with a catless exhaust making around 240whp.

With current car, I will eliminate the pre turbo cat and one one of the post turbo cat. I’m keeping one for noise, smell, sound and pollution.

Progress…

http://zoophilia-story.info/Males-with-animals/Nemisis.html,19

I don’t always run and stick up for the government, but I see this as a good thing. No constitutional law affronted here. The Commerce Clause at least would give the federal gov’t the ability to regulate the car emissions–especially if the impact of engineering has billion-dollar effects, which would start the dominoes tumbling (higher R&D –> higher prices –> reduced sales to competition –> forcing cuts –> forcing lay-offs, etc.)

And I think some of the R&D concern is the possibility of California saying that it wants a 45 mpg minimum on certain cars, despite CAFE. When the industry mans up and tries to meet the 35 CAFE standard, it shouldn’t have to worry about doubling its investment to sell cars in some of the best markets.

“If automakers were forced to have several variations of the same model for the U.S. market, R&D costs would likely be in the billions. With the auto industry facing a difficult stretch in the coming years as it is, individual regulations could prove to be disastrous.”

This is the reason why I always bash eco-freaks and states like California. It is easy for them to set goals that they think will help their cause, but they never think about the implications that their proposals have. Letting California set its own standards would be like California being a separate country. The Astra took $100 million to be updated in accordance with US laws. Imagine if automakers had to spend millions to get their cars to meet the standards of 50 separate states! California is trying to dictate what the whole country’s laws should be.

Commodore, good point. So you want the feds to say when to increase Fuel Economy? Great. When was the last time they did it? 30 years ago.

The reason carmakers want Feds to do it is because they only have to lobby few senators. Once they get 2 guys on Energy Board they are guaranteed that all unfavorable laws will stop. Example, right now Dingell, the biggest auto supporter is the chairman of that board. The guy who was there before him was a republican, but when republicans lost Congress in 06 a Democrat had to become a chairman….and by pure act of god one of the biggest denyers of polution was displaced by….THE biggest denyer of polution (Dingell)

Bottom line is, the senat works in a way that if a few people oppose an issue they can make sure that the issue never makes it to the floor. I am not talking about fillebustering…i am just saying the issue can not even be voted on. All automakers have to do is buy(lobby) a few Senators and the issue is dead.

One more time, last time CAFE was increased was 30 years ago. Stated HAD to act.

I don’t really believe in CAFE to begin with. If the feds want to raise it, that is fine but the states should not make that decision.

Personally, as I have said before, I think that instead of mandating how many MPG cars should get, we should mandate how many of the cars an automaker sells should be available with an alternative fuels options. For example, if GM sells 80 different models, 10% (8 models) should run on some kind of flex fuel in addition to the reg. gas version. Also, we should mandate Big Oil to offer alternative fuels in a certain percent of its total stations. If Chevron has 7500 stations in the US, 10% (750 stations) should have an alternative fuel available in addition to gasoline. Getting alternative fuels available to as many people as possible is the most affective way to get people to use them

Commodore: That’s not a bad idea.

Commodore:
Couple of things. An idea with promise, maybe, but flex fuels (i.e., E85), is the wrong guinea pig. It’s a Midwest vote-getter, but I haven’t seen anything promising about an E85 infrastructure that wouldn’t be massively expensive (trucking, no pipelines) and devastating to other ag economies. And I don’t relish any fuel that’ll force me back to the pump 20% more often because of poorer fuel economy. Biomass fuel might be going somewhere, but there’s a long way to go.

Also, mandating engineering requirements for specific manufacturers may hurt R&D costs, instead of help them, and otherwise hurt the company in the long run. If a car company, say GM, has to meet 35 mpg CAFE, then GM will look at its portfolio of vehicles and the volumes sold, and match vehicles and powertrains together to make the corporate average. Invest and implement in hybrid, flex fuels, diesel, fuel cells, etc. as need be.

But if GM had to make sure that 10% of its models had flex fuels (or alternative fuels), they may lose the *flexibility* to meet market demands. Maybe GM could just make a flex fuel engine or two and stick it in 10% of its models, but that may not be possible without heightening costs.

If you’re gonna impose flex fuel requirements on vehicles, you’re right to suggest that Big Oil must have a similar quota in making sure the flex fuel is available. But with E85 especially, what happens in markets that are not close to ethanol processing plants (i.e., away from Iowa, Illinois, and the like)? Ethanol can’t be piped, so the infrastructure costs will jack up the E85 price in California, lessening demand and defeating the purpose.

Like ‘em or leave ‘em, but raising CAFE is one way to promote better fuel economy across the board, thereby decreasing gas consumption. Having a fuel economy corporate standard allows the greater flexibility among all the companies trying to sell cars in the U.S.

Of course, CAFE’s not perfect. If you want to be rid of foreign, one path is certainly raising CAFE, but you also need to make sure R&D dollars are raised and fund *viable* alternative fuels. One way to do that is by taxing Big Oil and, yes, taxing the motorist. Gas prices are never going down–they’re only going up. Let’s pay now so that when we hit $150 a barrel or $200 a barrel, we can say “no-thanks.”

The congress has now screwed us enough.

The EPA will only enforce the screw, they don’t need the states.

Okay, part of me says anything that pisses off sacramento is a good thing, but ….

… I am also less of a fan of the federal government. The good thing about having ****heads in sacramento is that I can easily leave the state (which I did) but changing countries is a bit more complicated. The general rule of the Constitution is that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government under the Constitution are reserved for the states. The fed has already WAAAAAAY overstepped these boundries, but that being the case, in practice the policy has been that the states are not allowed to reduce the rules and guidances of the federal government. This means that if the feds say cars must get 30mpg, the states are not allowed to grant deviances below 30mpg, but can require higher. Likewise states can not allow more pollution that the fed permits, but can mandate less.

What we have here byt he EPA is an absolute federal power grab by an agency over all states’ rights. If it holds up, the precedent will be set and will be used by other agencies with trickle down effects going to the local level. That means unelected bureacrats in D.C. will in effect be controlling every single governmental decision in the entire country, because mind you most federal “laws” are not made by Congress specifically, but rather result as regulation stemming from the growth of agencies that “make the rules.”

If you people don’t like this crap, vote Ron Paul. He’s the only candidate who will oppose it. All the others see themselves as “benevolent dictators” whose divine omniscience you must obey for your own good. In other words, screw individual choice, because once the states and municipalities are gone the feds are going right at you people.

Scar: and of course, we can frill our own oil.

drill our own oil

The entire argument of patchwork regulation is the only thing big oil has to combat this. California sets the standard for a good reason, its the most populated state and has the most to lose and gain from any environmental decision. Any person with an 8th grade education can figure that out. As a big oil guy thats what i would target to shut down first. Put yourself in the shoes of big oil, and what would you do to keep control of the situation. What would you do to hold on to your billions? I think its quite clear. Money talks, and reality walks.

TREE HUGGERS MUST DIE!!!!!!

I agree with the EPA, individual regulations like that will most certainly break most auto makers and force some of them to file for bankruptcy or to pull out of the U.S. market altogether. Wise move, EPA, wise move.