The Fuel Emission Wars

A coalition of the nation's largest carmakers filed suit in federal court in Fresno, California Tuesday challenging California's new standards for vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases responsible for global warming. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers argues that Californians would pay "an average of $3,000 more" for a new automobile and "would never recoup those extra, up-front dollars through savings at the gas pump."

The automakers claim that California is barred from curbing vehicle emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases because federal law grants sole authority to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to set a uniform, national fuel economy standard.

The Alliance bases its case on the principle that carbon dioxide and fuel economy are "synonymous."

"Federal law is designed to ensure a consistent fuel economy program across the country," said Fred Webber, president and CEO of the Alliance. "There's a better way to improve fuel economy than this regulation, such as providing consumer tax incentives for the purchase of our new advanced technology vehicles."

"California is regulating air pollution, not setting fuel economy standards," argues David Doniger, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and head of the environmental community's legal team defending the California standards. "California is acting well within its rights to protect its people, its natural resources, and its economy from automotive air pollution," he said.

The federal Clean Air Act guarantees California's right to control air pollution from motor vehicles, says Doniger.

Ordered under legislation passed in July 2002, the standards were adopted in September by the California Air Resources Board. The new rules give car companies until 2016 to achieve a 30-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from new cars, pickups, minivans and SUVs sold in the state.

"Congress gave exclusive authority to NHTSA to set the maximum feasible fuel economy standards," the Alliance says. "To do this, NHTSA must balance technological feasibility, affordability, safety, emissions controls, consumer choice and effects on American jobs."

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has promised to implement the statute and defend it against outside legal interference.

While not disputing that new car buyers will pay more once the new standards are in effect, Doniger says consumers will save money because these emission-control technologies also save fuel. "This is about using better technology in engines, transmissions and other vehicle components to control the air pollution that causes global warming," he said.

The Alliance argues that the regulation outlines "a theoretical vehicle never before built, and the automobile envisioned by regulators would not achieve the expected fuel efficiency."

"If every automobile in California were eliminated, there would be no identifiable change in temperature or climate in the state," the Alliance claims. "The regulation would only reduce greenhouse gases by 1/10 of one percent globally. Californians would see no health benefits from this regulation. The regulation only addresses carbon dioxide, not smog. Unlike smog, carbon dioxide poses no health hazard."

But scientists have been detailing the health risks of global warming in a constant stream of studies. Climate change will double the risk of heat waves in Europe, an international team said late last week.

"Disproportionately large and negative impacts on the elderly, the infirm, and the poor are likely to result," the Pew Center on Global Climate Change said in January 2001.

Studies by public health organizations have found indications that a global warming trend may increase the risks that vector and waterborne diseases, such as dengue fever, will spread northward.