Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

How Vermont May Force the Auto Industry and Congress to Address Climate Change

By Mark Clayton, Christian Science Monitor. Posted September 14, 2007.


A new court ruling could force a nationwide standard on fuel economy.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Mark Clayton

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

When historians finally take stock, Vermont may look like the mouse that roared -- the tiny state that brought the nation's mighty auto industry to heel by requiring cars that emit fewer greenhouse gases.

This is one scenario that could unfold following a federal judge's ruling Wednesday, which upheld a Vermont law patterned after California's mandate that the carbon-dioxide emissions of cars sold in the state must be slashed 30 percent by 2016.

The judge's finding -- that federal fuel-economy laws are not in conflict with state emissions laws -- is particularly significant, coming on the heels of a US Supreme Court decision in April. That ruling found that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, legal experts say.

On the one hand, Wednesday's decision strengthens the hand of states that want to take action against global warming. But in the longer term, the impact from the ruling could lead to one nationwide standard, which is already expected by many.

In addition to the 12 states with California-style laws on the books, another six are close to acting. The ruling this week could start dominoes falling by:

  • Prompting the US EPA to grant California a waiver from the Clean Air Act allowing it, along with Vermont and the 10 other states with identical laws, to begin enforcing greenhouse-gas requirements for cars sold within their borders.
  • Causing six additional states -- Arizona, Florida, New Mexico, Utah, Illinois, and Minnesota -- to proceed with their own similar emissions requirements. Altogether, the 18 states that have such laws -- or are leaning toward them -- make up about half the US auto market.
  • Spurring Congress to reconsider the new fuel-efficiency standards it is currently weighing, which are not as demanding as Vermont's, and mandate a tougher federal requirement that would also reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
  • Causing federal judges in two similar cases brought by the auto industry -- one in California, the other in Rhode Island -- to dismiss those cases if they determine the industry has had its day in court and further proceedings would be redundant, according to environmental lawyers.

The efforts by the 12 states with laws in place could cut emissions by 100 million tons annually. By comparison, however, US cars and light trucks emit 1.5 billion tons annually.

Still, this would be "the most significant step so far" on vehicle emissions and pave the way for broader action, says Michelle Robinson, director of the clean vehicle program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Washington environmental group not party to the lawsuit.

Environmental groups, who joined Vermont as defendants in the current case, have been exultant. "This extremely important ruling makes clear that the US EPA and states acting under the Clean Air Act do have the power to set more stringent emissions limits on cars and can also regulate greenhouse gases," says attorney Matt Pawa, who represented the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and Environmental Defense.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: global warming, fuel efficiency, cafe

Mark Clayton is a staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
3 cheers for Vermont and 4 cheers for firing lawyers and hiring engineers
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 14, 2007 8:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm glad the judge was able to cut through the haze that the car
companies tried to generate. Customers [consumers] often to
always mislead themselves on certain things. One of those things
is how to choose a more dependable durable reliable car. Instinct
causes people to choose exactly the wrong answer. You will
have to buy a copy of my forthcoming book to find out how to get
the right answer, but I suspect that Alternet would not want me to
advertise here. Suffice to say that no LEGITIMATE feature has
to be given up in the quest for better fuel mileage. But Road
warrior dominance would be a good thing to give up, as would the
herd instinct and some other things. Customers should give up on
specifying a car for themselves and hire engineers to do it for
them because Customers do it wrong every time. It takes an
engineer to figure out what the customer is really asking for. It
takes an engineer to ask for that thing in a way that will actually
get it. Most people just don't understand enough science,
engineering and math to do it right. Customers could get a lot
more of what they want if all customers hired engineers to help
them, or if all customers were engineers.

Our instincts were designed by evolution almost entirely before
the invention of stone tools. Our instincts were designed by
evolution for survival prior to the stone age. Every advance in
technology takes us further from the time when our instincts were
helpful. I have found that most people are extremely allergic to
math. Math allergy is a problem in a technological civilization.
Math allergy and instinctive behavior are problems that car
makers and other corporations use to take advantage of us. When
the car companies allow customers to choose, 70% choose the
worst possible answer. Then the car companies say: "See;
people really don't want cars to last that long. We Must obey the
market!" The same thing is happening with the fuel economy
thing. The car companies let you make all the wrong choices,
then they say: "The Market Rules! We can't have better fuel
economy!" You don't have to have a smaller car to get better fuel
mileage, you have to be smarter about where you put which
materials. Of course the car companies see to it that the correct
choice is not available. If they refuse to make it, you can't buy it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OR..
Posted by: tkwilson on Sep 17, 2007 5:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's taken only about a hundred years of internal combustion engines and the industrial explosion and energy consumption and suburbanization of populations that they've made possible (Desirable; according to the corporate pimps of Madison avenue) to damn near kill this planet.

Take a look at a few old photos of major urban areas like New York, Detroit, St. Louis (and admire the architecture built by steam and horse power) and ask yourself if humanity could live without the stinking automobile.
Consider the millions of acres of asphalt we've covered this country with, in service to what is now our only means of getting from point A to point B. It's insane, not to mention stupid and ugly.

It's not about milage and emissions, it's about turning around and undoing what's being done to us and the planet in the name of the Holy God "Profit".

There are alternatives, believe it or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: OR.. Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
» Tesla Tesla Tesla! Posted by: zutronius
Getting rid of a bad thing is good. 40 years of US Auto promises is enough, thanks.
Posted by: american on Sep 17, 2007 6:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some quick thoughts.

We use about 560 million gallons a day for transportation in the US. A regular Honda Civic gets 31 mpg combined and a two-wheel drive Ford Explorer gets 16 mpg combined.

That's half.

How different would things be if everyone drove a Civic?

We would reduce our daily automotive fuel consumption by at least 25%

This would reduce prices for all petroleum products.

The environment would be much cleaner.

It would be a lot less noisy.

Not so much oil would drain in to our water.

Eliminate rollover deaths.

Can you think of anything else?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bicycle Commuting Posted by: David V
Beware of the SCOTUS !
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 17, 2007 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember, the new INJUSTICES Scalito and Roberts are MAJOR corporate shills and Big Auto will do anything to overturn Vermont's actions just as other corporate scumbags have done in the past.

http://www.progressivestates.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Only a fraction (but a step forward indeed)
Posted by: tranedan on Sep 17, 2007 2:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The question for these standards should be, "Are they strong enough?" It's time to move beyond mere debates about climate change and mitigation policy and toward finding comprehensive, economical, sustainable, and efficient solutions. Standards such as these are a positive step, but the manner in which they are framed and implemented could affect other similar policies yet to be developed. In any case, the judge is correct in his reading that we have the technology available. We have had it for years.

Vehicle standards are only a fraction of the work that needs to be done. Policymakers in cities, the states and fed govt should use these standards as a starting point in evolving sustainable transportation solutions. They are a slice in the transportation pie which should also include increasing public transit, measures that reduce VMT, incentives/tax breaks for not driving a car or driving a more efficient car, an increase in electrics and hybrids, etc.

It's interesting to note that Canada and the EU both have ghg emissions standards already in place. It is a global problem and we should be careful to see the global implications for changes in all these markets as a whole.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IF ONLY
Posted by: Constitutionalist75 on Sep 17, 2007 3:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
those standards would be applied to coal-fired power plants and jet planes, there might be a glimmer of hope for this contaminated planet, but.......

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why has gas mileage gone down so much?
Posted by: Chloe2005 on Sep 17, 2007 9:30 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the 70's I drove a car (Fiat) that got 50 miles to the gallon. I loved driving past those gas station lines. In the 80's I drove a car that got 50 miles to the gallon. It was a Le Car. Imagine my surprise when I found out the Le Car in France got 113 mpg. In the 90's I had a Honda Civic that got close to 50 mpg. And now I am told if I can find a car that gets 35 mpg, that's great. Today I can't afford a new car with great mileage. As the middle class slides and credit is harder to get, we will need lots of inexpensive cars. Now is the time for the electric car in the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car". Bring it on! Please...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Go BERNIE! go BERNIE!!!
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Sep 17, 2007 11:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if you ever want to move to Canada...

feel FREE!!

we could USE the help...

CBC & Harper rally more 'stay the course' horseshit: "Harper says no quick vote on Afghanistan without support for new mandate"

Glaciers melt while Ottawa moans... "what do we do? its not OUR FAULT, so why should we DO SOMETHING that will anger BigBiz?!"

*groan*

seriously, Bernie... ever thought of moving? we could use some help up here...
because American Progressives generally don't give a shit what happens to their closest ally




Spread Love...
... but wear the Glove!



BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
~~~
We, two, form a Multitude ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hi
Posted by: catquarks on Sep 18, 2007 2:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was wondering if anybody could tell me where I could find sources showing the actual correlations between fuel emissions regulations, and actual measurements of greenhouse gases? I will not pretend to be knowledgeable on the subject--it has just never seemed very feasible to me that legislation could really have a significant effect on what engines put out--but see, I don't actually have a basis for that (other than that people are probably just going to keep driving, despite the sex appeal of bikers). I tried googling "correlations between greenhouse gases and greenhouse gas emissions" etc, but to no avail! So if you knew where to look, I'd appreciate it bunches.

Anyway, I don't doubt that gas emissions regulations have a valuable place in this "quest" for cleaner air, but I don't know many people who go get a new car every year (or have a car, period). Maybe we (that is, people from my hometown in my age range) don't count. But legislation has just always seemed to be the weakest link when it comes to reducing gas emissions (again, only at face value--I don't know the statistics).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]