Automakers won't be able to meet Vermont CO2 mandate
Vermont is one of ten states that has implemented carbon dioxide emissions restrictions that start to take effect in 2009 and increase until 2016, eventually resulting in a thirty percent reduction. As expected, the industry is suing Vermont (related story) to try and stop the new law. During testimony in the trial industry expert Thomas Austin said the carmakers wouldn't be able to meet the requirements in the required time frame and would need until 2020 to comply.
The automakers suit is based on the premise that CO2 emissions are directly related to fuel consumption and as such fall under federal, not state regulatory authority. The carmakers might make a better case for themselves if they reached a settlement with the states that they would stop fighting federal fuel economy regulations if the states would back off on their own regulations. Assuming that something like the current congressional proposals pass, it would accomplish much of what the states are trying to do with a single regulation instead of a patchwork of state rules that just complicate things. Of course this depends on real and enforceable federal rules passing.
[Source: Reuters]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Rich 11:10AM (5/08/2007)
Detroit, in particular, has fought every safety or environmental regulation since day 1. If Detroit had their way every car would get
Reply
Andrew Ogden 8:38AM (5/09/2007)
What most people don't seem to understand is that the 'fixes; to carbon dioxide emission are less power and lighter vehicles.
1. No one wants to drive a slow car that can't get out of its own way. And American's in particular are more likely than anyone to buy a more powerful vehicle variant if there is one.
2. Lighter vehicles are hugely expensive to engineer considering our penchant for expensive and heavy add-ons like Air Conditioning, GPS, multiple air bags. If you really have the gumption to complain about the 'evil' automakers, then lets see how many of these totally unnecesary items are installed on your car.
Everyone needs to take responsibillity, if you really want to not pollute the environment then go buy a used honda CRX that is incredibley light and fuel efficient, or something similar. And dont be an idiot and say 'hyrdids are the solution', the chemicals and processing that go into hybrid power sources are (depending on your scale) far worse than a few more tons of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Reply
Andrew Ogden 8:50AM (5/09/2007)
And one more thing... You shouldn't say that Aluminum is the answer either. Aluminum is no where near as recyclable as steel is, and the energy required to recycle/mine/stamp etc aluminum produces more CO2 emissions than its weight saving can possibly recoup in a vehicle. Just buy fewer add-ons people and the world will be a better place for all of us.
Reply
BILL 5:34PM (5/09/2007)
This looks like a perfect test for my plan to control CO2. It involves creating CO2 offsets by mandating that individuals hold their breath a certain amount of time each day. This will create a drop in human CO2 and make space for motor vehicle CO2. The more we can hold our breath the more we get to drive. It takes courage to propose real solutions to complex problems that don't exist.
Reply
GreyFlcn 1:11AM (5/31/2007)
The answer is to drive electric.
Cutting emmisions by roughly 40% when operated off of the dirtiest coal electricity availible.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/electriccars.png
http://www.greyfalcon.net/electriccars2.png
http://www.greyfalcon.net/tesla
http://www.greyfalcon.net/truck3
http://www.greyfalcon.net/plugins
http://www.greyfalcon.net/plugins3
http://www.greyfalcon.net/plugins4
http://www.greyfalcon.net/evmovie3
Reply