Vermont could clear way for new U.S. emissions rules

Page 1 of 2  
I saw this article and thought the comment on Toyota hybrids near the bottom was interesting- "While hybrid technology has raised manufacturing costs,
Toyota Motor Corp., maker of the Prius hybrid, expects cost-cutting on hybrid production to make the cars as profitable as traditional gasoline models by 2010. By that point it expects to be selling 1 million hybrids a year."
**********************************************
Vermont could clear way for new U.S. emissions rules
Reuters | May 11, 2007 - 9:00 am
BOSTON (Reuters) -- A Vermont judge could soon clear the way for nearly a dozen states to surmount auto industry protests and limit emissions from cars and light trucks to protect the environment, legal experts said.
The rural northeastern state in 2005 followed California's lead in calling for a 30 percent cut in the amount of carbon dioxide, the main gas blamed for global warming, emitted from automobiles starting with 2009 models. U.S. automakers have sued both states, and Rhode Island, seeking to have the rules overturned.
Vermont's suit is the first to go to trial.
Arguments wrapped up on Tuesday, May 8, after nearly a month of testimony, and legal experts expect U.S. District Court Judge William Sessions to rule before September.
"This will be an important signal to the other cases, so I do anticipate that there will be an important precedent set in this case," said Daniel Esty, the director of Yale University's Center for Environmental Law and Policy.
The Vermont trial began shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in an unrelated case that carbon dioxide can be regulated as a pollutant, rejecting a 2003 argument by the federal Environmental Protection Agency that it did not have authority over carbon dioxide.
That finding, legal experts said, weakened the auto industry's argument that the 10 states that have adopted the rules are overreaching in regulating carbon dioxide emissions. Fuel efficiency is federally regulated.
"I expect Vermont to win, and I think the deference shown to the states as sovereign entities by the Supreme Court recently sends a strong signal to this court that it needs to be very deferential to Vermont's desire to protect its air," Esty said.
However, Patrick Parenteau, director of Vermont Law School's Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic, said Sessions could dismiss the suit or simply delay ruling until the EPA takes up the issue.
"The probability here is that he is not going to issue any groundbreaking ruling," Parenteau said. "It's not a decision he has to make and it's not a decision he should make."
FEASIBILITY
General Motors and DaimlerChrysler AG, with local auto dealers and trade groups, said they could not meet the Vermont standards and would be forced to stop doing business in the state as a result.
"I seriously doubt that if you gave me all the money in the world and the same for all the other automakers that they could find enough resources ... to do this work," Bob Lee, a vice president at DaimlerChrysler, testified in April.
Vermont, whose farm and tourist industries depend on cold winters and mild summers, said the standards were realistic and crucial for maintaining a stable climate.
"They have some years, because they don't even start until 2009 at the earliest and then slowly ramp up, but it's a matter of committing to it," said Brad Kuster, an attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation, an advocacy group assisting Vermont and California on the legal issue.
The U.S. auto industry has been slower than its Asian rivals in adopting energy-saving technologies, such as hybrid engines. Hybrids couple a traditional gasoline engine with an electric motor to reduce fuel consumption and emissions.
While hybrid technology has raised manufacturing costs, Toyota Motor Corp., maker of the Prius hybrid, expects cost-cutting on hybrid production to make the cars as profitable as traditional gasoline models by 2010. By that point it expects to be selling 1 million hybrids a year.
California adopted its standard from concern that the national government was doing too little to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. U.S. clean air laws allow the West Coast state to implement stricter standards, which other states can adopt.
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Washington have also adopted the new California rule, and Arizona, Maryland and New Mexico are considering it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

So, now the federal government through the EPA can regulate our breathing? ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
C. E.

No. However, the EPA does regulate the pollution that is put into the atmosphere. For example, the EPA lowered the amount of sulfur oxides that are allowed to go into the atmosphere, thereby decreasing acid rain.
The EPA doesn't regulate your breathing. They do make it so you have clean air to breath, though.
If you want to breath dirty air, take up smoking.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
C. E.

I apologize for the repost. The US Supreme court ruled that the EPA has both the right and duty to regulate CO2 emissions. You can read their opinion here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf or you can search Google news or yahoo or whatever for the newspaper reports about this. The ruling was about 6 weeks ago.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Um... if the EPA is going to have the power to regulate CARBON DIOXIDE, then can they regulate breathing which emits CARBON DIOXIDE? Have to explain everything around here these days.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
C.

The EPA has the duty to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from inanimate objects. However, it is not empowered to regulate breathing.
Besides, breathing doesn't create carbon dioxide. Breathing only rids the blood of carbon dioxide made elsewhere in the body.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ahh... the old environmentalist rules, only CO2 produced by certain activities in certain places is bad.... the global warming swindle in action.

If you don't breath it doesn't come out of the body.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff wrote:

the
Please, quit breathing so we don't have to listen to your foolishness.
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff wrote:

All of you environunts can do us a favor and quit emitting carbon dixoide now.
Charles of Schauburg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

oh boy! buzzword bingo.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff wrote:

And I have a new tool:
Block Message from Sender.
Why don't you practice permanent breath holding? I'll wait.
Charles of Schaumburg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

go ahead.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff wrote:

I'm still waitng.
Charles of Schaumburg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), in a sure sign that the Apocalypse is upon us, someone calling themself Ted Mittelstaedt said this in rec.autos.driving:
<< r.a.d removed >>

Please quit crossposting to r.a.d so I don't have to listen to yours.
--
D river
R eturns
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Learn to use a kill file if you have a problem.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Great idea. I'd bet Al Gore would buy them to fuel his big house.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Whether one can take up smoking, or not, would depend on the city or state in which one resides, wouldn't it?
By the way, when did CO2 become a pollutant. Like ozone the largest producer of CO2 is nature, by far. Do the environuts now want the EPA to regulate nature? If so, finally we have reached the point the nuts are actually running the asylum LOL
mike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The environuts want us to breath every other day, to save the world. LOL
mike
C. E.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Maybe they should lead by example here?
Charles of Schaumburg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brent P wrote:

Yes. And tax it. Just like the Romans used to tax urine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.