A federal district judge has dismissed an auto-industry request to delay implementation of California's new emissions standards. The LA Times reports that the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers' request to delay the 30 percent reduction by 2016 time line was slapped down by Judge Anthony W. Ishii. He ruled the petition was "without support in law, logic, or grammar." (Apparently the grammar police have a grammar court in California.) The shellacking extends the industry's losing streak to three, having already lost battles against California standards in Vermont and Massachusets. But don't count your carbon footprint just yet; California still has to win a lawsuit against the EPA before implementing the new standards. Except that the waiver was denied against "the unanimous recommendation of the (EPA's) legal and technical staffs." That's right, the EPA's own lawyers think they'll be forced to grant California the waiver. In other words, do start counting your carbon footprint. Meanwhile one of the best things about California: you don't have to live there.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
we don’t HAVE to live there, but we do have to have them control our lives.
sometimes i think we should swap them with puerto rico so we don’t have to go through the hassle of changing the flag.
“Meanwhile one of the best things about California: you don’t have to live there.”
Ah, but I do live on the opposite end of the nation, and I do have to live with their legislation, as NY is often a tag-along state to CA pollution standards. If CA wins this battle, NY will “me too” along with several other states. Count on it.
Most cars these day come with way more horsepower than anybody could rationally–or, in most cases, even irrationally–use. What is the point of having a 280 horsepower Altima when you probably need about 75 horsepowers to get you around? I don’t see what is wrong with this legislation.
I think this legislation will be good as well. Especially since it’s now “okay” to buy economical vehicles. No one needs a family sedan that puts out ridiculous amounts of power, unless you enjoy having the ability to potentially kill your family by using all of the available power.
Has California burned down completely yet? Maybe CARB should start working on a plan to cut down all the trees out there to prevent the eleventy billion wildfires that are burning. There’s no way I’d ever move to that state, even if it’s warm all year in most parts. I’ll put up with the snow in Maine any day.
So you guys all gonna move to Russia when federal legislation along these lines comes down the pike early in the next presidential administration?
Bush/Cheney managed to pause (and even regress in some areas) the greening of America for eight years, but even they were forced to talk green, though the end result was more kickbacks to ExxonMobil and more toxins in the air. The next president will not have that luxury.
Despite all the moaning about California’s effects on the rest of US, I suspect that if CA seceded from the union, the rest of the country would be the one to suffer, going from “economic superpower” to “slightly less important than Mexico” in one fell swoop.
If New York were to follow, well, that’s ballgame.
@Hank: NY is often a tag-along state to CA pollution standards. If CA wins this battle, NY will “me too” along with several other states. Count on it.
And? Are increased pollution standards a bad thing? That’s like complaining that the ever-increasing quality standards of Japanese auto makers are forcing poor old Detroit to boost their standards as well.
As stated before: you don’t have to live in California, but you probably don’t want to live in the 14 other states that are queuing up at the door waiting for California to get the key.
And anyway, the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers is made up of the following: BMW Group, Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen. Seems to me that there is something missing from that list. And there is something in that list that does not belong. Hmmm…
Is this a site for car enthusiasts? Or Nanci Pelosi sychophants?
Here is what you’re all agreeing with: “the California law would require cars and some light trucks to achieve an average of 42 miles per gallon by 2015. Current federal mandates call for 35.7 mpg by that date”
42 mpg AVERAGE. Do any of you think any car company can do this is 6.5 years? Right now, there’s only a couple of individual cars that achieve this number. IF u drive em with a feather foot.
Whatever any of you are driving now, unless it’s a Prius, is history soon. Even a Chevy Aveo will look like a large family car once the democrats get thru specifying new car designs. Are u all looking forward to scooting around on the freeways next to an 18-wheeler in your hybrid Smart car? (Has to be hybrid cause the regular Smart falls in the mid-30s mpg wise.)
Why dont we all just sign all the choices and freedoms in our lives over to these congressional tyrants? Why fight it? Soon the incandescent light bulb police will be stopping by as well. Geez. A free country? Where?
Crispin referenced the “14 other states” which are going to follow CA’s emissions rules. One of the 14 is Utah. When the most Republican state in the nation falls into lockstep with CA’s rules, the rest of the country definitely has cause for concern. Even Congress can’t even intervene at this point, even if there were any desire in its ranks to touch the Clean Air Act. Better get ready for some big changes in the auto industry.
First it was alcohol, then it was cigarettes.
Now the Nanny-staters have moved onto your car, and your home. Pretty soon they will be telling you how many children you are allowed to have.
It is for the good of the “state”. If you object, you must be re-educated into thinking the right way; i.e. the worship of Mother Earth.
Who says we’ve progressed since we left living in caves millions of years ago?
Most cars these day come with way more horsepower than anybody could rationally–or, in most cases, even irrationally–use. What is the point of having a 280 horsepower Altima when you probably need about 75 horsepowers to get you around? I don’t see what is wrong with this legislation.
I’ll trade you my 88hp Corolla for your 280hp Altima.
Funny how some people can go on and on about states’ rights, but only until a state tries to do something they disagree with.
Given how far CAFE mileage numbers are from EPA mileage numbers, CA’s proposal would pretty much meet the intent of the upcoming federal 35mpg mandate – at most. Still not particularly realistic though. I do worry about it.
This is a good thing, for the same reason that getting rid of leaded gas was a good thing.
Without meaning to insult, some of you are going to be in the history books and not under the ‘visionary’ header.
This makes my day!!! So-called enthusiasts can whine all they want, but eco-friendly cars are the future. Some mfrs appear okay with being left in the dust, while others embrace the change (even while teaming up with the Auto Alliance to fight it).
Car mfrs are fully capable of making a fleet of vehicles that complies with and exceeds the upcoming standards. If they cant, then we have bigger troubles than a downsized F-150 or a hybrid 911.
The free market did not give us the catalytic converter, the EPA insisted on it. (Although I know how many of you must hate that. Go Lead!!) The free market did not give us the EV-1. Sorry, CARB foreced that one. (GM might have been wise to stick with that one, huh.)
I don’t know, I guess I like clean air and water. Call me weird. Oh, and I’m pretty sure that I dont want the arctic ice to completely melt.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080627/sc_livescience/northpolecouldbeicefreethissummer;_ylt=Aqw14jZvtFHtzP80xjbyNOAazJV4
Even if it means I chose to buy the Prius instead of my second choice, an FJ.
One word… SACRIFICE… embrace it. Throughout the history of mankind, and still today in most countries, sacrifice has been expected. Oh but not us. You will have to pry my F-350 King Ranch or my Viper R/T10 from my cold, dead hands. It’s our gods-given right, huh.
Wake up, enthusiasts. Start becoming enthusiastic about the future. Hybrids, Natural Gas, Fuel Cells (maybe). Cars like the GS450h and the Tesla prove there is still a future for exciting products that can be more sustainable as well.
Not to be a nerd, but I believe the language of the law can be found here. Not that I’m a lawyer, but I saw words like “fleet average” and “Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Credits/Debits” and “Small Volume Manufacturers and Independent Low Volume Manufacturers”. So at least Ferrari fans from Newport Beach need not despair.
At the end of the day, we consumers get to decide whether this initiative yields successful cars. Earlier CARB initiatives against real pollutants resulted in new technologies being developed for and incorporated into cars that still fit the market’s needs. California increasingly runs on referendum. We could run and campaign a binding referendum that requires any CARB regulations that will affect the scope and variety of vehicle types be subject to legislative or referendum vote.
California’s 1990 electric car mandate eventually had to yield to market realities. If what passes for a car under these rules in 2016 can’t be sold due to lack of demand, the regulation will be relaxed. California needs the tax revenue generated by robust new car sales. A mandate for a 42 mpg average could seriously truncate the luxury car market, too. Cars last a long time in California. If Sacramento sees new unit sales decline sharply, along with a steep drop in the average deal value in a new car transaction, CARB will feel hydraulic pressure to relent. This will start well before the trigger year, as it dawns on our public servants that even the greenest automakers show 2016 vehicle pipelines of limited choice and low appeal. We might even be seeing the first couple of years of global cooling by then, prompting a new round of hand-wringing about something else entirely.
The comical-if-it-weren’t-pathetic aspect of this is that if the entire US fleet were immediately “upgraded” to Prius fuel economy, the CO2 savings would be less than 2% of the carbon emissions reduction that the IPCC believes must be achieved annually by mid-century.
Phil
liechter :
June 27th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Most cars these day come with way more horsepower than anybody could rationally–or, in most cases, even irrationally–use. What is the point of having a 280 horsepower Altima when you probably need about 75 horsepowers to get you around? I don’t see what is wrong with this legislation.
There are many things that we don’t need: TVs, DVDs, Brussel Sprouts, etc. Does that mean we should enact legislation against everything that we don’t need? Don ‘t need as determined by whom?
And? Are increased pollution standards a bad thing? That’s like complaining that the ever-increasing quality standards of Japanese auto makers are forcing poor old Detroit to boost their standards as well.
They are when they have a measurably negative financial impact with little or no measurable benefit. There are many federal and state (California) regulations regarding the discharge of waste and the treatment of drinking water that have little or no demonstrable positive effect yet have great negative fiscal impact. As an example, the changes to the “Arsenic Rule” are costing water customers served by the affected water systems tens of billions of dollars each year for an estimated reduction in cancer deaths of 6 or 7 per year. There most certainly are ways to spend that money that would have a greater positive impact. There are many more examples.
Do I want clean water? Certainly, but there is a limit, and people need to start using some common sense and logic when addressing environmental impacts and resist the urge to use buzz words and think with their hearts.
“This makes my day!!! So-called enthusiasts can whine all they want”
I’m sure it does. You and the commie-crats and CARB and the rest of the chicken-littles of the world just love it when your paranoia results in forcing your ideas, no matter how inane, down the throats of free-thinking people. History, however, proves that your childish celebrating will lose out in the end. Tyrants always lose.
As for sacrificing – we’re ALL sacrificing right now thanks to no oil drilling, no new refineries in 30 years, no nuclear plants in over 30 years etc etc, all thanks to you ‘forward thinkers’. Gas is almost $5.00 gallon here in the formerly golden state. I’m sure that makes your day as well.
What I’m waiting for is for all you eco-nazis to decide that the biggest generators of CO2 – living, breathing organisms like me – must be terminated to save the ecosphere. It’s coming, folks, dont think it isn’t. The eco-nazis “Final Solution” to Global Warming. The M*A*S*H theme song comes to mind.
Phil Ressler:
“California needs the tax revenue generated by robust new car sales. A mandate for a 42 mpg average could seriously truncate the luxury car market, too. Cars last a long time in California. If Sacramento sees new unit sales decline sharply, along with a steep drop in the average deal value in a new car transaction, CARB will feel hydraulic pressure to relent.”
Precisely. When new vehicle prices jump by 100% or so ($50,000 Camcords, anyone?), people will start hanging on to what they’ve got, dealerships will go t*ts up by the hundreds, and the amount of money going to $acramento (roughly 11% of the vehicle purchase price when you combine the sales tax with the license and registration fees) will plummet. If this legislation passes, the state’s bluff will eventually be called.
“Do any of you think any car company can do this is [sic] 6.5 years? Right now, there’s only a couple of individual cars that achieve this number. IF u drive em with a feather foot.”
There’s a guy in Kansas modifying Hummer H1’s and H2’s and other “big vehicles” to 60+ mpg through a combination of off-the-shelf parts: Duramax diesels supercapcitors and ethanol. And the electric motors can spin (as in spin out) the tires on the Hummers all day long.
You are just as toast versus a truck in a 8k lbs SUV land yacht as a Prius or Smart. A STAA legal truck (80k lbs.) is 10Xs as heavy versus the SUV rather than the 25X of a compact car.
The driver of the truck will just feel a slightly bigger bump from the ‘burban.
TonyTiger
Are u all looking forward to scooting around on the freeways next to an 18-wheeler in your hybrid Smart car? (Has to be hybrid cause the regular Smart falls in the mid-30s mpg wise.)
Boy, silly me for being pessimistic. You guys have all the answers!
“You are just as toast versus a truck in a 8k lbs SUV land yacht as a Prius or Smart”
Really? You are of course wrong, but I’ll not waste my time trying to convince you.
BTW, in the reviews I’ve read, just keeping the “Smart” in it’s lane or even on the blacktop when a semi goes by maybe be a callenge beyond the cababilities of many drivers. The smart and all the commie-crat cars may just get blown off the road.
“There’s a guy in Kansas modifying Hummer H1’s and H2’s ”
Well, there you go. We’re all saved by a guy in Kansas. You dont give a link, or tell us how much this costs (more than $49.95?) or whether your reference to Duramax deisel means a whole new engine is installed? which, if a diesel, will keep it out of our enlightened state of California anyway thus rendering your point moot. BTW, you sure he’s not using a FLUX capacitor?
And in this great brouhaha over emissions and fuel economy, the makers of premier luxury and exotic cars are no where to be found.
It’s the proverbial blind spot in every MPG debate — pillory the SUV, but ignore the Ferrari driver getting only 7 mpg, or the Bentley Flying Spur driver getting a paltry 8 mpg.
And while EPA/CARB/CAFE regs condemn whatever’s left of middle class society to driving compact vehicles with less than 100hp and all the appeal of a fridge, the rich and wealthy will still have their Maseratis, Bentleys and Lamborghinis.
I’m beginning to think that California’s allowance of gay marriage and the neutering of vehicles via CARB may somehow be connected….
As a Federalist, I’m all for California doing whatever stupid stuff it wants. If they want to send their economy into the crapper, that ought to be their right.
Will this law “work”? I don’t know, but if it does and car companies can make these cars for them at a cheap rate, the rest of us will reap the benefit. If it doesn’t work, then the rest of us get to point and giggle like we did during their rolling blackouts.