xcel
11-27-2006, 11:24 AM
They will tell Supreme Court that EPA must regulate CO2 emissions. (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061127/AUTO01/611270329/1148)
http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/globalwarming5.jpgDavid Shepardson - Detroit News - Nov. 27, 2006
WASHINGTON - In a case that could send shock waves through the U.S. auto industry, 12 states and the District of Columbia want the U.S. Supreme Court to order the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobile tailpipes.
The case - Massachusetts v. the Environmental Protection Agency - is the first to reach the nation's highest court in a series of legal efforts by environmentalists and states, led by California, to force the regulation and reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, which have been linked to global warming.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday.
"In the face of a federal government that has been unwilling to take dramatic steps to regulate greenhouse gases, the states have taken a multifront approach," said Ann Carlson, co-director of the environmental law clinic at the University of California, Los Angeles, pointing to several lawsuits and an effort to have the polar bear declared an endangered species.
At issue is whether the federal Clean Air Act, a set of laws enacted in the 1970s to clean up air pollution, governs greenhouse gas emissions.
A victory in the Supreme Court - even a decision giving the EPA the right to regulate emissions but not mandating it - would be an important victory for the states, Carlson said.
But even a mandate, which is unlikely from a conservative Supreme Court, probably would not mean an immediate reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles.
Several auto trade groups have come out against the states, including the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers, which represents General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., DaimlerChrysler AG, Toyota Motor Corp. and five other automakers. The groups are represented by nearly a dozen lawyers, including two former solicitor generals, Ken Starr and Ted Olson.
"The politically sensitive and scientifically uncertain decision whether to mandate federal regulation of vehicular greenhouse gas emissions properly rests with Congress," Olson wrote in court papers.
Automakers declined to comment on the case, deferring to the alliance. In court papers, they say a mandated decrease in carbon dioxide emissions would cost them billions of dollars, require expensive changes to equip more vehicles with cleaner hybrid technologies and force them to sell smaller, less profitable, vehicles. The auto industry estimates the per-vehicle cost for compliance would be at least $3,000.
Even then, they may not be able to comply with harsh reductions, nor are they convinced cutting tailpipe emissions will make a significant difference.
"Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles in this country will not likely have any direct measurable effect on the global climate," Olson wrote.
Michigan has filed a brief supporting the automakers, but others have lined up against them, including former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
Wednesday's hearing will be the latest skirmish in a years-long battle. In 1999, several academic groups asked the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from motor vehicles because they contribute to global climate change.
After the Bush administration took office in 2001, the EPA rejected the petition, saying it lacked the authority to regulate the gas under the Clean Air Act. A year later, Massachusetts and the other states filed suit.
"To fill the void left by federal inaction, some states are now initiating measures," attorneys general for the states wrote to Bush in 2002. "While individual states are prepared to lead the way, we believe that a strong national approach will allow for more efficient solutions that will better protect the American economy in the long run."
The Bush administration says it does not have and does not want the authority to regulate carbon dioxide. It prefers voluntary efforts and spurned the 1998 Kyoto Protocol, which would have required the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 7 percent by 2012.
California, meanwhile, is eager to regulate vehicle emissions. In 2004, the state mandated a 25 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2016, saying it would hike the cost of vehicles by $1,000 per car. An auto industry suit seeking to block the regulation from taking effect is set to go to trial in January.
California's proposal has been adopted by 10 other states, though none have implemented it pending the resolution of court challenges.
A Supreme Court ruling on emissions could give California ammunition in its fight and subsequently lead to broad change. California's rules carry enormous weight because the state accounts for 10 percent of U.S. vehicle sales.
Under the Clean Air Act, states may adopt the California tailpipe emissions standards in lieu of the weaker federal standards.
Automakers are fighting the changes in California because the only effective way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the EPA and others have said, is to improve the fuel economy of vehicles. Drastic, mandated reductions in emissions could force automakers to pull certain cars and trucks out of some markets.
Vehicles emit 315 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in the United States each year - about 20 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. The U.S. transportation fleet accounts for 7 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions - with the vast majority coming from automobiles. That relatively small proportion is a major argument of the Bush administration and automakers against mandated reductions.
The states "failed to establish that the injuries they allege from global warming are traceable to greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles in the United States - rather than to greenhouse gas emissions from other sources in the United States, greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles or other sources elsewhere in the world, or entirely different factors," the Justice Department said in a brief.
The states say a reduction would "delay and moderate" the problem of global warming, asserting that it would spur a chain reaction of new automotive technologies that would allow SUVs and other large vehicles to emit significantly less carbon dioxide and that technology would in turn be adopted worldwide.
http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/globalwarming5.jpgDavid Shepardson - Detroit News - Nov. 27, 2006
WASHINGTON - In a case that could send shock waves through the U.S. auto industry, 12 states and the District of Columbia want the U.S. Supreme Court to order the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobile tailpipes.
The case - Massachusetts v. the Environmental Protection Agency - is the first to reach the nation's highest court in a series of legal efforts by environmentalists and states, led by California, to force the regulation and reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, which have been linked to global warming.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday.
"In the face of a federal government that has been unwilling to take dramatic steps to regulate greenhouse gases, the states have taken a multifront approach," said Ann Carlson, co-director of the environmental law clinic at the University of California, Los Angeles, pointing to several lawsuits and an effort to have the polar bear declared an endangered species.
At issue is whether the federal Clean Air Act, a set of laws enacted in the 1970s to clean up air pollution, governs greenhouse gas emissions.
A victory in the Supreme Court - even a decision giving the EPA the right to regulate emissions but not mandating it - would be an important victory for the states, Carlson said.
But even a mandate, which is unlikely from a conservative Supreme Court, probably would not mean an immediate reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles.
Several auto trade groups have come out against the states, including the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers, which represents General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., DaimlerChrysler AG, Toyota Motor Corp. and five other automakers. The groups are represented by nearly a dozen lawyers, including two former solicitor generals, Ken Starr and Ted Olson.
"The politically sensitive and scientifically uncertain decision whether to mandate federal regulation of vehicular greenhouse gas emissions properly rests with Congress," Olson wrote in court papers.
Automakers declined to comment on the case, deferring to the alliance. In court papers, they say a mandated decrease in carbon dioxide emissions would cost them billions of dollars, require expensive changes to equip more vehicles with cleaner hybrid technologies and force them to sell smaller, less profitable, vehicles. The auto industry estimates the per-vehicle cost for compliance would be at least $3,000.
Even then, they may not be able to comply with harsh reductions, nor are they convinced cutting tailpipe emissions will make a significant difference.
"Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles in this country will not likely have any direct measurable effect on the global climate," Olson wrote.
Michigan has filed a brief supporting the automakers, but others have lined up against them, including former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
Wednesday's hearing will be the latest skirmish in a years-long battle. In 1999, several academic groups asked the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from motor vehicles because they contribute to global climate change.
After the Bush administration took office in 2001, the EPA rejected the petition, saying it lacked the authority to regulate the gas under the Clean Air Act. A year later, Massachusetts and the other states filed suit.
"To fill the void left by federal inaction, some states are now initiating measures," attorneys general for the states wrote to Bush in 2002. "While individual states are prepared to lead the way, we believe that a strong national approach will allow for more efficient solutions that will better protect the American economy in the long run."
The Bush administration says it does not have and does not want the authority to regulate carbon dioxide. It prefers voluntary efforts and spurned the 1998 Kyoto Protocol, which would have required the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 7 percent by 2012.
California, meanwhile, is eager to regulate vehicle emissions. In 2004, the state mandated a 25 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2016, saying it would hike the cost of vehicles by $1,000 per car. An auto industry suit seeking to block the regulation from taking effect is set to go to trial in January.
California's proposal has been adopted by 10 other states, though none have implemented it pending the resolution of court challenges.
A Supreme Court ruling on emissions could give California ammunition in its fight and subsequently lead to broad change. California's rules carry enormous weight because the state accounts for 10 percent of U.S. vehicle sales.
Under the Clean Air Act, states may adopt the California tailpipe emissions standards in lieu of the weaker federal standards.
Automakers are fighting the changes in California because the only effective way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the EPA and others have said, is to improve the fuel economy of vehicles. Drastic, mandated reductions in emissions could force automakers to pull certain cars and trucks out of some markets.
Vehicles emit 315 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in the United States each year - about 20 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. The U.S. transportation fleet accounts for 7 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions - with the vast majority coming from automobiles. That relatively small proportion is a major argument of the Bush administration and automakers against mandated reductions.
The states "failed to establish that the injuries they allege from global warming are traceable to greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles in the United States - rather than to greenhouse gas emissions from other sources in the United States, greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles or other sources elsewhere in the world, or entirely different factors," the Justice Department said in a brief.
The states say a reduction would "delay and moderate" the problem of global warming, asserting that it would spur a chain reaction of new automotive technologies that would allow SUVs and other large vehicles to emit significantly less carbon dioxide and that technology would in turn be adopted worldwide.