xcel
06-27-2006, 06:00 PM
Big 3 would have to invest heavily in alternative fuels or increase Fuel Economy. (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060627/AUTO01/606270378/1148)
Detroit News - June 27, 2006
http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Hummer_H2_Pic.jpg
Hummer H2 - possibly the worst GHG emitter available.
WASHINGTON - In a high-stakes case for the troubled Detroit automakers, the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it will decide whether the Bush administration must regulate carbon dioxide from cars to fight global warming.
California and 10 other states, joined by environmental groups, appealed to the nation's highest court after losing a lower-court bid to force the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide from vehicles as a pollutant harmful to human health. They argue that the EPA must treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act because it is the primary "greenhouse" gas causing the earth to heat up.
"Autos are the second-largest source of greenhouse gases in the U.S.," said senior attorney David Bookbinder of the Sierra Club, one of the environmental groups suing. "We can't tackle the problem of global warming without dealing with cars. The auto companies and oil companies debate this. It's like the tobacco companies arguing that cigarettes don't cause cancer."
If the court's ruling led to the EPA regulating auto-related carbon dioxide, Detroit's Big Three and other automakers could be forced to invest even more heavily into hybrids and other alternative-fuel vehicles and rush out smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles to consumers.
Generating huge amounts of investment capital could be hard for the domestic automakers, whose stocks have been hammered on Wall Street.
"If it led to a significant increase in fuel economy - causing a significant change in the model mix very quickly - that would be very damaging for the industry," said David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research, an independent auto research group based in Ann Arbor. "But ultimately laws tend to be reasonable and attainable, and not really compromise what consumers want. If they don't, then you'll see new lawmakers.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in the case in the fall and then issue a decision by next June.
Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn, one of the chief architects of the Clean Air Act, said Congress intentionally wanted to regulate fuel economy issues through Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.
"I don't have any trouble with the Supreme Court taking this case," Dingell said. "I am satisfied and comfortable with the law. (Supreme Court justices) have a muddled decision out of the Court of Appeals, and not infrequently when they get a muddled decision, they want to clarify where it's a matter of importance."
Gloria Bergquist of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which represents Detroit's automakers and some foreign makers, said carmakers already are taking voluntary steps to reduce carbon dioxide, such as offering a wider range of vehicles running on alternative fuels and working to cut emissions from its plants 10 percent by 2012.
"Mandates can lead to more costly vehicles and reduce the types of vehicles available," said Bergquist, the vice president of communications for the automakers trade group. "That can especially be hard on farmers and tradesmen who depend on certain types of vehicles."
General Motors Corp., DaimlerChrysler AG and Ford Motor Co. did not comment on the decision by the court to take up Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency.
Calling the upcoming ruling "potentially serious" to the Big Three, Russ Harding, the senior environmental policy analyst at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a nonpartisan research institute, said the court should let the market solve conservation problems through consumer choice.
"Already people are starting to abandon SUVs and moving to fuel-efficient vehicles because of the price of gas, which is going to continue going up," Harding said.
"It is easier for the automakers to adjust to change in the marketplace over time, gradually. They can drop some models and change the mix. (With an unfriendly ruling) they could find themselves in a short time frame having to come up with a significantly different mix. And that would be added to the difficulties (domestic automakers) already have."
The EPA said in a statement that the agency "is confident in its decision" not to regulate the chemical under the federal Clean Air Act and plans to argue its case vigorously before the high court.
President Bush has rejected calls by the environmentalists and some lawmakers in Congress to regulate carbon dioxide. Bush favors voluntary actions and development of new technologies to curtail such emissions.
In their appeal, the states maintained the case "goes to the heart of the EPA's statutory responsibilities to deal with the most pressing environmental problem of our time" - the threat of global warming.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit were California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
Detroit News - June 27, 2006
http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Hummer_H2_Pic.jpg
Hummer H2 - possibly the worst GHG emitter available.
WASHINGTON - In a high-stakes case for the troubled Detroit automakers, the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it will decide whether the Bush administration must regulate carbon dioxide from cars to fight global warming.
California and 10 other states, joined by environmental groups, appealed to the nation's highest court after losing a lower-court bid to force the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide from vehicles as a pollutant harmful to human health. They argue that the EPA must treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act because it is the primary "greenhouse" gas causing the earth to heat up.
"Autos are the second-largest source of greenhouse gases in the U.S.," said senior attorney David Bookbinder of the Sierra Club, one of the environmental groups suing. "We can't tackle the problem of global warming without dealing with cars. The auto companies and oil companies debate this. It's like the tobacco companies arguing that cigarettes don't cause cancer."
If the court's ruling led to the EPA regulating auto-related carbon dioxide, Detroit's Big Three and other automakers could be forced to invest even more heavily into hybrids and other alternative-fuel vehicles and rush out smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles to consumers.
Generating huge amounts of investment capital could be hard for the domestic automakers, whose stocks have been hammered on Wall Street.
"If it led to a significant increase in fuel economy - causing a significant change in the model mix very quickly - that would be very damaging for the industry," said David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research, an independent auto research group based in Ann Arbor. "But ultimately laws tend to be reasonable and attainable, and not really compromise what consumers want. If they don't, then you'll see new lawmakers.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in the case in the fall and then issue a decision by next June.
Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn, one of the chief architects of the Clean Air Act, said Congress intentionally wanted to regulate fuel economy issues through Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.
"I don't have any trouble with the Supreme Court taking this case," Dingell said. "I am satisfied and comfortable with the law. (Supreme Court justices) have a muddled decision out of the Court of Appeals, and not infrequently when they get a muddled decision, they want to clarify where it's a matter of importance."
Gloria Bergquist of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which represents Detroit's automakers and some foreign makers, said carmakers already are taking voluntary steps to reduce carbon dioxide, such as offering a wider range of vehicles running on alternative fuels and working to cut emissions from its plants 10 percent by 2012.
"Mandates can lead to more costly vehicles and reduce the types of vehicles available," said Bergquist, the vice president of communications for the automakers trade group. "That can especially be hard on farmers and tradesmen who depend on certain types of vehicles."
General Motors Corp., DaimlerChrysler AG and Ford Motor Co. did not comment on the decision by the court to take up Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency.
Calling the upcoming ruling "potentially serious" to the Big Three, Russ Harding, the senior environmental policy analyst at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a nonpartisan research institute, said the court should let the market solve conservation problems through consumer choice.
"Already people are starting to abandon SUVs and moving to fuel-efficient vehicles because of the price of gas, which is going to continue going up," Harding said.
"It is easier for the automakers to adjust to change in the marketplace over time, gradually. They can drop some models and change the mix. (With an unfriendly ruling) they could find themselves in a short time frame having to come up with a significantly different mix. And that would be added to the difficulties (domestic automakers) already have."
The EPA said in a statement that the agency "is confident in its decision" not to regulate the chemical under the federal Clean Air Act and plans to argue its case vigorously before the high court.
President Bush has rejected calls by the environmentalists and some lawmakers in Congress to regulate carbon dioxide. Bush favors voluntary actions and development of new technologies to curtail such emissions.
In their appeal, the states maintained the case "goes to the heart of the EPA's statutory responsibilities to deal with the most pressing environmental problem of our time" - the threat of global warming.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit were California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.