A federal appeals court sharply rejected the Bush administration's new pollution standards for most sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and vans and ordered regulators Thursday to draft a new plan that's tougher on auto emissions. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration failed to address why the so-called light trucks are allowed to pollute more than passenger cars and didn't properly assess greenhouse gas emissions when it set new minimum miles-per-gallon requirements for models in 2008 to 2011. The court also said the administration failed to include in the new rules heavier trucks driven as commuter vehicles, among several other deficiencies found. Judge Betty Fletcher wrote that the administration "cannot put a thumb on the scale by undervaluing the benefits and overvaluing the costs of more stringent standards." http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8SUGM000.htm
I found this rather interesting: The court ordered the administration to draw up new rules as soon as possible, but automakers complained Thursday they're already deep into developing light trucks through 2011 based on the new standards. Isn't this the exact same type os pandering and placating that auto manufactures were criticised for in "Who Killed the Electric Car"? Or am I thinking of another movie?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Nov 16 2007, 12:07 AM) [snapback]540426[/snapback]</div> I won't say that there is some pandering and placating. But it DOES take 4-5 years to design and produce a modern automobile.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(n8kwx @ Nov 15 2007, 11:25 PM) [snapback]540439[/snapback]</div> That is not in question. Why are they not thinking far enough ahead that emissions standards are even a problem? It's short term thinking like this that ALWAYS gets us into trouble and wastes money in the long term.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(zenMachine @ Nov 15 2007, 09:39 PM) [snapback]540415[/snapback]</div> As much as I question the wisdom of the 9th circuit on a variety of issues, it has always sort of bugged me that trucks have not had to adhere to the same standards as cars (safety, emissions, mileage). Originally it was because they were thought to be limited to farm and construction use and the like. Now of course we know they are simply everyday commute vehicles for a most buyers. Accordingly, they should be held to the same standards. As for the automakers, they'll figure it out.
Well, it isn't really fair to tell the automakers to follow one rule, and then as they've already invested in following it, change that very rule. Designing a truck isn't like flipping a switch.
All the auto makers and I include Toyota in this one are too G**D** lazy to engineer a vehicle that can both carry a large load and get decent gas mileage. Anything that gets less than 25mpg should have to pay a huge penalty (every year that it is registered) to help make it an incentive to not own these vehicle unless they are truly needed all the time. And I don't mean for the two weeks that you need this large a gas guzzling vehicle to drag the camper on vacation or to launch the boat twice a year.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chrome @ Nov 16 2007, 04:01 AM) [snapback]540459[/snapback]</div> I would argue that when the original rule still led to harm of people that the rule can be changed at any time regardless of the fairness to profit.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chrome @ Nov 16 2007, 04:01 AM) [snapback]540459[/snapback]</div> I agree and on the one hand sympathize with the automakers that are now being asked to conform to a new standard. However, from the article it appears that the standard was challenged in court almost immediately, so you would think the automakers might have hedged their bets a bit given the uncertainty. In addition, the automakers have essentially been given a free pass on these vehicles for 30-some years. That is more than adequate time to have developed the technologies needed to get these vehicles on par with all of the other vehicles they produce. And, if they can't meet the standard through technological improvements, they can always meet the standard through a change in their vehicle mix. I'm not usually one to argue for the heavy hand of government and generally not a strong proponent of CAFE, but it's my understanding that the mpg standards have been essentially unchanged for years -- years the automakers could have used to improve mpg instead of solely cramming more power under the hoods. I'm not feeling particularly sorry for them now.
It really is a load of crap because all of the whinging little prats sell cars in Europe, where economy has been the name of the game for quite a while. Yes, there's going to be some retooling of lines to incorporate changes but the new CAFE puts us where Europe was, what, 15 years ago? They don't have to develop any new technology to get the ball rolling. Tim, CAFE hasn't changed since 1985 (I think). Somewhere in the mid 80's anyways. I think mandates in the case are warranted because the market can't "forsee" shortages. Policy makers can and thus should guide the market where appropriate. CAFE and renewable energy are two areas where mandates and gov't regulation make sense.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Nov 16 2007, 09:19 PM) [snapback]540822[/snapback]</div> Given a fuel tax or CAFE, I'd take the fuel tax. They both move us toward the same goal but CAFE ends up with too many loopholes. You can't get around paying a fuel tax - you get penalized everytime you fill up. With better CAFE mpg standards, you benefit every time you fill up. There may be a place for CAFE, but I'm not entirely convinced...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Nov 16 2007, 10:34 PM) [snapback]540830[/snapback]</div> Oh, I completely agree. CAFE is really a farce. I'd much rather have a tax for the reasons that you mention. I stated it poorly. Instead of CAFE I should have said transportation sector fuel efficiency.
I don't know about this. I don't know if any of the manufacturers actually design and build cars to just meet the standards. Don't we always hear of cars that "meet the 2010 emissions standards" or back then the "1997 side impact protection standards" back in 1995 and so forth. In other words, they do plan ahead but they don't tell you about it cause it's their firepower.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Nov 17 2007, 01:29 PM) [snapback]541013[/snapback]</div> Fair enough.
