Filed under: Trucks/Pickups, Government/Legal, Green, Chevrolet, Dodge, Ford, Toyota
Federal court overturns MPG standards for light trucks
The federal government has gotten more interested in greenhouse gases, and as a result there has been a lot of tough talk concerning raised CAFE numbers. Much less time has been devoted to reducing CO2, which is the single largest contributor to global warming. Now that the spotlight is shining squarely on emissions, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel has thrown out the 2008-2011 CAFE rating for light trucks. The 2008-2011 changes represented the largest jump in fuel economy in the history of CAFE, with MPG going from 22.2 to 24, but with the growing problem of greenhouse gases, that obviously didn't go far enough for the courts.
[Source: Automotive News - Sub. Req.]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Adam 3:42PM (11/19/2007)
You make it seem like the Global Warming debate is over. Damn federal government. I thought we defeated communism already? Looks like it's here to stay.
Reply
Mike I 5:10PM (11/19/2007)
There is no global warming "debate." Speak to professors in upper education who take part in the global scientific community and you'll find out that, no matter how much politics and the piteous automobile companies claim it's possibly not true, it is absolutely truth. Even if you were to go against the global scientific community and state that it is untrue, these regulations are proper for our economical growth and stability in the future. It's more than just automobiles. It's our economy, our health and our greater good.
mike 5:27PM (11/19/2007)
There's Still A Debate.
Should the Oil, Coal, and News industry do Jail Time for their Communistic Propaganda campaign against Science. How much Jail Time is the question.
Adam 5:33PM (11/19/2007)
The oil, coal, and news industry puts forth communist propaganda? Do you even know what communism is?
nissanfreak87 3:46PM (11/19/2007)
why don't we tell Volcanoes to pollute less, seeing as 1 eruption puts out more pollution and green house gases than Humanity has in history
Reply
Adam 3:50PM (11/19/2007)
The government just takes advantage of everything it can to gain more influence and power. There is no rationale behind big government's decisions.
h8rain 4:05PM (11/19/2007)
OH! You beat me to that point.........
To much CO2....plant more trees you hippies. :)
rem83 4:11PM (11/19/2007)
I would love to see your "source" for that statistic. Long term atmospheric CO2 levels correlate very strongly to the rise of CO2 emitting technology in the 20th century. If your claim was correct, CO2 levels would rise sharply, when major volcanic eruptions occur, and level off in between. This is clearly not the case: http://www.mlo.noaa.gov/programs/coop/scripps/img/img_scripps_co2_record.gif
nissanfreak87 5:13PM (11/19/2007)
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/2002/qandas14.pdf
http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/postgraduate/PhD/getDocument?SerialNo=261
there ya go, high numbers of eruption=high levels of decreased ozone and more pollutants/green house gases.
I have more if you'd like, while they might not be permanent causes, there are more than 1 eruption each year, which would cause a pretty consistent amount of sulphur, etc... to remain in out atmosphere. And the mass of greenhouse gases and pollutants from a Volcanic eruption is more than mankind has put out in history.
rem83 7:25PM (11/19/2007)
Thanks for actually posting some justification. However, I would appreciate some other articles since neither of those proves your point that a single volcanic eruption puts out more greenhouse gases than humanity has in its history.
Since it seems likely that you didn't actually read either of these, allow me to summarize them: The first article states that volcanoes emit pollutants which can have an affect on the ozone layer. The second source you cited, which is actually a proposal for a project and not a scientific article whatsoever, states that volcanic eruptions can have have temporary climatic effects, almost always confined to a single hemisphere. Neither of these has anything to do with long term global warming.
Cameron 3:52PM (11/19/2007)
Please watch this video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
We need to change how we as a species approach global warming. Exist or not, watch the video.
Reply
Russell 4:53PM (11/19/2007)
Who cares, let it happen and then will see who is sorry.
raz 3:58PM (11/19/2007)
Why not accept Bush 4% a year MPG increase (1 MPG a year)
You already know that Hillary wants 54 MPG by 2030, Of all serious people who are running for Presidency only Romney did not commit to increase in MPG.
Why fight what will happen...and in the process spend money and dirty up your image.
Reply
Francis 3:59PM (11/19/2007)
Yes and while that may be true, the volcano is not doing it every day. We, are.
And let us all be honest, light "commercial" vehicles do represent a very large block of the emitting public. With power trains designed to be more efficient at greater loads, running around in a 2500 4x4 is wasting fuel, pumping out greenhouse gasses and doing so needlessly.
We should be ratcheting up the restrictions on these vehicles because they do pollute more and consume more versus smaller vehicles designed to carry people not lumber and bricks. The Big 3 and toyota have been skirting the definition of commercial vehicle for far to long, arguing that "the working man" needs all the power and capacity these trucks can deliver and to do any less would be insulting AND dangerous. Well I could buy that argument if it was only "the working man" who drove them but it is not. It is time for light pickups & SUV's to be held accountable to the same battery of standards I am driving small car.
Reply
Adam 4:06PM (11/19/2007)
I agree with you and your distaste for those that drive around in huge SUVs filled with no people. Then again, this is America, not the former Soviet Union. The government doesn't need to force people or businesses to do things any more than they already do (taxes, regulations, subsidies, etc.). If the free market was actually allowed to operate you wouldn't have these issues. And if there was a dire problem, the government would NOT be the entity to choose to fix it.
raz 4:08PM (11/19/2007)
Some one will accuse you of wanting to increase regulation on small businesses.
To which i will answer, buying a car so large so you can tow your 500 LB baby and your triple chinned wife does not make you a small business owner.
Please, we all know that 90% of people who buy trucks have ZERO need for them. I understand you may have a large family, but Census says that US families have 2.3 children.....that does not justify half of all vehicle sales being Pick Ups and SUVs. Some people say well i need to tow......OK How often do you tow a boat? Hw often do you buy Furniture?
By the way, i went to Ikea and purchased furniture there on Honda Civic.......because seats can be folded flat, which provides a ton of room.
Bottom line is, there's no need for half a nation to buy those tanks, and very few actually need them.
I also have a question, where do Middle East terrorists get money? Must be all those software companies they own.
AlexP 4:19PM (11/19/2007)
Raz: I don't know how many times I'll have to find myself repeating this but: your #1 oil provider is Canada, and no, Canada is not located in the Middle East.
Steven 4:26PM (11/19/2007)
The biggest problem I have with this the climate change activists on this issue is that they believe it can be "solved" through MPG. 25mpg or 50mpg...to the earth, it's splitting hairs. PRIUSUS will not heal the world!
Whitie 4:31PM (11/19/2007)
You boys are playing a more dangerous game than you realize, suggesting that people don't "need" SUVs. People are allowed their tastes, which buy the way are no more your business than the size of homes people buy. Kick that idiot Al Snore out of his 20+ room home (one of several he owns).. surely he doesn't "need" a home that size.. his "kids" are grown for heaven sakes! LOL!! Just realized that what you are so willing to take away from others is called freedom of choice, and many, many thousands of Americans have died to preserve that most beloved of American rights. You (assumed) young folks rationalize what people "need" as recklessly as those who argue against gun ownership.
Bennet Pullen 5:54PM (11/19/2007)
The problem with your thinking is that we don't get free choice. I may want to steel, or kill, or vandalize, or do any number of other things that are against the law. I'm not allowed to do those things because they don't just affect ME. If my actions have consequences for my neighbors than they are no longer just my decision, free country or not.
The problem here is that fuel usage has the potential to be something that affects all of us. Either via economic or environmental change somebody else’s car choice can change my life, so now it is my business.
I don't want some other person gambling with my future because they want a vehicle with 10 times the capability they will need.