Vermont could clear way for new U.S. emissions rules

I saw this article and thought the comment on Toyota hybrids near the bottom
was interesting- "While hybrid technology has raised manufacturing costs,
Toyota Motor Corp., maker of the Prius hybrid, expects cost-cutting on
hybrid production to make the cars as profitable as traditional gasoline
models by 2010. By that point it expects to be selling 1 million hybrids a
year."

**********************************************

Vermont could clear way for new U.S. emissions rules

Reuters |
May 11, 2007 - 9:00 am

BOSTON (Reuters) -- A Vermont judge could soon clear the way for nearly a
dozen states to surmount auto industry protests and limit emissions from
cars and light trucks to protect the environment, legal experts said.

The rural northeastern state in 2005 followed California's lead in calling
for a 30 percent cut in the amount of carbon dioxide, the main gas blamed
for global warming, emitted from automobiles starting with 2009 models. U.S.
automakers have sued both states, and Rhode Island, seeking to have the
rules overturned.

Vermont's suit is the first to go to trial.

Arguments wrapped up on Tuesday, May 8, after nearly a month of testimony,
and legal experts expect U.S. District Court Judge William Sessions to rule
before September.

"This will be an important signal to the other cases, so I do anticipate
that there will be an important precedent set in this case," said Daniel
Esty, the director of Yale University's Center for Environmental Law and
Policy.

The Vermont trial began shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in an
unrelated case that carbon dioxide can be regulated as a pollutant,
rejecting a 2003 argument by the federal Environmental Protection Agency
that it did not have authority over carbon dioxide.

That finding, legal experts said, weakened the auto industry's argument that
the 10 states that have adopted the rules are overreaching in regulating
carbon dioxide emissions. Fuel efficiency is federally regulated.

"I expect Vermont to win, and I think the deference shown to the states as
sovereign entities by the Supreme Court recently sends a strong signal to
this court that it needs to be very deferential to Vermont's desire to
protect its air," Esty said.

However, Patrick Parenteau, director of Vermont Law School's Environmental
and Natural Resources Law Clinic, said Sessions could dismiss the suit or
simply delay ruling until the EPA takes up the issue.

"The probability here is that he is not going to issue any groundbreaking
ruling," Parenteau said. "It's not a decision he has to make and it's not a
decision he should make."

FEASIBILITY

General Motors and DaimlerChrysler AG, with local auto dealers and trade
groups, said they could not meet the Vermont standards and would be forced
to stop doing business in the state as a result.

"I seriously doubt that if you gave me all the money in the world and the
same for all the other automakers that they could find enough resources ...
to do this work," Bob Lee, a vice president at DaimlerChrysler, testified in
April.

Vermont, whose farm and tourist industries depend on cold winters and mild
summers, said the standards were realistic and crucial for maintaining a
stable climate.

"They have some years, because they don't even start until 2009 at the
earliest and then slowly ramp up, but it's a matter of committing to it,"
said Brad Kuster, an attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation, an
advocacy group assisting Vermont and California on the legal issue.

The U.S. auto industry has been slower than its Asian rivals in adopting
energy-saving technologies, such as hybrid engines. Hybrids couple a
traditional gasoline engine with an electric motor to reduce fuel
consumption and emissions.

While hybrid technology has raised manufacturing costs, Toyota Motor Corp.,
maker of the Prius hybrid, expects cost-cutting on hybrid production to make
the cars as profitable as traditional gasoline models by 2010. By that point
it expects to be selling 1 million hybrids a year.

California adopted its standard from concern that the national government
was doing too little to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. U.S. clean air
laws allow the West Coast state to implement stricter standards, which other
states can adopt.

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and
Washington have also adopted the new California rule, and Arizona, Maryland
and New Mexico are considering it.

"C. E. White" > wrote in
link.net:

> I saw this article and thought the comment on Toyota hybrids near the
> bottom was interesting- "While hybrid technology has raised
> manufacturing costs, Toyota Motor Corp., maker of the Prius hybrid,
> expects cost-cutting on hybrid production to make the cars as
> profitable as traditional gasoline models by 2010. By that point it
> expects to be selling 1 million hybrids a year."
>
> **********************************************
>
> Vermont could clear way for new U.S. emissions rules
>
> Reuters |
> May 11, 2007 - 9:00 am
>
> BOSTON (Reuters) -- A Vermont judge could soon clear the way for
> nearly a dozen states to surmount auto industry protests and limit
> emissions from cars and light trucks to protect the environment, legal
> experts said.
>
> The rural northeastern state in 2005 followed California's lead in
> calling for a 30 percent cut in the amount of carbon dioxide, the main
> gas blamed for global warming, emitted from automobiles starting with
> 2009 models. U.S. automakers have sued both states, and Rhode Island,
> seeking to have the rules overturned.
>
> Vermont's suit is the first to go to trial.
>
> Arguments wrapped up on Tuesday, May 8, after nearly a month of
> testimony, and legal experts expect U.S. District Court Judge William
> Sessions to rule before September.
>
> "This will be an important signal to the other cases, so I do
> anticipate that there will be an important precedent set in this
> case," said Daniel Esty, the director of Yale University's Center for
> Environmental Law and Policy.
>
> The Vermont trial began shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in
> an unrelated case that carbon dioxide can be regulated as a pollutant,
> rejecting a 2003 argument by the federal Environmental Protection
> Agency that it did not have authority over carbon dioxide.
>
> That finding, legal experts said, weakened the auto industry's
> argument that the 10 states that have adopted the rules are
> overreaching in regulating carbon dioxide emissions. Fuel efficiency
> is federally regulated.
>
> "I expect Vermont to win, and I think the deference shown to the
> states as sovereign entities by the Supreme Court recently sends a
> strong signal to this court that it needs to be very deferential to
> Vermont's desire to protect its air," Esty said.
>
> However, Patrick Parenteau, director of Vermont Law School's
> Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic, said Sessions could
> dismiss the suit or simply delay ruling until the EPA takes up the
> issue.
>
> "The probability here is that he is not going to issue any
> groundbreaking ruling," Parenteau said. "It's not a decision he has to
> make and it's not a decision he should make."
>
> FEASIBILITY
>
> General Motors and DaimlerChrysler AG, with local auto dealers and
> trade groups, said they could not meet the Vermont standards and would
> be forced to stop doing business in the state as a result.
>
> "I seriously doubt that if you gave me all the money in the world and
> the same for all the other automakers that they could find enough
> resources ... to do this work," Bob Lee, a vice president at
> DaimlerChrysler, testified in April.
>
> Vermont, whose farm and tourist industries depend on cold winters and
> mild summers, said the standards were realistic and crucial for
> maintaining a stable climate.
>
> "They have some years, because they don't even start until 2009 at the
> earliest and then slowly ramp up, but it's a matter of committing to
> it," said Brad Kuster, an attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation,
> an advocacy group assisting Vermont and California on the legal issue.
>
> The U.S. auto industry has been slower than its Asian rivals in
> adopting energy-saving technologies, such as hybrid engines. Hybrids
> couple a traditional gasoline engine with an electric motor to reduce
> fuel consumption and emissions.
>
> While hybrid technology has raised manufacturing costs, Toyota Motor
> Corp., maker of the Prius hybrid, expects cost-cutting on hybrid
> production to make the cars as profitable as traditional gasoline
> models by 2010. By that point it expects to be selling 1 million
> hybrids a year.
>
> California adopted its standard from concern that the national
> government was doing too little to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
> U.S. clean air laws allow the West Coast state to implement stricter
> standards, which other states can adopt.
>
> Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and
> Washington have also adopted the new California rule, and Arizona,
> Maryland and New Mexico are considering it.
>
>
>

This "global warming" bull**** is going to bite everyone in the ass,at
least in the US,thanks to the socialists.
Everywhere else will be exempt from compliance,or will ignore it.
It's nuts to believe that we humans can affect global climate,especially
when solar output is the major factor.

If I were the auto companies,I'd just stop selling autos in those states.
I suspect things would revert to normal quickly.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On 11 May 2007 23:34:33 GMT, Jim Yanik > wrote:

>
>This "global warming" bull**** is going to bite everyone in the ass,at
>least in the US,thanks to the socialists.

You got it - its just an extension to the pollution bull**** that has already
sent US jobs, especially industrial jobs, anywhere but the US. Most everywhere
else, at least in the 3rd world countries were a lot of factories are being and
have been built (Mexico... India... etc.), the factories can pollute the
environment at will, don't require all the safety features, etc. etc. US
industry, under that influence and that and of the corporate income tax that
also chokes our industry to death, sees jobs leaving the country like Cubans
leaving their island.

Dave Head
You have all the rights that you're willing to fight for.

In article .net>, C. E. White wrote:

> The Vermont trial began shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in an
> unrelated case that carbon dioxide can be regulated as a pollutant,
> rejecting a 2003 argument by the federal Environmental Protection Agency
> that it did not have authority over carbon dioxide.

So, now the federal government through the EPA can regulate our
breathing? ?

In article >, Dave Head wrote:
> On 11 May 2007 23:34:33 GMT, Jim Yanik > wrote:
>
>>
>>This "global warming" bull**** is going to bite everyone in the ass,at
>>least in the US,thanks to the socialists.
>
> You got it - its just an extension to the pollution bull**** that has already
> sent US jobs, especially industrial jobs, anywhere but the US. Most everywhere
> else, at least in the 3rd world countries were a lot of factories are being and
> have been built (Mexico... India... etc.), the factories can pollute the
> environment at will, don't require all the safety features, etc. etc. US
> industry, under that influence and that and of the corporate income tax that
> also chokes our industry to death, sees jobs leaving the country like Cubans
> leaving their island.

Well at least people are begining to understand the fraud. As the 'crazy
person' who has been pointing this out for years now I'm happy people are
begining to get it. (not just here in rad, but in general) It's about
killing a middle class in the world, reducing our freedom of movement,
reducing our economic power, reduce our wealth, etc and so forth.

Has anyone notice the prelims to introducing a carbon tax? Al Gore and
the Queen of England paying to offset their carbon dioxide output? The
SPP papers saying to use global warming concerns to push a carbon tax?

There is huge environmental damage going on, china is spewing all sorts
of pollution, the land is being torn up in many places in the world
destroying habitats, over fishing, GMO crops, etc... and most of it is
entirely needless since technology and knowledge exist to avoid it. It's
just not used.

Meanwhile all this energy is spent regarding CO2, which really if one
looks at things deeper would result in a net improvement, if man
stopped/reduced doing the traditional sort of environmental damage
mentioned previously.

An interesting article:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...481707,00.html

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), in a sure sign
that the Apocalypse is upon us, someone calling themself Brent P said
this in rec.autos.driving:
> Well at least people are begining to understand the fraud. As the 'crazy
> person' who has been pointing this out for years now I'm happy people are
> begining to get it. (not just here in rad, but in general) It's about
> killing a middle class in the world, reducing our freedom of movement,
> reducing our economic power, reduce our wealth, etc and so forth.

IIRC, it was Marx who prophesized that we would go through feudalism to
capitalism to socialism to communism. Seems to me that we are headed
back to feudalism with the lord ruling over the serfs (in that matter,
is a communist dictatorship any different) if that egg sucking yellow
dog bush and his cronies get their way.

Q: How do you spell "disgrace to America?"
A: G-e-o-r-g-e W. B-u-s-h

> Has anyone notice the prelims to introducing a carbon tax? Al Gore and
> the Queen of England paying to offset their carbon dioxide output? The
> SPP papers saying to use global warming concerns to push a carbon tax?

THose "carbon offsets," are so ****ing hilarious. To think that people
are dumb enough to think that by giving some corporation *more* of their
money that they are going to make one bit of difference; and we allow
these **** heads to reporduce. I guess that PT Barnum was right,
"THere's a sucker born every minute."

> There is huge environmental damage going on, china is spewing all sorts
> of pollution, the land is being torn up in many places in the world
> destroying habitats, over fishing, GMO crops, etc... and most of it is
> entirely needless since technology and knowledge exist to avoid it. It's
> just not used.

Really. You don't hear the greens or the kyoto fascists saying a word
about that.

> Meanwhile all this energy is spent regarding CO2, which really if one
> looks at things deeper would result in a net improvement, if man
> stopped/reduced doing the traditional sort of environmental damage
> mentioned previously.

Maybe if all these so-called scientists (sic) would STFU, there would be
less hot air in the world......

--
"I always heard that primitave hoo-mans lacked intelligence,
but I never thought they'd be this stupid."
--Quark

In article et>, necromancer wrote:

> capitalism to socialism to communism. Seems to me that we are headed
> back to feudalism with the lord ruling over the serfs (in that matter,
> is a communist dictatorship any different) if that egg sucking yellow
> dog bush and his cronies get their way.

Yep. That's the apparent plan. A modern, technological feudalism.

> THose "carbon offsets," are so ****ing hilarious. To think that people
> are dumb enough to think that by giving some corporation *more* of their
> money that they are going to make one bit of difference; and we allow
> these **** heads to reporduce. I guess that PT Barnum was right,
> "THere's a sucker born every minute."

The idea is seemingly to make transportation so expensive, only those
like Al Gore and the Queen of England can afford it.

>> There is huge environmental damage going on, china is spewing all sorts
>> of pollution, the land is being torn up in many places in the world
>> destroying habitats, over fishing, GMO crops, etc... and most of it is
>> entirely needless since technology and knowledge exist to avoid it. It's
>> just not used.

> Really. You don't hear the greens or the kyoto fascists saying a word
> about that.

Don't you know, china with a trillion dollars piled up cannot
afford to protect the environment.... but the in debt up to the eyeballs
and then some USA can afford it.

In article >, Ashton Crusher wrote:

>
> Hmm, change "china" in the above to "USA" and the same thing is what
> is said by people here about the US. How come you see the error of
> China's ways but don't want to avoid the same error here?

The USA put regulations in decades ago and developed the technologies
that didn't previously exist to greatly reduce the spewing of toxins and
other pollution. China refuses to use even existing technolgies.

The USA could claim ignorance 50+ years ago. But china's growth happened
in the last 15 years, after the pollution controls existed.

On May 11, 6:17 pm, "C. E. White" > wrote:
> I saw this article and thought the comment on Toyota hybrids near the bottom
> was interesting- "While hybrid technology has raised manufacturing costs,
> Toyota Motor Corp., maker of the Prius hybrid, expects cost-cutting on
> hybrid production to make the cars as profitable as traditional gasoline
> models by 2010. By that point it expects to be selling 1 million hybrids a
> year."
>
> **********************************************
>
> Vermont could clear way for new U.S. emissions rules
>
> Reuters |
> May 11, 2007 - 9:00 am
>
> BOSTON (Reuters) -- A Vermont judge could soon clear the way for nearly a
> dozen states to surmount auto industry protests and limit emissions from
> cars and light trucks to protect the environment, legal experts said.
>
> The rural northeastern state in 2005 followed California's lead in calling
> for a 30 percent cut in the amount of carbon dioxide, the main gas blamed
> for global warming, emitted from automobiles starting with 2009 models. U.S.
> automakers have sued both states, and Rhode Island, seeking to have the
> rules overturned.
>
> Vermont's suit is the first to go to trial.

If they really believe what they're suing for, they should immediately
ban the import of all cars and light trucks.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article .net>, C. E.
> White wrote:
>
>> The Vermont trial began shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in an
>> unrelated case that carbon dioxide can be regulated as a pollutant,
>> rejecting a 2003 argument by the federal Environmental Protection Agency
>> that it did not have authority over carbon dioxide.
>
> So, now the federal government through the EPA can regulate our
> breathing? ?

No. However, the EPA does regulate the pollution that is put into the
atmosphere. For example, the EPA lowered the amount of sulfur oxides that
are allowed to go into the atmosphere, thereby decreasing acid rain.

The EPA doesn't regulate your breathing. They do make it so you have clean
air to breath, though.

If you want to breath dirty air, take up smoking.

Jeff