23.5 m.p.g. for SUVs in 2010 vs. 27.5 m.p.g. for passanger cars now?

Zero value placed on reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Could that be? Why? By Who?

Bush's federal regulators. Now are you surprised? Maybe not, but you might be pleased to know that deliberate disregard for climate change is no longer legal. Today, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco aligned with other courts and rejected the administrations fuels standards for trucks and vans because they failed to value emission reduction. Since transportation is responsible for about 25% of total carbon emissions and that this country prides itself on exporting innovation and leadership, it would seem logical that our government would try to gradually reduce the carbon emission number not stagnate it. Right?

The lawsuit, brought on by progressive states like New York, California and Vermont represents an important proactive movement among states to try and initiate their own environmental regulations, and take climate change into their own hands. This is movement is necessary as states realize the health and environmental costs caused by the federal government's damaging denial of this issue. In fact, the judgment flatly denied Detroit's claim that these states were usurping the federal governments power by setting their own tail pipe emission standards, echoing an earlier September decision by a Vermont Judge.

Four environmental groups and 13 states and cities argued that the regulations, which are for light trucks built in the years 2008-2011, did not place a value on reducing emissions. Anyone reading the standards would have to agree. They were set to rise from 22.5 m.p.g. to 23.5 m.p.g in 2010, significantly below the current standard for passenger cars, which is 27.5 m.p.g. Notably, the judges pointed this glaring discrepancy out and asked the government why light trucks, which includes SUVs and Minivans, were subject to different and lightly regulations than passenger cars.

The Ninth Circuit wrote:

We hold that the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious, contrary to the [Energy Policy and Conservation Act] in its failure to monetize the value of carbon emissions, failure to set a backstop, failure to close the SUV loophole, and failure to set fuel economy standards for all vehicles in the 8,500 to 10,000 gross vehicle weight rating ("GVWR") class. We also hold that the Environmental Assessment was inadequate and that Petitioners have raised a substantial question as to whether the Final Rule may have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, we remand to NHTSA to promulgate new standards as expeditiously as possible and to prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement.

Equally egregious and notable is the exception of the 8,500 to 10,000 Hummer from any fuel-economy standards. Hopefully, the logic that the court used in finding with the states, that a prior lack of regulation is no justification for continued neglect, will be applied to the Hummer and other vehicles that slip through the cracks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/business/16fuel.html

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2007/2007-11-16-02.asp