calgov2002:
 calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register |
Posted on 07/22/2002 10:53:13 AM PDT by Weimdog
Carmakers balk at Calif. bill to cut global warming Mon Jul 22, 9:14 AM ET
James R. Healey USA TODAY
California Gov. Gray Davis ( news - web sites) plans to sign a bill into law today that environmentalists say will reduce global warming ( news - web sites) and that the auto industry says is a camouflaged attempt to regulate fuel economy, something only the federal government legally can do.
The governor's signature will ignite yet another furious battle between the auto industry and the environmental lobby over how much cars and trucks can be improved without boosting prices too high for buyers.
The auto industry is expected to sue to stop enforcement of the law, citing the fuel-economy argument. Automakers already have temporarily halted full enforcement of California's zero-emissions, electric-car mandate by convincing a federal judge that parts of it amount to back-door fuel-economy regulation.
The new law directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to come up with rules by the end of 2005 that ''achieve the maximum feasible reduction of greenhouse gases'' beginning in 2009. The main greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide (CO{-2}), and the only way to reduce emissions of it is to burn less fuel.
Vehicles contribute a minority of the CO{-2} in the atmosphere, but in California that's a significant 40%. Most CO{-2} around the world comes from factories and refineries.
''By and large, it's true'' that increasing fuel economy is the way to decrease CO{-2}, acknowledges Jon Coifman, spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council. ''But our argument is that by whatever means they choose to meet the standard, it's a tailpipe standard, and California absolutely has the right to regulate it.''
Traffic-choked California legally can -- and has -- set exhaust-emission standards different from the rest of the USA.
Environmental groups say cutting fuel consumption should be easy using ''off-the-shelf'' parts and technologies that don't require expensive, lengthy development. Among them: overhead-camshaft engines instead of old-tech, push-rod designs; low-rolling-resistance tires; and continuously variable transmissions (CVTs).
But real-world experience is more complex. Ford Motor, for instance, uses sophisticated, overhead-camshaft V-8 engines in its big sport-utility vehicles and pickups. But those typically get worse, not better, fuel economy than General Motors' push-rod V-8s.
Easy-rolling tires, already on some economy cars, typically have less traction, sacrificing some braking, steering and cornering prowess for fuel efficiency.
Current CVTs aren't made for more-popular and less-fuel-efficient trucks. Truck CVTs would make the biggest difference the most quickly. Another problem: When CVTs are tuned for best fuel economy, tests show, consumers don't like how they drive. When tuned to satisfy consumers, they do little for fuel economy.
The federal Environmental Protection Agency ( news - web sites) does not consider CO{-2} a regulated exhaust emission. CO{-2} is expelled by all living things and is not poisonous. In fact, green plants need it to survive, and the planet needs a certain amount to remain warm enough to inhabit. Too much, though, and Earth becomes a greenhouse, trapping heat that will change the climate adversely, environmentalists warn.
calgov2002:
|
calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register |
SHRUG
It would meet their emission requirements, seat 3 in semi-comfort, and go from 0 to 60 in 27.8 seconds, and cost $40,000.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.