Evil Automakers Sue California
From: Tom Simonds (tsimonds_at_theworld.com)
Date: 12/08/04
- Next message: Tom Simonds: "Hu? Do Dis Make Sense?"
- Previous message: alex: "Re: Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 07:35:35 -0500
CENTRAL VALLEY
Automakers sue to toss smog law
- Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer
Wednesday, December 8, 2004
The country's biggest automakers filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the
California Air Resources Board, making good on their threat to try to
overturn an innovative law that curbs tailpipe gases linked to global
warming.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and some Central Valley car
dealers filed the lawsuit Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Fresno. The
suit charges that the law limiting carbon dioxide and other so-called
greenhouse gases from new cars, light trucks and SUVs pre-empts federal
law setting fuel-economy standards.
"There's no other way to eliminate carbon dioxide than to make a car
combust less fuel,'' said Eron Shosteck, spokesman for Ford Motor Co.,
General Motors, BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler, Toyota and four others.
"This is fuel economy. Period. Fuel economy and CO2 emissions are
synonymous.''
The 72-page lawsuit relies on the key arguments advanced by the auto
industry in the debate over the nation's first law to control such
emissions from passenger vehicles -- that the law will do little to
improve health while increasing cost and limiting selection in the
marketplace.
The law requires that new vehicles' emissions of heat-trapping gases be
cut by one-third by 2016. Scientists say the accumulation of these gases
in the atmosphere is creating the effect of a greenhouse.
"Global warming heats up the surface temperature of Earth and can result
in higher (ground-level) ozone concentrations that can affect public
health," said Jerry Martin, spokesman for the air board. "We see this as
another emission rule, like our other emission rules, designed to
protect the public health from air pollution.''
In addition to requiring cutbacks on carbon dioxide, Martin said the law
also controlled nitrous oxide, methane and hydrofluorocarbons, three
gases that are "1,000 times more damaging'' in their global warming
effects.
The state maintains that the federal Clean Air Act specifically allows
California to set air pollution standards, which then may be followed by
other states. Seven other states already have passed similar laws or
have them in the works.
The state has also joined 11 other states in a suit challenging a U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency decision not to regulate carbon dioxide
as an air pollutant. The law to curb tailpipe emissions was approved by
the state Legislature in 2002. The state air board adopted the
regulations to implement the law in September, and the law is to go into
effect in 2006. The phase-in of new models starts in 2009.
State officials, who hadn't yet reviewed the suit and couldn't comment
on it, have argued that the law isn't aimed at changing fuel-economy
standards -- although they agree that the improvements that will be
required in transmissions, engines and other components will save on
fuel.
On Tuesday, California Controller Steve Westly joined with New York
Comptroller Alan Hevesi in criticizing the automakers -- which included
Mazda, Volkswagen, Porsche and Mitsubishi Motors -- for spending money
to fight the law instead of investing in cutting-edge technology.
Westly points out that he and his colleague sit on the boards of their
state employee and teacher pension funds, which he says invest about $2
billion in stocks in the suing companies. CalPERS alone has $832 million
in investments in the automakers.
Both controllers say they intend to use those funds as leverage to bring
industry representatives to the table next month for discussions.
Conservation groups expressed disappointment over the suit, saying they
had hoped the auto companies would recognize the consumer demand for
clean cars.
"It's especially disappointing to see Ford and Toyota filing suit, since
they've been positioning themselves as environmentally sensitive
manufacturers,'' said Jim Marston, attorney for Environmental Defense.
Coincidentally, the Union of Concerned Scientists released its biannual
ranking of automakers Tuesday and -- based on analyses completed in
October, and without knowledge of the lawsuit -- named Honda as the
world's greenest automaker.
"Honda chose not to sue California today," said Jason Mark, the group's
director of clean vehicles, "and we hope they use their engineers to
comply and not their lawyers to fight the law.''
Page B - 1
URL:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/12/08/GREENHOUSE.TMP
- Next message: Tom Simonds: "Hu? Do Dis Make Sense?"
- Previous message: alex: "Re: Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
