California on the Cutting Edge: Automobile Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Toyota, General Motors and seven other automakers filed suit on Tuesday to block California’s new greenhouse gas regulation, which was approved by the state in its final form in September.
[snip]
The regulation - the first of its kind in North America - would require automakers to cut by roughly 30 percent the greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks sold in the state by the 2016 model year. The industry is suing in federal court in Fresno, Calif., contending that California’s regulation is pre-empted by Washington’s authority to regulate fuel economy. Greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks are a function of fuel economy.

“They can choose whether to innovate or litigate. We were hoping that leaders in that industry would recognize that the public wants cleaner cars. But it looks as if they are choosing to draw a hard line in California,” said David Doniger, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Counciland head of a legal team of environmentalists that plans to help defend the rule dog sex surprise.
[snip]
The technology needed to reduce tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases already exists and is in use in many cars. State officials have cited innovations currently in use that can reduce exhaust, including continuously variable transmissions that shift to find the most efficient gear, engines that shut off cylinders when they are not needed and air-conditioning systems that use alternative coolants.

A little background is in order:

On July 22, 2002, California’s then-Governor Davis signed into law a landmark piece of legislation: AB 1493, better know as the Pavley bill, which required the California Air Resources Board to write regulations requiring reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (the gasses that cause global warming) from mobile sources - automobiles and trucks.

On September 24, 2004 the California Air Resources Board announced that they had approved a landmark regulation that requires automakers to begin selling vehicles with reduced greenhouse gas emissions by model year 2009.
According to CARB staff, the average reduction of greenhouse gases from new California cars and light trucks will be about 22 percent in 2012 and about 30 percent in 2016, compared to today’s vehicles. Costs for the added technology needed to meet the rule are expected to average about $325 per vehicle in 2012 and about $1050 per vehicle to comply in 2016. The CARB staff analysis concludes that the new rule will result in savings for vehicle buyers by lowering operating expenses that will more than offset the added costs of the new vehicles and provide an overall cost savings to consumers.
At least seven other states including New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Maine, as well as the nation of Canada, are expected to consider adopting the regulation for their use fucking with your dog part 2.

From The Union of Concerned Scientists:

Global warming is one of the most serious long-term environmental threats our planet faces. An international scientific consensus predicts that the average global temperature will increase during the coming century and the resulting changes will have substantial and adverse impacts on global weather patterns.
[snip]
Certain gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, play a crucial role in determining the Earth’s climate by preventing heat from escaping the atmosphere. Researchers have been able to document that the increased concentration of such gases in the atmosphere results from human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation and land degradation, cattle ranching, and rice farming. The “fingerprint” of humans causing – at least in part – the global warming we now experience has been documented in a growing number of studies.
[snip]
Mobile sources including passenger vehicles account for approximately half of CaliforniaтАЩs global warming pollution.

California Heat-Trapping Emissions by Source (1999)

Overall, the combustion of gasoline by motor vehicles is responsible for almost 40 percent of the state’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emission inventory and slightly more than 30 percent of its total heat-trapping emission inventory. A model year 2000 vehicle sold in California will emit about 90 tons of heat-trapping gases from its tailрiрeтАФmore than 95 percent of which take the form of CO2тАФinto the atmosphere during its lifetime Young woman gets plowed by pony. Without action to reduce these emissions, the total CO2 produced by the stateтАЩs passenger vehicle fleet will almost double by 2040.
See Also

Another twist: California is the only state empowered under federal law to pass stronger air pollution standards than those set by the federal government. Other states can then choose California’s standards, but cannot be the first to surpass those set by the federal government. Forty one states are currently eligble to adopt the California standards; seven have indicated interest in doing so. Even CARB can’t regulate fuel economy standards (CAF+Й) because the all-knowing federal government reserves that right. But while auto companies disagree, Pavley and CARB argue that CAF+Й standards are not the only way to impact greenhouse gas emissions. This whole drama has been very interesting to watch from inside the environmental movement. Everyone knows that CAFE standards are the way to go, but since states can’t regulate that, and the federal government won’t, the trick is to find other ways to get at air pollution, which California has done remarkably well beastiality letters. Until Pavley, no one wanted to take on mobile greenhouse gas emissions precisely because the best way to reduce them is through fuel economy. But - and this is important - it’s not the only way. That’s the beauty of Pavley, and that’s what the outcome of the Auto industry suit will hinge on: Can California convince the court that those other ways exist and are effective?

California has really taken the lead in fighting mobile source pollution (and in addressing environmental issues in general). It’s clear to me that for the next four years, and probably for much longer than that, states are going to be at the forefront of environmental policy. It will be interesting to watch how those who claim to support state’s rights deal with this particular manifestation of federalism.