10 states sue federal government over new fuel policy
|
|
|
| Posted
:
Wed, 03 May 2006 15:06:00 GMT |
| Author
:
Martin Booth |
| Category
:
Environment |
| News Alerts by
Email ( click
here ) |
|
Environment News |
Home
|
|
|
|
WASHINGTON: Ten states have sued the federal government Tuesday, for alleged lenient automotive fuel economy standards, which they say result in energy shortage and contribute to air pollution.
The lawsuit says the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has failed to follow federal laws requiring the government to hold analyses of impact of regulation on fuel conservation and the environment.
California's attorney general Bill Lockyer said, "The federal agency has ignored the law that requires integrating environmental impacts into their standard-setting."
The petition has been filed at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, following the government enactment of a rule in March setting tighter gas mileage rules for pickups, SUVs and vans covering the 2008-2011 model years.
The administration said the rule, based on the vehicle's size, is expected to save 10.7 billion gallons of fuel over the lifetime of the vehicles sold during that period. The program intends to achieve a fleetwide average of 24 miles per gallon by 2011 and will be phased in through 2010 and taking full effect in 2012.
The lawsuit said the move had enough scope to "create incentives to build larger, less fuel-efficient models" and attempts to pre-empt a California law requiring a reduction of greenhouse gas tailpipe emissions.
A spokesperson for NHTSA said his agency had conducted a thorough analysis of fuel-saving technologies before the rule was framed.
Meanwhile, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which represents nine automakers, said the new standards will be a challenge for the automakers, but they have developed alternative-fuel vehicles as well as vehicles giving at least 30 miles per gallon.
Similar lawsuits have been filed by the Tucson, Ariz.-based Center for Biological Diversity and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Several environmental groups are also planning to sue the government over the regulation.
The 10 states that have filed the suit are California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Environmental organizations have been seeking substantial increase in fuel-economy standards, which they view as one of the most effective means in reducing the appetite for oil.
Copyright,
respective author or news agency
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Invasion
By:
Bill ,
Wed, 03 May 2006 23:18:52 GMT
|
|
What needs to happen is that the US needs to invade one OPEC nation and slaughter all the people living in the country. Cheap oil is good for the world.
|
|
trolls that fuel the blogs
By:
billy ,
Wed, 03 May 2006 19:51:10 GMT
|
|
" it would only take one unaccounted for blight to wipe out an entire crop world wide"
Wake up people. Think about the angle that sentence and its aim. It has no lead, no direction, just cynicism. Some troll-bloggers here are hired by oil companies to curb good ideas. They are just here to discourage and cause chaos.
We have millions of acres of land available for farming. Why do you think farmers have to have Willie Nelson helping them out? Because they have an over abundance of resources and not enough people to consume their crops. Oil advocates and supporters know good and well that the market shift will devastate the BUSH's oil industry. Then, they will have to elect some sucker like him to make up for the losses again.
WAKE UP!!!!!
|
|
Law suit and fuel
By:
Mike Ruppenthal ,
Wed, 03 May 2006 19:44:00 GMT
|
|
How about we all wake up and realize that the solution to this and many other problems are in our hands as consumers, not in the government's hand as a legislature. To date the free market is the best system that has been developed to deal with problems we face as a society. It can work to solve this, if we let it, and don’t bog it down with ridiculous constraints.
To begin with the states are using OUR money to sue US. What sense does that make? Think about the time resources that are being wasted unconstructively! Instead of solving problems, we are wasting time and money.
If you care about saving fuel, buy a fuel efficient auto. Encourage your friends and colleagues to do the same. They exist today! If we bought them, auto makers would make more of them. The free market would drive this behavior. Better yet, don’t drive at all and wear a sweater in the cold, turn off the A/C in the hot. Collectively, we have the power to reduce consumption, it’s just that we don’t choose to do so.
|
|
Grow up
By:
bobby richardson ,
Wed, 03 May 2006 19:40:06 GMT
|
|
We will buy the cars we want till they become too expensive. Oil is going away. If we run out in 10 years or 15 years is the only improvement more efficiency will make. Oil is gone. So let's use more than our share NOW! When it's gone the enviromentalist will find the next deep pocketed industry to use your donations to sue.
It's all smoke and mirrors. So go get in your Tahoe and drive alone to your house 20 minutes away from work and feel good that you live in a country where you can afford to do that if you wish.
|
|
Fuel
By:
Don Hall ,
Wed, 03 May 2006 19:37:48 GMT
|
|
Petro is subsidized, use the same for Wind and Solar
and you have your alternative fuel.
Electric COULD receive power from Wind or Photovoltaics with those subsidies.
If one-tenth the energy to protect, hide, slide or
otherwise protect the petro business, the world would have alternatives by now. period. no arguments.
Now, quit bickering and start using your legs, bikes, electric bikes, scooters, use solar to heat your water, electric cars are now viable ... period. Yes, it could be better, but until these become day to day, the petro will continue to extort your ... energy.
|
|
We can win
By:
Ardie ,
Wed, 03 May 2006 19:35:16 GMT
|
|
We can do it again! Do you remember the OPEC oil embargo of the 70s? America rose to the occasion. The United States proved it could boost efficiency faster than OPEC could cut back on the supply side. As a result, the U.S. GDP rose by 27% and oil consumption fell by 17% while net imports fell by an astonishing 50%. In short, we won that war with OPEC.
|
|
Bio-diesel
By:
anonymous ,
Wed, 03 May 2006 19:33:27 GMT
|
|
Why isn't a bio-diesel initiative considered rather than ethanol?
|
|
Out of Gas
By:
Rego Plesset ,
Wed, 03 May 2006 19:17:22 GMT
|
|
Reality is that oil production has peaked and demand for fossil fuel is steadily on the rise. It doesn't take an economist to predict the future of fuel costs. In 20 years we will have completely depleted the world supply and then what ? I don't care how much corn you need to burn to get 1 gallon of ethanol, at least we can grow more corn and new agri-industries in the USA and create jobs and energy independence. You oil mongers must have IQ's that are off the charts--under the low end of the Bell curve. Wake up and smell the coffee. The longer you debate this the longer your children will be shivering in the dark and unemployed. Is that the future you want for America's children ?
|
|
GET THE FACTS RIGHT
By:
Spence Steele ,
Wed, 03 May 2006 18:12:03 GMT
|
|
I see too many opinions about ethanol being "zero sum" or "it takes more energy to produce ethanol" or "corn blight will wipe out the crop". Research into ethanol production has shown it can be produced from many forms of biomass. It could be made from woodchips, waste vegetable matter, grass clippings, or other materials. These are current by-products of production process that are typically discarded, so the fuel cost to produce them isn't as high. The arguement with corn is that you must make 6 gallons of ethanol to save 1 gallon of fossil fuel. 4.5 gallons of ethanol goto its production while the remaining 1.5 gallons replaces the fossil fuel.
Everyone is quick to criticize, but nobody is offering an alternative. How about hydrogen fuel cells? Nope, takes more fuel to produce H2 than it replaces. Solar power? What happens on cloady days, nightime, or winter climates? If not ethanol, how do you want to fuel automobiles? Oil is going to run out!
|
|
TEN STATES SUE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
By:
PAUL WILSON ,
Wed, 03 May 2006 17:07:02 GMT
|
|
What a bunch of crap!
America better wake up and understand some of the math (reality) behind what it wants and what can happen. It takes more energy to create ethenol then it returns. Electric cars get their energy primarily from coal, we are a long way off from sustainable fuel cell technology and how long do you think it will take to replace every car in the US. And Rich, maybe we should lose some of our demanding scruples and send all of our business to China, that would be a real
|
|
Ethanol?
By:
Teresa ,
Wed, 03 May 2006 16:49:52 GMT
|
|
The ethanol argument is a zero-sum game. It currently takes a gallon of fossil fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol. Even if we could make it economically viable - it just changes our dependency from oil to corn. While it's true that we currently live in a time of abundance of corn, it would only take one unaccounted for blight to wipe out an entire crop world wide thanks to agriculture's GMO dependency.
|
|
Fuel Law Suit
By:
Rich ,
Wed, 03 May 2006 16:22:41 GMT
|
|
This is probably a good idea and should've been done long before now. The problem is that now it's too late. If you want to get on the bandwagon about something, get on the one for E85 or a 100% ethanol fuel until hydrogen fuel cells can be perfected and mass produced.
With Ethanol and Agri-Diesel, our farmers win because they can actuall make some money. We win, because there will be less polution, less urban sprawl (because farmers won't be so fast to sell if they are making money), and the environment wins. Sure it'll be expensive until they have a way to transport ethanol more effectively than trucks and until they get enough "refineries" beefed up to make the stuff. However with good old American know-how, those prices would start to drop to a respectable level in a year or so.
We just needed to get put between a rock and a hard place. The other thing we need to do is separate business from politics. We don't buy from countries we don't agree with, so China is "eating our lunch". We have to lose some of our demaning scruples when trying to compete in international business.
|
|
Suing the Federal Governmet
By:
Rita Belarista ,
Wed, 03 May 2006 16:21:56 GMT
|
|
I am actually surprised that something made sense in the news today. I support this wholeheartedly as the Nation I live in is under siege by OIL SUPPLY & DEMAND terrorists.
The President himself has declared an "Addiction" to oil. If this is what he would really come to believe as the so-called Oil expert that he was I would like to suggest here that he should enforce all policies that would discourage massive oil consumption and encourage the development of the old idea,MASS TRANSPORTATION.
|
|
TEM STATES SUE
By:
WAYNE MATTHEWS ,
Wed, 03 May 2006 16:17:45 GMT
|
|
BRAVO!! I'M SO DISILLUSIONED. THANK GOD SOME RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT STILL EXISTS. ONCE UPON A TIME THE FEDS WERE LOOKED UPON TO CORRAL ROGUE STATE POLICIES. NOW, IT IS THE REVERSE.
|
|
fuel
By:
hillary fyre ,
Wed, 03 May 2006 16:04:11 GMT
|
|
i think it is outrageous. what is up w/ bush.
|
|
|
|
|
