As expected, the California Air Resources Board voted 7-0 to adopt standards called for in legislation, passed in 2002, that mandated a 25-percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions starting with the 2009 model year.

The unanimous vote came despite industry warnings that the move would have little effect on the state's environment and would tack $3,000 on to the sticker price of a new car.

It's the shot heard around the world, Board member Susan Patrick said just prior to the vote that took place at the end of a public hearing in Los Angeles, that covered two days. I have such confidence in this that I know that this can happen.

What will actually happen five years down the road, was the subject of a deadlocked debate between state officials- who envision the rules as a major step toward tackling the global warming phenomenon- and the automakers who will have to bankroll the design work, and retooling, required to meet the new standards that the industry contends will do little to improve California's environment.

I didn't hear any evidence that this would improve California's climate, said Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM), which led the opposition before the ARB board. Carbon dioxide isn't even considered a pollutant.

The industry primarily opposed the regulations on legal grounds, which association officials have stated could lead to a lawsuit if they are allowed to take effect next year.

AAM President Fred Webber told reporters earlier in the week that the regulations -- generally referred to as "AB (Assembly Bill) 1493 -- were an improper intrusion on federal turf because it is virtually certain that the reduction of carbon dioxide will be achieved through better gas mileage. The establishment of mileage standards, he said, was strictly the responsibility of the federal government.

Federal law is clear, Webber said. It prohibits states from adopting separate fuel-economy standards.

How could any industry exist with dozens of different fuel-economy standards? Webber asked.

The state, however, insists AB 1493 was solely intended to cut tailpipe emissions and therefore legal under a provision in the Clean Air Act that allows California to enact emissions standards over and beyond federal standards should there be an imminent need for them.

Fuel efficiency is a secondary benefit, Peavy told United Press International after the voter passed to a standing ovation from the crowd of nearly 100. It is not the purpose of this legislation, which is (reducing) emissions.

The new rules are expected to eliminate 87,400 tons per day of carbon dioxide equivalent from the air in 2009 and 154,500 tons per day in 2030. While the impact on worldwide climate change was unclear and not considered major, speakers representing cities, counties and public health organizations insisted it was a vital step in heading off potentially disastrous increases in smog-related respiratory diseases.

Ninety percent of our population already lives in areas with unhealthy air, Bonnie Holmes-Gen of the American Lung Association of California told the board. People are already experiencing health problems at the current (air-quality) standards.

Gas mileage, however, will play a significant role in meeting another provision of AB 1493, which was to prove a cost-benefit advantage for consumers. Presumptions of improved mileage will help offset the higher sticker price, which the ARB staff estimated at $1,000 per vehicle as opposed to the automaker's figure of $3,000.

The AAM argued that the California cost estimates largely glossed over the realities of running such a massive manufacturing operation and was overly optimistic on the speed at which new technologies could be moved from the drawing board to the assembly line.

Steven Douglas, the AAM's environmental director, told reporters that the ARB's vision of new inline 5-cyclinder engines, turbochargers and upgraded alternators, power steering and air conditioners didn't take into account the lead times and capital outlays needed to bring new technologies into the marketplace.

Companies like to slowly roll new technologies out so that problems can be addressed, Douglas explained. The ARB's assumptions are that it won't cost the manufacturers anything.

Webber would not say for certain that the auto industry would challenge the legality of AB 1493, although they were certain the measure flunked the cost-benefit and jurisdictional requirements.

Members of the ARB board Friday repeatedly scolded the industry for its perceived lack of participation and cooperation in developing the standards. Chairman Alan Lloyd referred publicly to the deafening silence from Detroit.

The AAM took issue with that characterization. Webber contended that even though automobiles were 99 percent cleaner than the vehicles we drove in the 1970s, the ARB staff was intent on drafting a recommendation that goes beyond what is reasonable and achievable in the time frame considered.

Webber said the fight would likely continue in the coming weeks with appeals to the state Legislature and to Schwarzenegger's administration, which has shown tendencies to be both pro-business and pro-environment.

Obviously, he said, we would like to see the Legislature reverse this.

Community
Email This Article
Comment On This Article

Related Links
SpaceDaily
Search SpaceDaily
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express
Earth Observation News - Suppiliers, Technology and Application

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News