Here we go again.
Just like the Tobacco Cos did for 50 years. Let's hope that the final outcome will be the similar and that ICE vehicle manufacturers will eventually have to pay for most of the damages they have created.

ET AL:
I hope you didn't think big auto would allow this to go forward without a long protracted court fight. In the tradition of the tobacco industry, big auto would rather hire and pay lawyers, PR firms, and lobbyists, like The AAM, than to work on the problem. However, they are right in that the question resolves itself to a states right issue: Can the states set air standards higher than the federal EPA? But, there are other factors. A contemporary way to put the same question is: Can the Bush administration continue to keep the mileage requirements low for the benefit of big auto and their continuing financial support for the Republican party?

Least you think I'm a democrat, I say it could very well be the same if that party were in power. Nothing will change in Washington until we can elect representatives with values that allow the people's welfare to drive their decisions and not corporate favors and election campaign donations.

@Harvey D:
My complements sir; you and I are on the same wave length. And, I'm hoping there are others arming themselves with information so we can all make good decisions at the next elections.

Problem is, who pays for all these expensive lawsuits and lobbyist?

Problem is, who pays for all these expensive lawsuits and lobbyist?

Who pays for a warming planet?

I would argue (on behalf of Vermont) that this
does not necessarily regulate fuel economy, and use a cng fueled vehicle as an example.

It is amazing that automakers are appealing since even if they win that battle (which looks unlikely since they don't bring new facts to the case)it is pretty clear they will lose the next war after the elections.
All the recommendations of the experts in the energy industry are pretty clear : neither the america addiction to oil or the move towards a more sustainable transportation will be solved without drastic energy conservation policy, alternative fuels will be only part of the solution. So they should focus on getting ready for the move to higher mileages requirements instead of wasting their money in lawyers.. the later it will come the tougher it will be to adapt, rather start earlier...

jack:

Who has been paying the $300+ billions fine for the Tobacco firms? Smokers...and why not.

The total cost for all damages created by ICE vehicles in the last 100+ years will be very difficult to establish but is certainly many times more than Tobaccos. Who will and should pay for that. The users of course. That's where a progressive carbon tax ($100+/tonnes) over 10 years fits in.

This would be a real win-win situation. Less fossil fuel consummed, less GHG, less imported oil etc.

PS: The Canadian Arctic temperature raised by an average of +6C since 1951. No wonder the polar ice is melting away at an increasing speed.

Now that alternatives are (or will soon be) available, those of us who do not want to pay a hefty carbon tax could buy smaller, lighter, more efficient, compacts, hybrids, PHEVs and/or Bevs.

The automakers will win the appeal; this law will obviously interfere with interstate commerce. You can’t have 50 states with 50 different fuel economy standards. Commerce would cease. But that’s really what many of the posters on this board want, some agrarian pre-industrial revolution utopia where the wimps and geeks don’t have to compete in the brutal free market of ideas, products and services. Sounds like hell to me. I vote we find some alternative energy to keep living well, subsistence lifestyles suck.

The nexus of the environmental movement’s failure can be seen in this regulation. Vermont and many Green Car Congress posters are selling pain, depravation, and greatly reduced freedom of choice. Then they are shocked when people choose candidates that promises prosperity instead of pain and deprivation. Pain and deprivation never sell, and never will unless except maybe to masochists.

@Yukaburbahoe

According to your statement driving a high tech hybrid fuel efficient car instead of dinosaur of steel with prehistoric technologie is subsistence lifestyle ? pre-industrial agrarian utopia is still far more advance than caveman sightshorted view.

I personally don't see a future in an economy or system based on energy wasteful lifestyle like the north american one. I see only disaster, war, destruction and hopeless future. And pardon me but I don't see the connection between fuel efficiency and reduced freedom of choice.

But that’s really what many of the posters on this board want, some agrarian pre-industrial revolution utopia where the wimps and geeks don’t have to compete in the brutal free market of ideas, products and services. Sounds like hell to me. I vote we find some alternative energy to keep living well, subsistence lifestyles suck.

LOL.