Another alternative would be for the California legislature to ban the purchase by the state of California that do not meet California's standards. The state may also be able to enforce such a purchasing requirement on local governments. That should get action by the auto manufacturers.

Another alternative would be for the California legislature to ban the purchase by the state of California that do not meet California's standards. The state may also be able to enforce such a purchasing requirement on local governments. That should get action by the auto manufacturers.

It's important to make sure the new diesels can be sold, even if this trumps California's wishes.

CAFE targets need diesel options.

@ Bill,
Not so. Think grams CO2/Km driven. Diesel gets more kilometers, but also emits more CO2. California needs clean diesel options.

@ Herm,
1 Senator can try to put a personal hold on a bill, but the rest of the Senate does not have to be hamstrung by that usual courtesey.

@ Cervus,
Yes, Texas gets wind. What is peculiar is that they are not leading the charge on biodiesel or solar thermal electricity. They've got lots of sun and salty coastline for algae. They've got lots of refining expertise. They get off on being energy producers. Weird.

Here's how I'd like to see this play out. California prevails on it's GHG standards, effectively raising the mpg CAFE requirements for 120 million Americans. Detroit, unwilling to abandon that market, admits what we've known all along; lighter lower cars can meet the higher standards with ICE, serial hybrid, through the ground hybrid, PHEV, BEV, etc. Once those vehicles are widely available, it becomes obvoius the National CAFE standards should be raised. Life improves. That, and a whole lot of solar power (thermal or photovoltaic) to charge batteries, rebuilds our economy and we stop being at the mercy of OPEC.

Uhg
2008 Diesels will be sold in all 50 US States....

Of course though with Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel, a Diesel Particulate Filter, and a closed-loop NOx Filter.

I think what will happen--for the sanity of the world's automotive industry!!--is that we'll reach a compromise where we'll get a 50-state standard that will be more stringent than the EPA standard but less stringent than the California standard (essentially going to EPA Tier 2 Bin 4 emissions standard) for light trucks and automobiles. The technology is there is build turbodiesel engines that meet Tier 2 Bin 4 standard, thanks to injecting urea as a fine powder instead of liquid form and using an improved version of the plasma gas reactor catalytic converter that Honda developed.

By the way, within the next 4-5 years we'll see more use of direct fuel injection and forced-air induction, which allows smaller engines to generate more power "on demand" but use far less fuel in partial-load conditions. Volkswagen's TwinCharger system on their 1.4 TSI engine is a sign of things to come.

Cutting back on driving would do more than mpg standards. If California were truly serious, they could shot down all auto traffic, with possible exception of ubiquitous NEVs in all cities over 50,000 people. In addition, they could provide Feebates on the sale of autos, rewarding those who are purchasing vehicles with high mileage from the fees from those who are purchasing vehicles with low mileage.

With increases in population and continued increases in miles traveled, any attempts at higher mpg standards will be completely negated.

But people want to believe in MPG standards because they think the auto companies can magically fulfill their every whim for bigger and faster vehicles with better and better mpg at no additional cost.

While it probably wouldn't hurt to have higher standards, it is just a way for politicians and people to avoid making hard choices and doing the kind of planning and regulation necessary.

I like to see a special prosecutor appointed in this matter. We need to know if there are bribes or other wrong doings in the EPA decision.

The only effective way to reduce GHG emissions is to reduce fossil fuel use. If California and other states were serious about GHG they would limit sales of fossil fuels within their borders and I have yet to hear of a single state willing to do that.

Regarding neighborhood electric vehicles (NEV) in California, by offering fewer zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) credits for NEVs than for full speed ZEVs, the CalEPA effectively discourages the production of NEVs by the large auto manufacturers. Please see page 90 of this document (p95 of the .pdf file):

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/levprog/cleandoc/cleancomplete_lev-ghg_regs_12-07.pdf

We could use some good news here. So how's this?

Tesla Roadster passes crash tests. Can be sold in all 50 states.

Tom,

The Japanese almost meet future CAFE standards now! They make large SUVs and trucks and their average fuel economy is higher than the big 3 U.S. automakers. I do not think that Congress is asking the auto makers to do the impossible.

The feebate idea is good and perhaps could be implemented without a lot of legal complications. States can set their tax and registration fees as they see fit, without banning the sale of any particular vehicle. It would be politically unpopular though.

Astonishing denial coming from inhuman replicas trying to pretend their simulations are not utter failures!! Admit it - these scenarios are phony hypotheticals without a scintilla of believability. Adopt change - try honesty.

Did no one else catch this juicy tidbit from JD?

"Besides that Federal law supercedes[sic] state law. Lincolns[sic] Illegal war in 1865 ensured that."

What are you JD? Some kind of racist piece of trash? Reminiscing how good times were on the ol' plantation? Tell you what, why don't you and the "Great State of Texas" go ahead and secede like you apparently have been wanting to all these years.

Oh I noticed it, I just do not like pouring gasoline on an off topic flamer.

The 'Commerce Clause' in the U.S. Constitution gives Congress precedence over states on this issue.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statecommerce.htm

Indeed, throwing gasoline on him means adding fossil carbon to the atmosphere.

Better we should roast his kind over renewable charcoal, eh?

And the law authorizing the EPA allows California to set its own pollution standards more stringent than the EPA (formerly 49-state) standards, and any state which desires can adopt the California standards as its own.  All set in Federal law, thus consistent with the Commerce clause.

The same authorizing legislation requires the EPA to regulate harmful emissions.  CO2, like nitrate and phosphate, is essential to life as we know it; in excess, all of these are harmful pollutants.  IIRC the Supreme Court has ruled that the EPA is allowed to regulate all of these, and as shortly after Bush is out of the picture it will do so (if only because a lower court rules that the letter of the law requires it).

[quote]IIRC the Supreme Court has ruled that the EPA is allowed to regulate all of these, and as shortly after Bush is out of the picture it will do so (if only because a lower court rules that the letter of the law requires it).[/quote]

I think the Supreme Court said the law required it?

[quote]Er, just "quotes" eh?[/quote]

It is hilarious to see all the ad hominem attacks by the "rational" persons who swallow the latest fadish psuedo-science. Unable to provide any rational reasons for their fury, since there are none, they must resort to pure venom.

Long before the Califoirnaia standarda, if ever adiopted bite, the world won't give a damn about CO2. The UN's own IPCC has already comitted to do so in the thero next 5 year report.

Unlike the real pollutants which we all want removed from the air, CO2 is a necessary and safe byproduct of complete combustion, and a necessary food for plants.

Only in the fevered imagination of eco-entrepeneurs and science know-nothings is CO2 a "pollutant". But eco-hysteria pays well. Algore made $100 million dollars on his hysteria inducing farce. Good if you can get it.

As PT Barnum once said "There's a sucker born every minute". And... "A fool and his money are soon parted" and having fleeced them, "This way to the Egress!"

It seesm like the fleeced are well represented here.

CO2 is a ... a necessary food for plants.

You can kill yourself by drinking too much water.  Even oxygen is poisonous to humans at partial pressures greater than about 1 atmosphere.

Only in the fevered imagination of eco-entrepeneurs and science know-nothings is CO2 a "pollutant".

The fact remains that the diesel cycle is much more efficient than the Otto or Atkinson cycle.

TSi engines come nowhere close to the fuel economy of TDi engines.

Which is why the federal government should and will ensure that "clean enough" diesels will remain 50 state approved.

As Raymond noted, it is likely some compromise will be reached that regulates diesels to T2B4 levels.

Stan Peterson

Not only your are a lier but also a potential loser (just like W Bush) in the new energy game that is coming. Your are a dinosaur nostalgic (unable to move its heavy brain) of the past absurd and energy wastful society post 2nd world war that is coming to an end. In the new game there will be losers and winers. Al Gore (right or wrong, like it or not) like you underline it, is clearly a Winner because he is surfing on this new green, sustainable, anti warming wave. People like you and W.Bush are on the loser side, people who resist this trend instead of embracing it. This new green, renewable, sustainable, antiwarming trend will be fueling the growth of the economy in the decades to come, now that the Techno internet, and speculative real estate bubles have burst. Even if the global warming happen to be not true (which I doubt) it is a opportunity to revise the way our unsustainable economy works, it is an opportunity to creates millions of jobs, to foster inovation, and build the foundation of a sustainable era for humanking. I think that a lot of politicians, even if they doubt that global warming is true, see an opportunity to justify actions to reduce our oil addiction and vulnerability in a less scary way and more acceptable political woards than saying to people : we are approaching the peak oil we need to be less oil dependant, it is easier politicaly to say : we need to reduce our carbon footprint to preserve our climate.

I know that you are too conservative and shortsighteed mister Science-know it all, to understand that, but there is plenty of people here who do understand it

Good luck

I have long thought that using less fossil fuels is its own reward. Cleaner air, lower costs and less waste of a precious finite resource. Common sense says that if you have a very valuable resource and there is only so much of it, you should use it wisely.

I think that we can transition to a more sustainable energy economy without harm. In fact, I think that it could be good for the economy to create these new businesses and jobs. All the wind turbine, solar panel and biomass to fuels companies could be very beneficial.

This may not be as profitable for the oil companies and their friends in high places, but they will adapt...or not. Use renewable energy as much as you can as soon as you can and save the stored fossil energy for later. After all, we will need fossil energy to create the renewable energy resources.