Dear Sen. Boxer,

Poorly thought out and implemented regulations are worse than none at all. Witness the problems the EU is having in meeting their commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, and the collapse of carbon credit prices below one euro last year because said governments overestimated the amount of CO2 emissions--likely intentionally.

Since these regulations, when they come, will be felt at all levels of society I prefer to wait a little longer and have something that will work well with minimal negative economic impacts. Industry is already moving on this issue, which is as it should be. But as the article notes, the regulations must be consistent and fair so the risks are known.

What we need, more than anything, is a viable replacement for fossil fuels. Until we have something that can actually replace the central economic role they fill, any attempts to restrict CO2 emissions will meet with limited success at best.

Cervus -

you are right in saying that Kyoto hasn't delivered the goods. However, this is mostly because a number of governments made to rookie mistake of handing out emissions certificates for free rather than auctioning them off. That has led to low prices and limited interest in secondary trading. However, the principle of emissions certificates is not inherently bad, it just needs to be implemented more intelligently and without an end date.

The only reason improved efficiency and alternate sources of primary energy are being developed right now is because consumers demand it. At some point, you would want that popular will to be formalized in well-considered regulations or laws, because public opinion can be fickle; industry needs firm targets and a level playing field if it is to change its fundamental R&D strategy.

The trick, therefore, will be for CA and the other 10 states to hammer out an open, common regulatory framework for CO2 emissions that other states and the EPA can choose to sign up to at a later date. What you don't want is regulatory balkanization, in which each state goes off in a different direction.

Moreover, given the global nature of the problem, it might make sense for the states drawing up the framework to give a small number of subject matter experts representing interested foreign entities (e.g. the EU) observer status in the deliberations, on a reciprocal basis. That would minimize the chances of anyone getting a free ride or, of protectionist lobbyists hijacking the process.

I would therefore expect at least 18 months of negotiations and public hearings before any CO2 emissions regulation is enacted anywhere in the US - in other words, 2009 at the earliest.

First of all, the Bush administration has no interest in truly complying with the court's decision. They will run out the clock. Any regulations that are implemented will not not occur before 2009.

In the mean time, congress need to pass compherehensive laws requiring reduction in co2 across the board, not just in the area of transportation. Failure to act, while waiting for some sort of action from the Bush administration, is political cowardice. Of course, the Republicans may filibuster any meaningful efforts to address global warming, but at least that will bring the issue up for grabs for the next congressional and Presidential elections.

While some companies are doing some things voluntarily to address the issue, it is naive to think that industry will do anything meaningful in this area. That has been the Bush strategy and, no surprise, it has been a miserable failure. CO2 emissions continue to soar.

I, too, am skeptical about cap and trade, given the European experience. Although it was apparently successful in dealing with SO2 emissions, that was a much easier nut to crack than co2. CO2 isn't just about adding better technology such as scrubbers; CO2 is directly tied to energy use and cannot be fixed by add ons. While sequestration is a technology to address this issue, it may never actually be effective, and will not be ready for serious implementation for at least a decade. We don't have that kind of time.

While these regulations could have a negative impact on GMs bottom line, they will not have an overall negative economic impact. After all, companies like Toyota, which will benefit, has a large employment presence in the United States.

The best replacement for fossil fuels righ t now is conservation and efficiency. We cannot wait until we have a so called replacement for fossil fuels. And let us just say that biofuels have a role here. We must bring our level of consumption down to the level that they could play a meaningful role. Right now, 25% of our corn crop provides ethanol for 3% of our liquid fuels. In the mean time, corn prices have gone up over 50% in the last year. Do the math.

Should we wait for the miracle of cellulosic ethanol? This is still largely in the research stage, waiting for that magic enzyme.

What happrnrf the last time somerhing simular to this cropped up was saleslots in nevada doing huge bis selling to cal customers,,, and a resultant tanking in sales tax rev...

California is a large car market and a major consumer of auto fuel. I do not think that this pro oil administration wants to do anything that would reduce the use of fuel in California and reduce the $100b per year profits that the oil industry takes.

All above is excellent information. Great discussion!

How about making an engine that runs all alternative fuels and all fossil fuels? Such an engine provides a ready market for any alternative fuel. The rest is up to the consumer. Let the people decide. All they have now is a Hobson's choice, gas/diesel. All the alternative fuels and all the technologies should be encouraged, because together they form a much stronger competitor to oil and the flexibility allows future technologies to engage without prohibiting expense impediments to consumers, prohibiting business risk to creators, investors and distributors of alternative fuels and technologies, be it EV, HEV, PHEV, BioDiesel, Ethanol, Methanol, Methane, H2, CGN, Synfuel, etc. To wait for any one technology to be perfect in an imperfect world makes little sense. An engine that runs them all is not being looked into right now. But it potentially solves many problems with the current approach and the debate as to which is the winner fuel or technlogy. All non-oil based fuels are winners! and can be applied in parallel to the extent that their economics allows consumers a choice. The only real problem is politics and the power of oil needs to be taken out of the equation for anything good to succeed.

The CO2 emission standards have every car hating leftist in the state salivating. They look at it as one more way to make cars less appealing to try to get everyone into their socialist public transportation agenda. First they tried starving the road system of money so the roads would fall apart, and traffic would become unbearable. It didn't work. People just bought SUVs to tackle the potholed roads, and nice sound systems to keep them entertained while stuck in traffic. Then they tried to triple the car tax. The governor got voted out of office over it, and the tax repealed. Now it's the C02 emission regulations, so Californians would only have unappealing econo boxes to drive. The Senate transportation committee has also voted to tax vehicles based on C02 emissions. The liberals just don't get it. A bus or train will never match a car for getting from one place to another. People want door to door transportation. Buses and trains are like using a tape drive for storing data on your computer, instead of a harddisk. There's no random access. A national program for reducing CO2 emissions is one thing, but putting that power in the hands of non-scientist, left wing wacho politicians is crazy. These are same liars that ran TV ads proclaiming C02 caused asthma! The politicians don't even know what C02 is. Ask one of them to describe it to you sometime, if you want a good laugh.

yign wbazrofx skvnpulj xgez pqonjbxut ilxhu uwrfcpnkx