Once again California is taking the lead in north america and even the world, with it’s new green house gas curbing legislation recently signed in September .

State policy makers want auto makers to build more fuel efficient and less polluting cars as they wish to reduce green house gas emission (car’s are the second biggest contributor) and better air quality (cities like L.A. have extremely poor air quality).

The auto industry will challenge this legislation again and try to delay it as long as possible (years possibly). With other US states (mostly in the north east, like New York) and the international community adopting these laws their army of lawyers will be severely diluted though, giving them much greater incentive to abide by the new laws.

This is arguably political pandering as governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is up for re-election and some say the laws are not defensible as federal laws supercede this legislation as it clearly states auto emissions are a federal matter (and the feds have no desire to curb car pollution or increase fuel efficiency). It is a major political gain for republican leader Schwarzenegger, and another blow to George Bush and his republican lapdogs.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has turned up the heat even more by actually suing the six biggest auto makers for causing this public health hazard. With the success against the tobacco industry this case won’t be taken lightly either.

I wonder if the cost to the auto industry on lawyers will be greater than the total cost of producing fuel efficient cars ?

Either way you look at it, progressive environmental legislation or political pandering, it’s all pushing car companies to get even more serious about car pollution.

Mr. Fezziwig, Green Cars Now, a website devoted to promoting hybrid vehicles

I thought CA was the one exception, and federal laws do not supersede CA emission laws? That is why there are current two "standards", federal emissions and CA emissions. Plus, why other states like NY can pick one, or the other, but can't make up their own emissions standards.

Best single LD trip: 35.3mpg

WaltPA- you're right. California has the right to create air pollution standards that differ from the federal air pollution standards. Vehicle emissions contribute to air pollution and therefore are clearly within California's regulatory scope... but fuel efficiency is not always, or even generally, linked to emissions anymore. Well, I shouldn't say that- something more along the lines of 'it is an open question as to whether they are linked' would probably be more accurate.

Anyway, California has interpreted the idea of 'air pollution' broadly and recently passed laws governing fuel efficiency of cars, among other things, and so the car makers are challenging them in court. Their argument is that air pollution should be interpreted narrowly, so that regulating minimum FE isn't within CA's legislative reach. Until the courts rule (and presumably, either side will appeal, so this will take a long time) we won't know if these laws are going to stand or not.

Federal regulation of vehicles produced and sold intrastate (among many other things) is actually unconstitutional, so I really do not think California will have a problem enforcing this, so long as they are not explicitly placing restrictions on vehicles made out of state and at the same time, they are not trying to lower standards for vehicles produced out of state below federal standards. As long as they meet those two requirements, they are within their rights as a sovereign government, as they outsourced very few of their rights when they they ratified the United States Constitution.

I've been trying to find a picture for the early part of a Schwartzenegger movie (think it was Commando). He can't start a Suburban (or something like it) so, he pushes it down the mountain and pursues the terrorists.

Wayne would be proud.

61.5mpg lifetime - 82mpg in recent months

Best Run >
www.cleanmpg.com

"fanatic" is what the lazy call the dedicated

That's not exactly right. Partly you're misunderstanding the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution, and partly you're misrepresenting the line between federal and state authority.

It's true that Congress only has power over 'interstate commerce,' and that intrastate commerce, along with all other things that Congress doesn't have specific Constitutional authority for, is governed by the states. However, if the federal government does regulate in an area, a doctrine called 'preemption' says that federal law supercedes state law in that area, because Congress has 'occupied the field.' Suffice to say that air pollution, then, is one of those areas in which Congress has occupied the field, and generally speaking, the feds rather than the states are allowed to regulate it at all. California is a big exception, for complicated historical reasons.

When it comes to interstate commerce, Congress has really broad power to say 'we're regulating this because it affects interstate commerce.' There was a case once where Congress wanted to regulate the wheat a farmer grew on his own land, to eat himself. He didn't sell it outside the state. The Supreme Court said that that was interstate commerce! The reasons were really general- the price of wheat in the interstate market was affected by whether and how many people like this guy grew their own wheat to eat it at home.

So if that wheat is interstate commerce, then you had better believe that cars built in California and sold in California, but which can be driven to other states and which might have parts in them from other countries, are DEFINITELY interstate commerce. No question at all. So Congress could usually regulate them... unless the air pollution exemption for California covers it, as with the smog regulations. So that's the question for the courts.