Schwarzenegger to Feds: "We'll sue again, sue again and sue again until we get it"

[Sum Dum Goi]

Schwarzenegger to Feds: "We'll sue again, sue again and sue again until we get it"

This could get big. If the lawsuits are successful and these states manage to adopt specific auto emission standards per state then auto manufactures will be pressure to lobby the federal government for a national standard that matches the lower rates. I doubt GM or Ford feels like developing 20 different versions of the same car, it would not be a very efficient production model.
__________

California sued the federal government on Thursday to force a decision about whether the state can impose the first greenhouse gas emission standards for cars and light trucks in the United States.

More than a dozen other states are poised to follow California's lead if it is granted the waiver from federal law, presenting a challenge to automakers who would have to adapt to a patchwork of regulations.

.........

Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington joined California's lawsuit against the federal government Thursday, said Peter Aseltine, a spokesman for New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/08/business/NA-FIN-US-California-Auto-Emissions.php

 

[Robdawg]

this is good, if you believe the constitution you have to believe state rights, i notice the states joining the lawsuit are high density states w/ lots of autos

 

[Damocles]

GM and Ford could just make the cars to match the most stringent levels without a standard set by the Feds. It is preposterous to say that they couldn't just do that without a federal law.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

GM and Ford could just make the cars to match the most stringent levels without a standard set by the Feds. It is preposterous to say that they couldn't just do that without a federal law.

Certainly they could, but they won't. Not until they have no other option.

 

[Bonestorm]

Certainly they could, but they won't. Not until they have no other option.

Yeah, it's much easier to grease Congress into enacting a federal standard that is lower than that enacted by some of the more progressive states.

 

[uscitizen]

Certainly they could, but they won't. Not until they have no other option.

Yep lots of empirical evidence on that.
The US auto industry has fought all mileage controls, seatbelts, airbags, etc until they had no choice and then they brag "look what we are doing for you"

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Yeah, it's much easier to grease Congress into enacting a federal standard that is lower than that enacted by some of the more progressive states.

Too much profit to be made before redesigning and retooling. They will milk the gas guzzlers to the last dime.

And why not? That's the business of business, is it not: to make as much profit as possible? To do any less would be irresponsible.

</sarcasm>

 

[Damocles]

Certainly they could, but they won't. Not until they have no other option.

Rubbish. It costs too much to make varying manufacturing equipment. It is far more cost effective to run the lines at the highest level of restriction and sell the same vehicle accross the board.

All it takes is for the courts to allow those restrictions on a per-state basis and it will be the same as enacting the laws across the nation, simply because they won't want to have several different manufacturing lines for each vehicle.

 

[Bonestorm]

Rubbish. It costs too much to make varying manufacturing equipment. It is far more cost effective to run the lines at the highest level of restriction and sell the same vehicle accross the board.

All it takes is for the courts to allow those restrictions on a per-state basis and it will be the same as enacting the laws across the nation, simply because they won't want to have several different manufacturing lines for each vehicle.

But it's much easier to get Congress to preempt the more restrictive states with a less stringent federal standard than it is to retool manufacturing equipment to deal with the most stringent state.

 

[Damocles]

But it's much easier to get Congress to preempt the more restrictive states with a less stringent federal standard than it is to retool manufacturing equipment to deal with the most stringent state.

I agree, hence the lawsuits....

My point was that once the decision is made, what will effectively happen is there will be one law applied throughout the states, whichever is the most restrictive... If they win their lawsuits and the courts uphold their state's rights, they will effectively change the law for the nation.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Rubbish. It costs too much to make varying manufacturing equipment. It is far more cost effective to run the lines at the highest level of restriction and sell the same vehicle accross the board.

All it takes is for the courts to allow those restrictions on a per-state basis and it will be the same as enacting the laws across the nation, simply because they won't want to have several different manufacturing lines for each vehicle.

You're assuming that enough states will enact tougher standards to tip the balance. I'm not so confident of this.

California has had tougher standards for decades. The manufacturers simply make "California editions", modifying them after initial production. This is why American cars are more expensive in California than they are in other states.

 

[Damocles]

You're assuming that enough states will enact tougher standards to tip the balance. I'm not so confident of this.

California has had tougher standards for decades. The manufacturers simply make "California editions", modifying them after initial production. This is why American cars are more expensive in California than they are in other states.

Then there would be no need for the lawsuits. The manufacturers do not want to change, I agree with this. However they realize that the change will be necessary, that they cannot continue to work as they have been.

I am assuming that the reality of the market will overcome the "need" to produce different cars of the same lines for different markets.

 

[Timshel]

I don't know if it is possible, but if they can make the needed techology to reduce emissions modular, then they can just plug it in on models sold in the high regulation states (meaning those state will pay more).

 

[OrnotBitwise]

I don't know if it is possible, but if they can make the needed techology to reduce emissions modular, then they can just plug it in on models sold in the high regulation states (meaning those state will pay more).

This is already what they do for vehicles sold in California.

 

[Bonestorm]

Or we could just tax carbon and be done with all of it.

 

[Timshel]

You're assuming that enough states will enact tougher standards to tip the balance. I'm not so confident of this.

California has had tougher standards for decades. The manufacturers simply make "California editions", modifying them after initial production. This is why American cars are more expensive in California than they are in other states.

So they are doing that. Then what's the problem?

 

[Damocles]

Well, not quite as simply as Strings has it. They manufacture to the point of difference, then ship the cars. At the place where they are shipped to, they add certain things that make the car compliant to the state/region that they are in.

Many of them don't do this however. You can purchase, in CO, a car that has an emissions that is good for many years, rather than have to do yearly testing, because it is made to Canadian or California standards. In such models they don't sell a Colorado version of the vehicle, they just use that you don't have to test as often as one of the selling points. It is rare that you get a car with such different standards.

Most of the differences they do this with is lighting and other restrictions that are less cost intensive as many of the emissions requirements would be if they were attempting to make different per-state models.