California considers strict emissions rule

LOS ANGELES -- California air regulators yesterday took up the world's most ambitious rules to reduce car emissions believed to contribute to global warming -- an effort that could have a sweeping effect on how the country fights vehicle pollution.

The regulations are fiercely opposed by the auto industry, which says the rules could lead to substantial increases in car prices. The industry has threatened to challenge the regulations in court if they are adopted.

The regulations could have a major impact in two ways: California represents 10 percent of the national auto market, and several other states follow California's lead when it comes to adopting their own clean air standards.

California is the only state able to set its own vehicle pollution standards because it began regulating pollution before the federal government. Other states can adopt either federal vehicle pollution standards or California's.

The state regulations would cut vehicle emissions by as much as 25 percent and require technological changes in vehicles starting in 2009. The innovations would include better air conditioners, more efficient transmissions, and smaller engines. Regulators estimate they would cut exhaust emissions by 25 percent in cars and light trucks and by 18 percent in larger trucks and SUVs.

''Obviously California cannot solve the problem of global climate change by ourselves. But we can certainly do our part," said Alan C. Lloyd, chairman of the Air Resources Board, which was holding public hearings yesterday and today. Board spokesman Jerry Martin said a vote on the proposal would probably occur today.

Auto industry officials say the rules unfairly target Californians for what is a global air pollution problem. California produces less than 1 percent of the greenhouse gases many scientists believe contribute to global warming.

What do you think of this proposal? Is Arnie right to take this step or is it unfairly targeting Californians?

[Simon]

Sounds a good idea to me. Its easy to pass the buck to someone else but if everyone relies on other people to make changes then nothing will get done. Someone, somewhere has to take responsibility.

[debs]

California has decided to go ahead with this:

LOS ANGELES — California has adopted the world's first rules to reduce greenhouse emissions for autos, taking what supporters see as a dramatic step toward cleaning up the environment but also ensuring higher costs for drivers.

The rules may lead to sweeping changes in vehicles nationwide, especially if other states opt to follow California's example. New York has already said it will follow the regulations, and several other states are expected to do the same.

Under the regulations, unanimously approved Friday by the California Air Resources Board, the auto industry must cut exhaust from California's cars and light trucks by 25 percent and from larger trucks and sport utility vehicles by 18 percent.

"In the short term we probably won't see much effect because global warming is a very long-term problem," said Terry Tamminen, secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites). "People won't see immediate benefits from this but they need to understand that their children will."

Auto industry officials argued vehemently against the regulations on three points — that the board did not have the authority to adopt the regulations, that they could not be met by current technology and that they unfairly targeted California, which produces less than 1 percent of the world's greenhouse gases.

The board said its research had found that the regulations would result in vehicle price increases that would top out at about $1,000 more per vehicle by 2016. The auto industry has estimated the increase at about $3,000, but the board's staff said that number was exaggerated.

The industry will have until 2009 to begin introducing cleaner technology, and will have until 2016 to meet the new exhaust standards. The proposals would require automakers to reduce emissions by using such technological innovations as better air conditioners, more efficient transmissions and smaller engines.

Board members said there is no dispute greenhouse gases contribute to global warming that can harm California's economy in fields ranging from agriculture to tourism.

They said the emissions can also lead to serious respiratory problems, especially among children, by exacerbating smog. Los Angeles has the worst smog problem in the nation.

But Gloria J. Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the industry trade group Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said the regulations would only reduce worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases by "one-tenth of 1 percent."

"We see that as no apparent health benefit at a great cost to California consumers," she said.

Bergquist said manufacturers are already working to produce cleaner vehicles but introducing the technology required under the regulations would be "almost as complicated as developing the first automobile."

Asked after the vote if her group planned to sue to block the regulations, she said no decision had been made.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who supports the regulations, has pledged to fight any lawsuits brought by automakers.

California, with an estimated 26 million vehicles on the road, has long been a leader in automotive and environmental trends, and the new standards could have a coast-to-coast effect. Because California represents 10 percent of the national auto market, the auto industry often overhauls all of its cars to meet California's standards.

Because it began regulating pollution before the federal government, California is the only state able to set its own vehicle pollution standards. Other states can adopt either the federal standards or California's.

Under the Clean Air Act, however, the state needs approval for its regulations from the federal Environmental Protection Agency. The agency said last year that carbon dioxide, one of the greenhouse gases, was not a pollutant and that it did not have authority to regulate it.

California and several other states have filed a petition seeking to reverse the decision.

Board spokesman Jerry Martin said the EPA has approved California regulations in the past that were stricter than the federal government's, and may do so again.

Spokespersons for the EPA and the White House, which has authority over the agency, did not return calls for comment Friday.

The rules will also be reviewed by the California Legislature.

Board members said before the vote that they were disappointed automakers did not accept invitations to work with them on the regulations.

"The response, the silence, was deafening," said the board's chairman, Alan Lloyd. "I hope that we still can work together on this tremendously important issue. The stakes could not be higher."

The proposals stem from a law signed by former Gov. Gray Davis in 2002 that required the board to set emission standards for greenhouse gases. The bill's author, Democratic Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, said the fact that the action had the support of Davis, a Democrat, and Schwarzenegger, the Republican who replaced him, "speaks to the unified effort among all Californians" to reduce greenhouse gases.

Pavley said Friday's vote marked the first time in the world regulations have been placed on vehicles for the specific purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

A July poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed 81 percent of Californians support limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

In a campaign spearheaded by environmental groups, more than 112,000 people wrote cards or letters urging the governor to continue his support for the law.

Source:Associated Press

Well done to them for making such a bold move.

Why, when California is taking steps like this, is the US federal government so opposed to Kyoto et al?

[MarkuisMellvile]

The US, and California in particular, have had relatively draconian laws on emissions for many years, but they haven't been designed or planned well.

It is great to see Cal taking a lead again on this issue, and the new regs do seem fair to me.

As a brit who has visited the state (and 1% of global CO2 from one state is a large contribution IMO), the smog over LA is horrible, but understandable from its proximity to the ocean, large urban sprawl requiring large car usage (public transport hasn't been adopted widely) and the lifestyle and work patterns.

2016 is far enough away that the auto industry can meet the targets. $3000 is a large price tag for many Californians (£1765 at current rates), but the US motor market is used to cheap fuel and vehicles so this merely brings their prices up to international standards.

Good move California. I hope it works as the board hope it will. Previous legislation has often saved costs, with the beneficial side effect of environmental improvement, so this measure specifying that the objective is pollution control is a step forward in itsself!

[fireandrain]

Is 2016 soon enough to make a real difference to climate change do you think? It seems an awful long way away.

[MarkuisMellvile]

Originally Posted by fireandrain

Is 2016 soon enough to make a real difference to climate change do you think? It seems an awful long way away.

It is realistic I'm afraid. While many of us wish that industry and politicians had done far more over the last thirty years (so much so that the current situation feels critical), demanding that they make immediate changes would produce the sort of offended reponse that we often see exhibited by those resistent to change and interested only in their personal wealth.

2016 isn't far away in industrial terms (development planning often looks over 20 years into the future), and it is enough time for the necessary changes to be made so that motor technology becomes far less polluting.

If the UN or US or EU passed resolutions or laws or directives forcing companies to clean-up or face severe financial penalties tomorrow, they'd choose to spend billions challenging the decisions in courts rather than acept their obligations and get on with it. When they lost the legal battles, the motor industry in particular would turn around and say "Ta Da! Tht nasty government has forced us to charge you so much more to be able to drive, but we have just discovered this new technology that wwe can sell you to help you get out of this mess forced upon us". In fact, the technology exists (has done for decades) and it is only the economic power of the oil industry and spineless attitude of politicians that has prevented us having access to it since 1990 if not before.

As someone working in engineering to improve the environment, I find it frustrating, but understand the mechanisms controlling the devlopment and marketing of clean technology.

2016 is a good target to have set. By then we Brits may well be paying our road fund licence (car tax) using telemetry that bills us according to the type of engine we use and the distancwe we drive.

Bring it on I say. My wife and I share one car, use public transport to commute to work so our costs woul reduce if this enviromentally beneficial move was made by the Department of Transport.

California's lead is likely to be followed by other US state in time, and any reduction in technology costs will make it accessible to Europe and the rest of the developed world soon enough.