CLINTONISTA JUDGE THROWS THE U.S. AUTO INDUSTRY "UNDER THE [CARBON] BUS."

The U.S. District Court for Vermont has added yet another log on the pyre consuming market-driven automotive freedom of choice by ruling that states may regulate the carbon dioxide emissions of motor vehicles.

District Judge William K. Sessions, III (a Bill Clinton appointee), in a voluminous 240 page opinion, followed the radical environmental lead of Massachusetts v. E.P.A. and awarded total victory to the handful of states which follow California-style emission rules.

Judge Sessions ruled that the proposed state regulations seeking to cut CO2 emissions by 30% in less than ten years (which are nothing more than disguised fuel economy standards) are not "preempted" by Federal standards. These proposed rules will require fuel economy increases to over 40 m.p.g. for many vehicles.

Thus, the only barrier remaining against Vermont, California and a handful of liberal "Blue States" from dictating how much fuel you may chose to use and what kinds of cars and trucks you're allowed to buy is in the slippery hands of the EPA, through its "waiver" process.

Judge Sessions adopted the environmentalist rhetoric "hook, line and sinker." He concluded:

"In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court recognized for the first time the phenomenon of global warming and its potentially catastrophic effects upon our environment. The Supreme Court described human-generated contributions to global warming, including carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles, and concluded that EPA has the authority to monitor and regulate such emissions under Section 202 of the CAA. [Clean Air Act] That authority derives from EPA’s responsibility to protect the public health and welfare, a responsibility it shares with each of the states."
* * * *
"This Court’s task is to determine whether the plaintiffs have carried their burden
to show that Vermont’s GHG [Green House Gas] regulation stands as an obstacle to the objectives of Congress. Many of the techical, [sic] political and even moral issues raised by this case are not, and should not be, resolved here, but may remain the subject of debate and policymaking in Congress, in state legislatures, and in federal and state agencies."
* * * *
"Congress did not intend that regulations adopted by California for which EPA granted a waiver under Section 209(b) of the CAA be preempted. The regulations set GHG emissions standards and are sufficiently unrelated to fuel economy standards not to be expressly preempted. Further, Congress did not intend EPCA’s CAFE standards to occupy the field of fuel economy exclusively, given that NHTSA must coordinate with other federal agencies and take into consideration other federal standards which may affect fuel economy."

"Plaintiffs bore the burden of proving that the GHG regulations are sufficiently draconian that they essentially usurp NHTSA’s prerogative to set fuel economy standards."
* * * *
" History suggests that the ingenuity of the industry, once put in gear, responds admirably to most technological challenges. [Apparently, Judge Sessions is familiar with the talking points of EPA's MARGO OGE (who is another apparent patsy of the Greeniac Left)] In light of the public statements of industry representatives, history of compliance with previous technological challenges, and the state of the record, the Court remains unconvinced automakers cannot meet the challenges of Vermont and California’s GHG regulations."

Speedzzter respectfully dissents Judge Sessions' activist, anti-freedom decision.

Without delving into the technicalities of the legal argument (which Speedzzter reserves for a future post), there are a number of valid reasons why the Vermont/California approach should be rejected in favor of market-driven freedom of vehicular choice.

First, the Vermont/California CO2 rule is nothing but empty, feel-good symbolism.

According to the Automotive News (May 29, 2007; see www.autonews.com), when the regulators were forced to testify under oath in this trial, they "contradicted their own public statements about the merit of California-style rules . . . .""While under oath at the trial, they had to admit that the rules will have NO EFFECT ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE, that they did not fully consider the rules' detrimental effects on the [automobile] industry and its products and that they know compliance will be almost impossible. [emphasis added]"

Judge Sessions was apparently not swayed by such admissions.

Second, to the extent the proposed state CO2 rule affects the vehicle market locally and nationally, the outcomes will not be beneficial. It will further tilt the new car market toward imported vehicles by virtually outlawing larger vehicles in which American manufacturers still maintain some market advantage. This will lead to a further loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector.

It will lead to carnage on the highways as BLUE STATE-dictated microcars are involved in crashes with the remaining trucks and larger vehicles.

(The right to chose a safe car is apparently one of those "moral" questions that Judge Sessions felt powerless to consider -- notwithstanding his apparent faith in the green religion)

And it will have the unintended consequences of unforeseen market distortions such as the ones we've seen in the past thirty years as a result of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations already in place. Much of America's affection for light trucks and SUVs is simply market-based circumvention of CAFE. Thus, notwithstanding the EPA, CAFE, CARB and the legions of grandstanding politicians, ordinary citizens DO decide our "national energy policy" through their market choices.

Dozens of available new vehicles already can obtain the momentary holy grail of 35 m.p.g., but many consumers shun them in favor of larger, more powerful choices. In other words, market choices, not central planning have established the de facto fuel economy "standard." Although CAFE has limited market choices and wildly driven up transportation costs (a hidden tax), it has failed to force millions of "ordinary citizens" to adopt the government's "conservation" policy.

Yet myopic environmental and energy policies advocated by these car-hating, anti-free-market eco-nannies have forced a number of odd, unanticipated market reactions, such as:

1. Depriving the U.S. market of light, fuel-saving turbo-diesels (and California-style state level emission rules have made this problem more acute),

2. Virtually stalling all development of new domestic refinery capacity for more than a quarter century,

3. Bloating the collective "fleet age" to the highest ever in automobile history, and

4. Forcing millions of automobile enthusiasts (hot rodders, racers, restorers, etc.) to invest billions of dollars in pre-1975 vehicles.

As Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhoff has repeatedly said, man-made global warming is the biggest hoax of our time. While the evidence shows the planet often warms and cools, the hysterical among us leap to the conclusions that:

(1) humans primarily cause it;

(2) it's got to be horrible for the future; and

(3) humans can fix it.

None of these articles of enviro-faith are supported by enough evidence to justify allowing a vocal minority of Blue State enviro-radicals to dictate our national transportation policy.

Such intrusions into the market freedom of Americans can only be justified with rock-solid proof of collective benefit, and not the breezy speculations and ever-shifting computer predictions from anti-choice, big government environmental activists and power-grabbing bureaucrats who "know what's best for you."

Judge Sessions was apparently unwilling to stand for our liberty in this case. A Clintonista against liberty and "choice?" Who'd have thunk it?