Yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sent the Bush Administration's revised automotive fuel economy standards back to the Department of Transportation for reconsideration. Under the Bush Administration, the DoT modestly tightened the fuel economy standards governing light trucks, but also increased the flexibility afforded automakers by basing future light-truck fuel economy standards on vehicle size, rather than an overall fleet average.
In this case, Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, several states and environmental groups challenged the Bush Administration's new federal fuel economy standards for light trucks on several grounds, including the failure to fulfill the requirements of the Energy Policy Conservation Act or comply with the National Environmental Impact Statement. The court, in an opinion by Judge Betty Fletcher, ruled favorably on most of the challenges.
We hold that the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious, contrary to the EPCA in its failure to monetize the value of carbon missions, failure to set a backstop, failure to close the SUV loophole, and failure to set fuel economy standards for all vehicles in the 8,500 to 10,000 gross vehicle weight rating (“GVWR”) class. We also hold that the Environmental Assessment was inadequate and that Petitioners have raised a substantial question as to whether the Final Rule may have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, we remand to NHTSA to promulgate new standards as expeditiously as possible and to prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement.Senior Sixth Circuit Judge Eugene Siler (sitting by designation) dissented in part, objecting only to the court's conclusion that the failure to include a "backstop" was arbitrary and capricious. In a one paragraph opinion, Judge Siler said he did not find this aspect of the rule arbitrary because such a backstop was not required by the authorizing statute.
The decision was covered in the New York Times, and prompted commentary on the Warming Law blog (see also here). Time permitting, I'll have more to say about this interesting and important decision as well.
This has been a lousy issue for a long time. John Kerry supported significant revisions in CAFE standards . . . until he went to Michigan to campaign for president, at which point he no longer supported upward revisions. Both parties have lobbies that they cannot alienate. So what's to be expected now is probably no CAFE revision.
Sunnyside, state and local officials across the country have been calling for greater federal protections, but since those calls have borne little fruit, they very much stand ready to proceed with their own initiatives. So as a general matter, your point is dead on. One important distinction to keep in mind, however, is that the standards issued by California and adopted by many other states are air emission standards under the Clean Air Act, whereas the just-nixed NHTSA standards are fuel-efficiency standards under the federal energy laws. As the Supreme Court recognized in Mass. v. EPA, energy conservation is not coextensive with environmental protection, but they often overlap.
His arguments appear to apply here. Taking entirely UNPROVEN but widely believed (and constantly hyped) theories of a looming carbon fueled global warming crisis, the courts are now willy nilly overruling legislative and regulatory impediments to 'saving the earth.'
The sheer arrogance is amazing.
Somehow I find that unconvincing, the sum of the entire economic and ecologic activity on the globe is really too complex a subject to figure out what will happen, when a 10 day weather report is all they can currently cope with.
If Global Warming activists are right and human behavior is causing major climate changes by increasing CO2 from 200 parts per million to 400ppm, it isn't the first time an organism has altered the atmosphere. 2 billion years ago blue-green algae took the atmosphere from almost 0% O2 to about 20% oxygen, and in the process nearly wiped out all life on earth. But the earth rebounded, oxygen breathing life forms evolved, and the ozone layer was created allowing land based life to develop. Was that a positive or a negative, and how do you monetize the change?
If you want to monetize the change, consider that the value of real estate on the south shore of Long Island is a couple of zillion dollars and that goes bluey.
Don't feed the troll. He posts all over the internet -- causing one to wonder how he has any time at all to indoctrinate his unfortunate students with his far Left hokum.
But don't take my word for it. Just look at how his students view him [3 pages worth, and they get worse the more you read].