Supreme Court rules EPA must take action on CO2

[JST]

Interesting decision, available here.

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletyp...05-1120All.pdf

One thing that struck me, though, was this paragraph:

Originally Posted by the supremes

EPA finally argues that it cannot regulate carbon dioxide
emissions from motor vehicles because doing so would
require it to tighten mileage standards, a job (according to
EPA) that Congress has assigned to DOT. See 68 Fed.
Reg. 52929. But that DOT sets mileage standards in no
way licenses EPA to shirk its environmental responsibilities.
EPA has been charged with protecting the public’s
“health” and “welfare,” 42 U. S. C. §7521(a)(1), a statutory
obligation wholly independent of DOT’s mandate to promote
energy efficiency. See Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, §2(5), 89 Stat. 874, 42 U. S. C. §6201(5). The two
obligations may overlap, but there is no reason to think
the two agencies cannot both administer their obligations
and yet avoid inconsistency.

Is that true, as a factual matter? I mean, CO2 is a byproduct of combustion, right? The more gas you burn, the more CO2 you make? How can EPA regulate CO2 emissions without necessarily regulating efficiency? Mandate some sort of carbon sequestration?

[ff]

Originally Posted by JST

Is that true, as a factual matter? I mean, CO2 is a byproduct of combustion, right? The more gas you burn, the more CO2 you make? How can EPA regulate CO2 emissions without necessarily regulating efficiency? Mandate some sort of carbon sequestration?

I guess we'll have to rely on the agencies to work together and come up with a reasonable solution.

*snicker*

[Plaz]

Originally Posted by JST

Interesting decision, available here.

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletyp...05-1120All.pdf

One thing that struck me, though, was this paragraph:



Is that true, as a factual matter? I mean, CO2 is a byproduct of combustion, right? The more gas you burn, the more CO2 you make? How can EPA regulate CO2 emissions without necessarily regulating efficiency? Mandate some sort of carbon sequestration?

That's for the market to figure out, I guess... they can say "No car to emit more than x CO2 per y," and leave it at that.

[lemming]

autos pay the most proximal cost, but it sounds like lots of other unregulated industries will be under scrutiny, too.

i've got to say, without knowing the details, i'm sort of in support of it if builds the same tax structure as there is in the UK for vehicles and CO2 emissions taxes.

[Rob]

Can you please explain to me why you think taxing displacement makes sense? Gas consumption, fine. Horse power even, fine, if you are trying to engineer society. Displacement? So a more efficient larger engine for a particular car is penalized? I don't get it.

[Plaz]

Originally Posted by rwg

Can you please explain to me why you think taxing displacement makes sense? Gas consumption, fine. Horse power even, fine, if you are trying to engineer society. Displacement? So a more efficient larger engine for a particular car is penalized? I don't get it.

Pushrod and leaf spring tax!

[Rob]

It's not just pushrods (although the Corvette highway mileage is a good example). Didn't the 330 get better mileage then the 325 in the e46, for example? And they got rid of the 2.5 litre engine b/c it wouldn't meet emissions standards. You want to tax the ability to meet the emissions standards? I just don't understand the reasoning for a displacement tax when your goal is reduced fuel use.

[Jason C]

Taxes on CCs are the work of certain oversea legislatures that quite frankly don't know that much about cars. The Nissan 3.7 V6 is more fuel-efficient than the 3.5, for example.

Gas tax will never be passed, even though everyone claims lowering our ever-increasing gasoline consumption is in our best interests.

[lemming]

Originally Posted by rwg

Can you please explain to me why you think taxing displacement makes sense? Gas consumption, fine. Horse power even, fine, if you are trying to engineer society. Displacement? So a more efficient larger engine for a particular car is penalized? I don't get it.

it's not displacement per se, it's how many kilos of CO2 per year that is taxed, in addition to displacement and fuel efficiency. all three are taxed.

[Rob]

Oh, that makes much more sense, then. /sarcasm

Edit: If the goal is CO2 emissions, fine, tax that. If it's gas mileage, fine. Tax that. Don't add something completely nonsensical like displacement.