Auto manufacturers fight yesterday's battle

Auto manufacturer lobbyists think Copernicus's theory needs more study....
California Backs Plan for Big Cut in Car Emissions:
If the plan survives legal challenges, it would force automakers to increase sharply the fuel efficiency of millions of vehicles.

Industry officials said the plan would lead them to restrict sales of large sport utility vehicles and high- performance sports cars in the state. Regulators, including the state's staff of engineers, sharply disputed that and said the industry already had much of the technology to comply on the shelf or, in the case of gas-electric hybrid cars, on the road.

So, instead of attempting to seize marketshare by building more efficient cars, auto makers plan to bog the proposal down in lawsuits and complaints. ...

But the plan still faces an expected legal challenge on multiple fronts from automakers and could also be blocked by the Bush administration. For years, the industry has tied up previous state efforts to regulate air quality, but regulators say that they have learned from those battles and that they believe they will prevail in court. Automakers, in sometimes combative testimony, strongly opposed the measure, saying it would be far more expensive than the state projected and that regulators are straying far beyond their traditional role of curbing local air pollution.The industry also dismissed as unproved the board staff's presentation of a broad overview of scientific evidence on the health effects of global warming. The regulation would require the industry to cut roughly 30 percent of the carbon dioxide and other emissions scientists have linked to climate change trends. The standards would phase in from the 2009 to the 2016 model years, with each automaker's annual new car and truck offerings required to meet increasingly stringent limits.

On Friday, after two days of hearing, the state Air Resources Board, which is appointed by the Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, voted 8 to 0 to approve the plan."California cannot solve this problem of global climate change by itself,'' said Alan C. Lloyd, chairman of the air board, "but we can certainly do our share."...The board, along with environmentalists, said the auto industry offered no alternatives, no cooperation and had a history of understating what it could do. "We have wanted to work with the auto companies, and we have got nothing coming back in return," Mr. Lloyd said during the hearing. John DeCicco, an engineer and a senior fellow at Environmental Defense, said, "Vehicles are not going to be different in ways that matter to consumers."

Yes, lets reiterate that sentence, "the auto industry offered no alternatives, no cooperation and had a history of understating what it could do." and here's my favorite quote,

A top auto industry lobbyist brushed aside the presentation, calling the theory of global warming "a big if." The lobbyist, Fred Webber, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a lobbying group that includes Toyota, General Motors and all of the major international automakers except Nissan and Honda, said in a statement: "Californians would see no health benefits under this regulation." He added in an interview during a break at the hearing: "I come from Maine and we had one of the coldest winters on record. It was very, very cold. A lot of people are scratching their beans about whether global warming is occurring.

So, because it was cold last winter in Maine, global warming (or as it should be called, global climate change) is a 'big if'. No doubt this years Florida hurricane season is unrelated to 'global climate change', also rising sea levels 'need more study as well'. And don't forget there's that dag-blasted 'theory' of evolution. Probably needs more study, I'd assume. Oh, and that whole 'Copernican' thing, we should study that too, because I bet you really think the Sun rotates around the earth and not the other way around. Right? Right?