gregorygarver.com

[DakB6377]

"SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 15 — A federal appeals court here rejected the Bush administration’s year-old fuel-economy standards for light trucks and sport utility vehicles on Thursday, saying that they were not tough enough because regulators had failed to thoroughly assess the economic impact of tailpipe emissions that contribute to climate change.{...}The court, siding with 4 environmental groups and 13 states and cities, also asked the government to explain why it still treated light trucks — which include pickups, sport utility vehicles and minivans — more mildly than passenger cars. {...}The appeals court, in a decision that was unanimous on all the major points, also chided the Bush administration for exempting larger S.U.V.’s — those like the Ford Excursion and the Hummer H2 that weigh 8,500 pounds to 10,000 pounds — from any fuel-economy standards."http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/business/16fuel.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=sloginWhat do you think about this?grizz - yuck, I hate PT Cruisers. I own a Prius.

[crazyb]

It is BS because Europe already HAS these vehicles which go further and with better emission standards than the US has.

[JH]

It's great. It exposes the administration's efforts on fuel economy as the sham that they are. We can't make any real progress on this until we acknowledge that what we've been doing isn't working.

[iliketodreambig2962]

How do legal actions determine what is scientific fact?The courts also said at one time that Black Americans were 3/5's of a White American. Was that scientific proof that Blacks were less then Whites?Legal action is politics. Politics is not science, unless you believe that if Newt Gingrich is a scientist.

[Zig]

I think it's just another soon-to-be overturned decision by the goofy judges that comprise the 9th District.

[Judy]

The Bush administratration--and the right-wing generally--are starting to get their chains jerked.This particualr issue is a good example: the bush administration--in violation of the law--unilatrally relaxed standards, allowing special interests to make more profits. Its high time the laws started getting enforced--and that the courts tell the administration that they DO NOT have the authority to rewrite the laws Congress has passed, or the regulations issued under those laws. Not jsut about the environment--we're seeing the same thing in mine safety, cildren's toys, etc., etc, etc.. . . .

[miraclehand2020]

I'm an environmentalist from Mill Valley, CA. In the early 90s, I traded in my BMW for a BTR-152, so I can drive halfway up Mt. Tamalpias to my 7900 sq. ft. pad with 14 of my best friends. I listen to KPFA and the Stephanie Miller Air America Show and think that G.W. Bush is a big "poopy head".

[Goldheend]

No change from current policy. Trucks and vans don't have to meet emissions OR safety standards imposed on cars. The logic is it would make the businesses that buy them less competitive (like real estate agents that drive SUVs are more competitive).I hope you don't own a PT cruiser. It is classified as a truck because it can't meet emissions or safety standards for the Colt on which platform it was developed.

[jeeper_peeper321]

I think it should get through to Bush that his policies aren't that helpful but he's acting like a spoiled child on everything else so I'm not going to hold my breath that he'll learn anything.Mr. Jello-first, science has come a long way since then and second, two different courts reached this conclusion, which FOUR environmental groups, who do have climate science working with them, were consulted. As far as a normal interpretation goes, this response was based on science, not politics alone.

[Bruiniuth]

Land of fruit & nuts, thats what I think.

[PapaSmurf]

Exactly what effect do you think this will have. The answer is none what so ever. The courts have no juristiction in this matter. Thus, I don't think anything about it, in fact, I don't think about it at all.