Court Tosses Federal Fuel Economy Rules

U.S. Appeals Court Ruled Standards For Light Trucks Don't Properly Address CO2 Emissions

(AP)  A federal appeals court on Thursday threw out federal fuel economy standards for many sport-utility vehicles, minivans and pickup trucks.

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the standards, which were to go into effect next year, didn't properly assess the risk to the environment and failed to include heavier SUVs and trucks, among several other deficiencies the court found.

The decision resulted from a lawsuit filed by 11 states and environmental groups that argued federal regulators ignored the effects of carbon dioxide emissions when calculating fuel economy standards for light trucks.

The new mileage standards, announced in March 2006, required an increase in the average fuel economy for all passenger trucks sold in the United States from 22.2 miles per gallon to 23.5 miles per gallon by 2010.

Filed last year, the suit sought to force the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to recalculate its mileage standards from scratch, with carbon dioxide emissions taken into account as a major factor in the agency's analysis.

[mcvet]

The purpose of a court is to decide the legality of a law and insure that it is enforced properly, it is not to decide if a law is beneficial, protective, etc. Judges are not elected by the people and should not be deciding whether a law goes far enough. If you''''re not happy with a law, elect someone who has the same goals.


Posted by bthrasher102 at 10:30 PM : Nov 15, 2007
+ report abuse

You are correct in your first sentence then you put on the Swastika. To think, even THINK, that the courts are some sort of MACHINE or NON THINKING group is to ignore so MANY advancements in our history. Thinking like yours and JIM CROWE LAWS are still constitutional!! We have a PROBLEM and we''d better deal with it. In this case the folks bringing the suit PROVED in a COURT OF LAW that the Government... you know OF the PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE.. etc?? Anyway the LAW says that Government WILL take certain actions... SPECIFIC actions to keep the people safe. Those who brought the suit showed the judge beyond a doubt that Bush and the Fascist WERE NOT doing their jobs. How hard is that to understand???? OH Okay... a Bush Bootlicker can''t understand it but the rest of us sure can. Sieg Heil Bush!!

[forthepeopl1]

when will americans learn that anyone in congress that supports immunity for everone in washington.(read)clinton helped make it law( why) lets ask her (WHY)

TO ALL AMERICA YES, CONGRESS HAS AGAIN SLAP AMERICANS RIGHT IN THE FACE WITH THIS, PLEASE DONT BELEIVE ME THAN GO AND READ THE LAW BUSH SIGN INTO LAW. ITS CALL THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT 2006, AND HIDDEN IN FINE PRINT CONGRESS HAS GIVEN THEMSELFS AND ANYONE WORKING IN THE GOVERNEMNT IMMUNEITY ON ANY THING THAT HAS HAPPEN IN THE WAKE OF THE WAR,OR ANYTHING ELSE THEY CAN FIND. THIS IS THE BEST PART, THEY BACK DATED IT TO ( 1997) why????? why would they need to back date this all the way before 2001???? because they have been ease dropping on america way back then...think about it america, and you better think about this, cheney/bush/rumsfeld/rove/rice started this war on all lies on top of lies, and remember 18 out of 19 involved in 2001 was saudi araibans you know the king and bush hold hands walking in the woods??? and this is why bush said he doesn''''''''''''''''t care about finding bin laddan because bin is part of the royal family that bush loves.. so if you look at the hole law, hillary help get it into law, why why why sounds funning because her husband bill was president at that time in 1997..so what are they all hideing in washington??????????????? david a belanger,veteran,us army, 978-618-3105,[e-mail] so how can americans fight this,and get this change????

[Razzl]

It''s about time. It''s been so long since the Reagan-era Congress rolled over to the automobile industry and exempted light trucks from emissions standards altogether that the public doesn''t even realize the dual standards exist. The SUV craze has been shored up by emissions and fuel economy exemptions (SUV''s have been classed as light trucks) that keep the costs of the vehicles lower, and by the tax breaks for vehicles owned by self-employed people. Tax breaks for exempt vehicles should only be given when the choice of an emissions-exempt vehicle is germaine to the job; a consultants who chooses to drive an SUV that isn''t critical to their work shouldn''t be receiving a tax break when they could have owned a passenger car for their work transportation...

[bthrasher102]

The purpose of a court is to decide the legality of a law and insure that it is enforced properly, it is not to decide if a law is beneficial, protective, etc. Judges are not elected by the people and should not be deciding whether a law goes far enough. If you''re not happy with a law, elect someone who has the same goals.

[terrapin78]

Has the Bu$h Administration appealed this decision yet?

I would expect them to do so.