Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court tosses federal fuel economy standards for light trucks
AP via SFGate ^ | 11/115/7 | PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer

Posted on 11/15/2007 11:31:41 AM PST by SmithL

San Francisco (AP) -- A federal appeals court on Thursday threw out planned federal fuel economy standards for many sport-utility vehicles, minivans and pickup trucks, ruling that the Bush administration failed to address why those so-called "light trucks" are allowed to pollute more than cars.

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals also 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 trucks.

"The ruling does two potentially very big things," said Brian Nowicki of the Center for Biological Diversity, which led the assault on the new fuel standards. "It finds that the administration must consider the environmental impacts and it rejects the long-standing and ridiculous exemption that SUVs, pickups and minivans enjoyed."

Department of Justice officials didn't immediately return a telephone call for comment.

Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta announced the new rules to much fanfare in March 2006 in Baltimore's football stadium, proclaiming that they were "most ambitious fuel economy goals" yet for SUVs and their ilk. Mineta called the plan "pragmatic," and said it balanced fuel conservation with auto industry jobs and costs still in mind.

The standards required most passenger trucks to boost fuel economy from 22.2 miles per gallon to at least 23.5 miles per gallon by 2010. Passenger cars are required to meet a 27.5 mile per gallon average.

The court ordered the administration to examine why it continues to consider light trucks differently than cars.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 9thcircus; cafe; energy; gasoline; pickups; suv; suvs; trucks
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

1 posted on 11/15/2007 11:31:42 AM PST by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Of course it’s the 9th circus.


2 posted on 11/15/2007 11:32:22 AM PST by SmithL (I don't do Barf Alerts, you're old enough to read and decide for yourself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Just what we expected from the Nine Circus. Ban SUV's NoW!

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

3 posted on 11/15/2007 11:33:22 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Need to cram the lot of them into a Pinto...


4 posted on 11/15/2007 11:33:34 AM PST by Redbob (WWJBD - "What Would Jack Bauer Do?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
The court ordered the administration to examine why it continues to consider light trucks differently than cars.

Because light trucks are more oriented towards carg-hauling than sedans, dolts.

5 posted on 11/15/2007 11:33:55 AM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals also 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 trucks.
::::::::
Yes, the socialist activist clowns of the 9th speak again. The People’s Republic of San Freakcisco shines again to make Californians proud of the world’s largest outdoor insane asylum...


6 posted on 11/15/2007 11:34:32 AM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

[The court ordered the administration to examine why it continues to consider light trucks differently than cars.]

Obviously judges are not required to be very smart or have even a tiny bit of common sense. They can’t even tell the difference between cars and trucks.


7 posted on 11/15/2007 11:37:41 AM PST by 43north (I hope we are around long enough to become a layer in the rocks of the future.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Well, if it’s simply a matter of passing a law, the court should have overturned the standards. They should have further substituted their judgment and required cars and all trucks to attain 150 mpg by 2009. That would cure our oil habit.
8 posted on 11/15/2007 11:38:33 AM PST by Sgt_Schultze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

When are the going to require the same MPG for 18 wheelers and cement trucks?


9 posted on 11/15/2007 11:38:47 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lepton
More likely because, under the law, they meet the legal definition of "light truck" rather than "passenger vehicle."

The 9th Circus is claiming the right to 'correct' the legislature as it sees fit.

10 posted on 11/15/2007 11:39:32 AM PST by pierrem15 (Charles Martel: past and future of France)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

If this ruling holds, 5000 more people will die, per year, in traffic accidents. Where are the “no blood for oil” protesters when we really need them?


11 posted on 11/15/2007 11:47:47 AM PST by norwaypinesavage (Planting trees to offset carbon emissions is like drinking water to offset rising ocean levels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

One solution is simply to throw out all fuel economy standards.

And what on Earth is the “Center for Biological Diversity”?


12 posted on 11/15/2007 11:55:18 AM PST by FoxInSocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 43north

[The court ordered the administration to examine why it continues to consider light trucks differently than cars.]

Your honors, we’ve examined it as per your ruling and we have determined that cars are different than trucks. Thank you for making us focus on that important issue and allowing us to examine it.


13 posted on 11/15/2007 12:08:06 PM PST by keepitreal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"...yet for SUVs and their ilk."

Gee, no bias from this AP writer.

NOT!

14 posted on 11/15/2007 12:34:06 PM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"It finds that the administration must consider the environmental impacts and it rejects the long-standing and ridiculous exemption that SUVs, pickups and minivans enjoyed."

Not the judges' jobs. Different branches of government...

15 posted on 11/15/2007 12:35:08 PM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pierrem15
More likely because, under the law, they meet the legal definition of "light truck" rather than "passenger vehicle."

Well, frankly I think we're both right...though in different contexts. Legally, you are certainly more right than I.

16 posted on 11/15/2007 12:57:54 PM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: lepton
I have wondered for years why cars are different that trucks. The last time I tried to load 10 tons of coal onto my car I got a hint that there might be a difference. The snowplow on my car also doesn’t seem to have the same effect as the one on the Oshkosh truck that is used to plow our roads.

There is an old saying somewhere - the law is an ass.

17 posted on 11/15/2007 1:28:20 PM PST by Citizen Tom Paine (Swift as the wind; Calmly majestic as a forest; Steady as the mountains.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lepton

Yeah. Good luck trying to make an open-bed pickup truck suitable for carrying cargo and also aerodynamic enough to get the same mileage as a sedan. A little thing called physics will get in the way.


18 posted on 11/15/2007 1:53:10 PM PST by Kellis91789 (Liberals aren't atheists. They worship government -- including human sacrifices.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
The court ordered the administration to examine why it continues to consider light trucks differently than cars

The blackrobe philosopher-kings have spoken! All bow to their will! You may genuflect now.

19 posted on 11/15/2007 2:55:31 PM PST by Jacquerie (Constitutional law is too important to be left to lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Ever try hauling a trailer, or some lumber, or anything for that matter ... with a Prius?


20 posted on 11/15/2007 2:57:19 PM PST by BlueNgold (Feed the Tree .....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson