New U.S. C02 ruling a threat to performance makes
04-19-07, 08:30 AM
#1
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
New U.S. C02 ruling a threat to performance makes
New US C02 ruling a threat to performance makes
Wednesday 18 April 2007
Earlier this month, the US supreme court ruled that carbon-dioxide emissions are to be defined as pollutants, a decision that could force carmakers to seriously reduce the levels of CO2 being emitted by vehicles sold in the US. The decision reflects a more drastic situation in Europe, where the government is planning to impose a rule to limit all carmaker’s average fleet C02 levels to just 130g/100km.
If any changes do come in, performance makes such as Lamborghini and Porsche will be hit hardest. Lamborghini has the honor of producing the world’s worst C02 offender with its Murciélago supercar. Although it’s unknown how the US Supreme court’s ruling will be interpreted by the US Environmental Protection Agency, it’s highly probable that there’ll be new regulations limiting the allowable levels of CO2 emissions from motor vehicles.
Previously, C02 was deemed as harmless, which meant car manufacturers never focused on reducing its levels as they have done with other smog-forming pollutants. If the allowable level of C02 is reduced, carmakers will be forced to reduce the amount of fuel consumed at the expense of performance.
Wednesday 18 April 2007
Earlier this month, the US supreme court ruled that carbon-dioxide emissions are to be defined as pollutants, a decision that could force carmakers to seriously reduce the levels of CO2 being emitted by vehicles sold in the US. The decision reflects a more drastic situation in Europe, where the government is planning to impose a rule to limit all carmaker’s average fleet C02 levels to just 130g/100km.
If any changes do come in, performance makes such as Lamborghini and Porsche will be hit hardest. Lamborghini has the honor of producing the world’s worst C02 offender with its Murciélago supercar. Although it’s unknown how the US Supreme court’s ruling will be interpreted by the US Environmental Protection Agency, it’s highly probable that there’ll be new regulations limiting the allowable levels of CO2 emissions from motor vehicles.
Previously, C02 was deemed as harmless, which meant car manufacturers never focused on reducing its levels as they have done with other smog-forming pollutants. If the allowable level of C02 is reduced, carmakers will be forced to reduce the amount of fuel consumed at the expense of performance.
04-19-07, 08:54 AM
#4
Bill Lockyer (Attorney General for CA) was upset over this also. I remember reading in Car and Driver (I think) about how he was taking all of the big auto manufactures to court.
Soon they will ban all cars and we will be forced to ride bicycles, until they find a reason to ban those.
Soon they will ban all cars and we will be forced to ride bicycles, until they find a reason to ban those.
04-19-07, 09:12 AM
#5
Lexus Fanatic
All the court ruling did was define CO2 emissions as pollutants and define EPA's authority to regulate them. Big deal. It did NOT actually say that EPA HAD to regulate them, only that EPA had legal authority to do so.
Unless EPA actually WRITES up new standards (something they cannot be forced to do), all of this is nothing but a bunch of hype.
Unless EPA actually WRITES up new standards (something they cannot be forced to do), all of this is nothing but a bunch of hype.
04-19-07, 09:27 AM
#6
Lexus Champion
Join Date: May 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legislation like this doesn't bother me, as I feel that humans are far too disrespectful of the planet we live on, and the other creatures that share it. We go around raping and wasting natural resources for our own enjoyment, and most people have little or no concern about the damage they may be doing. I'm reminded of this every day as I walk to pick my daughter up from school, and see a mile-long car line of idling SUVs, waiting a minimum of 45 minutes to pick up Kaytelynne and Bort, who evidently can't walk the 3 blocks to home. How did we ever survive?
Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly no Greenpeace-er, but I have strong morals regarding how we fit (or should fit) into the "circle of life". I stand firm on the side that we should tread lightly, respect all living things, and leave a place better than how it was when you arrived. I teach my kids the same morals in the hope that it will have a snowball effect.
The key phrase, as far as I'm concerned, is:
...so even if CO2 isn't a problem as far as emissions are concerned, the side effect of reducing fuel consumption is still an acceptable result, and I support that.
Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly no Greenpeace-er, but I have strong morals regarding how we fit (or should fit) into the "circle of life". I stand firm on the side that we should tread lightly, respect all living things, and leave a place better than how it was when you arrived. I teach my kids the same morals in the hope that it will have a snowball effect.
The key phrase, as far as I'm concerned, is:
If the allowable level of C02 is reduced, carmakers will be forced to reduce the amount of fuel consumed at the expense of performance.
Trending Topics
04-20-07, 12:49 AM
#8
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
Legislation like this doesn't bother me, as I feel that humans are far too disrespectful of the planet we live on, and the other creatures that share it. We go around raping and wasting natural resources for our own enjoyment, and most people have little or no concern about the damage they may be doing. I'm reminded of this every day as I walk to pick my daughter up from school, and see a mile-long car line of idling SUVs, waiting a minimum of 45 minutes to pick up Kaytelynne and Bort, who evidently can't walk the 3 blocks to home. How did we ever survive?
Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly no Greenpeace-er, but I have strong morals regarding how we fit (or should fit) into the "circle of life". I stand firm on the side that we should tread lightly, respect all living things, and leave a place better than how it was when you arrived. I teach my kids the same morals in the hope that it will have a snowball effect.
The key phrase, as far as I'm concerned, is:
...so even if CO2 isn't a problem as far as emissions are concerned, the side effect of reducing fuel consumption is still an acceptable result, and I support that.
Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly no Greenpeace-er, but I have strong morals regarding how we fit (or should fit) into the "circle of life". I stand firm on the side that we should tread lightly, respect all living things, and leave a place better than how it was when you arrived. I teach my kids the same morals in the hope that it will have a snowball effect.
The key phrase, as far as I'm concerned, is:
...so even if CO2 isn't a problem as far as emissions are concerned, the side effect of reducing fuel consumption is still an acceptable result, and I support that.
04-20-07, 04:12 AM
#9
Super Moderator
All the court ruling did was define CO2 emissions as pollutants and define EPA's authority to regulate them. Big deal. It did NOT actually say that EPA HAD to regulate them, only that EPA had legal authority to do so.
Unless EPA actually WRITES up new standards (something they cannot be forced to do), all of this is nothing but a bunch of hype.
Unless EPA actually WRITES up new standards (something they cannot be forced to do), all of this is nothing but a bunch of hype.
04-20-07, 07:12 AM
#10
Even if limits are set, I'd like to think that human ingenuity will prevail and we'll eventually have fuel thrifty, better performing cars. Currently, even with the CAFE standards and such, we have cars that are more powerful, more efficient, and more environment friendly than in the past. People thought the early 70's before the oil crisis and pollution laws, was the heyday of performance cars. Now, there are 4 cylinder 4 doors that will blow the doors off of many of the older performance cars for your average mom and pop to drive. The auto industry needs an incentive to innovate. Unfortunately, getting fined lots of money seems the most effective incentive for them.
Last edited by T0ked; 04-20-07 at 07:15 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post