And now, for some good news about the fight against global warming. No, really.
Canada announced today that it reached an agreement with automakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks by 5.3 million tons by 2010. Under the agreement, automakers pledged to reduce emissions 25 percent from 1995 levels, according to Reuters. The new deal for Canada is similar to California’s greenhouse gas emissions law, which automakers are currently fighting in court.
“This agreement is a breakthrough because it will both cut global warming emissions in Canada, and set the stage for similar reductions in the United States,” said Daniel Becker, director of the Sierra Club’s global warming program in a statement. “Right now, California and seven eastern states either have, or are in the process of adopting clean car laws. With the addition of Canada, one-third of the North American auto market will have to meet California’s tougher emissions rules. The automakers will find it financially impossible to make one clean set of cars for eight states and Canada, and a dirty set for the rest. Eight plus one equals 50.”
Becker savored the contradiction: "With this agreement, the automakers unilaterally disarm from their long-standing position that they cannot make clean cars. In fact, they have sued to overturn the California Clean Car Law which is the basis for Canada’s action. The auto companies are now in the awkward position of telling a judge that they cannot make the same cars in California that they will make in Canada.
“Automakers have long claimed they cannot cut global warming emissions – and won’t. Now they are promising Canada that they will. The automakers have now lost their last excuse for inaction. It is time for the automakers to bring the benefits of clean cars to Americans, and do in the U.S. what they have promised to do abroad.”
Maybe the actions of our neighbors to the north will result in cleaner cars being sold here, even if the best our federal government can muster is letting hybrid drivers use the carpool lane.
I notice the federal government won’t lift a finger to work on reducing emissions. Of course not, how would our current megalomaniac keep the big business bucks flowing if he did?
I’d have liked to, but I don’t have an extra $40k sitting around. I ended up with
a toyota corolla instead. I noticed though that my ten-year old Toyota gets 35 mpg
measured, and Saturn is proudly advertising 32 mpg rated (and we all know - or should -
that real mileage is going to be less than rated mileage.)
Wormdiet, glad you did that. Alas, my family is not able to be in the market for new cvehicle, though we are long time recyclers of others’ jun…uh… used ones. ChrisA, I agree… the actual milage doesn’t usually measure up to the predictions. Advertising is a great field, isn’t it? (cough, hack)
Toyota’s response to questions on the subject illicited a letter that contained the following sentence (apparently intended to illicit genuine alarm on my part … it failed):
“The increased fuel economy requirements are drastic even for Toyota, which has one of the best environmental records in the industry. For consumers, this would lead to higher-priced vehicles and fewer model choices. The added cost to consumers, by some estimates, may average as much as $3,000 per vehicle.”
( oh… shiver)
They also said that in order to fully effective, the approach would have to be national, or it might “hurt economic growth”… gasp! Imagine that! They must be right! It must make much more sense to protect corporate profits right now than to protect the lives of people who will only suffer from it later… yeah! How’d I miss that?? (sound of something wet and disgusting hitting the floor)
I bought a car a year ago and looked hard at the Prius. Even got a chance to drive one, which was very cool. I would have bought it but for the price tag. Instead, I bought a Toyota Echo, which reliably gets 40 on the highway and low-30s tooling around town.
