Why not? It's not like the car companies can really fight it now especially since the government is now a major creditor to GM and Chrysler.

an average fuel efficiency of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, if not earlier."

We seem to have lowered the bar from when Bush said this in his 2003 SOTU address.

the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free."

Too bad he was part of the problem, rather than the solution.

Those 14 states that are suing for a waiver make up 37.7% of US population. There are also six other states that are considering adopting the measure. If you add the two together it is almost 52% of our population.Numbers and states here.
http://cheflovesbeer.blogspot.com/2009/01/good-news-science-is-back-obama-is.html

How exactly are the struggling auto companies going to afford to re-tool to meet 50 different standards?

It's an honest question; I'm in favor of much stricter standards, but standards are more useful when there's only one of them.

@ Franklin - I would say just conform to the strictest standard (California probably) and then you won't have problems with the other 49

As with many other things related to global warming and energy, Obama's action represents a dramatic improvement over Bush policies, but still falls far short of what is needed.

Unfortunately, 35 miles per gallon average fuel efficiency by 2020 is pathetic.

I drive a 1991 Ford Festiva (designed by Mazda, manufactured by Kia) that gets 38 MPG in stop-and-go city driving and close to 50 MPG on the highway -- with 18-year old technology.

A standard more in keeping both with what is really needed to address global warming & reducing dependence on foreign oil, and with what is technologically possible today, would be a minimum fuel economy standard of at least 50 MPG, to be phased in within 10 years at the most. After that, it would be illegal to sell any car, van or light truck in the USA that gets less than 50 MPG.

Franklin wrote: "How exactly are the struggling auto companies going to afford to re-tool to meet 50 different standards?"

Who is saying anything about 50 different standards -- other than folks spewing the automobile corporations' dishonest talking points? The proposed California standard would be immediately adopted by 13 other states, and probably quickly adopted by others, and the auto corporations can just go ahead and build all their cars to that standard.

Having said that, sure -- it would be best to have a national standard. As long as it is a high standard that brings about meaningful improvements and not a low standard written by bought-and-paid-for tools of the auto and oil corporations that is designed to prevent the states from adopting serious standards.

It's an honest question; I'm in favor of much stricter standards, but standards are more useful when there's only one of them.

The password is "concern troll".

Conservatives are always for states rights. Unless it concerns pollution, right to die, or marijuana.

Highly principled, those conservatives.

The auto industry has had to deal with different standards sets since the '60s, when California first rolled them out, ahead of the feds.

So they've been doing this for more than four decades and somehow survived, at least 'til now. For that matter, they can just bite the bullet and meet the standards fleetwide--magically, the problem of different standards disappears. There's nothing to prevent selling a California-legal car in South Dakota.

toowearyforoutrage: Not to be a dick, but you've got me completely wrong. Look over my hundreds of posts here, at CB, and OTB. I'm on your side, buddy; try not to make liberals look like assholes.

Franklin, you need to read the comments before you post. Perhaps I was not clear enough. 13 states have joined California in there suit for an emissions waiver. Those 14 states make up 37.7% of the US population. Most of those states already require California Standard Emissions. There would be two standards as there are now. The California Standard Emissions and the federal standard emissions. No one but the ignorant, or liars are talking about 50 different standards.

CA can set emissions standards because they did so before the Federal government did so. Other states are also considering California Standard Emissions.

cheflovesbeer-

While I admit "50 standards" is an exaggeration, there is nothing to prevent multiple standards. Just having two could potentially be a pain in the neck, assuming they aren't just different levels of the same parameters. What (besides common sense) is to prevent a sunny state from mandating 30% of the cars sold there must be solar-powered, or run on hydrogen, or any one of the multiple solutions to our emissions problems?

I'm merely advocating one national standard. Now if there are political reasons why that can't be done right now, fine, the best way forward is probably Obama's.

I think it's a pretty legitimate question. The knee-jerk defensive responses were unnecessary.

While I admit "50 standards" is an exaggeration, there is nothing to prevent multiple standards.

Except self-interest in the states. The states have a strong interest in standards being common, or at least nested (so that any standard is either strictly stronger or strictly weaker than any other, rather than going off in different directions.)

What (besides common sense) is to prevent a sunny state from mandating 30% of the cars sold there must be solar-powered, or run on hydrogen, or any one of the multiple solutions to our emissions problems?

A percentage rule like this wouldn't require different tooling for different states. The only thing that does that is if one state adopts requirements that are incompatible with meeting requirements from another state.

Not sure, but I think the EPA still needs to approve stricter state standards case by case, so the EPA can enforce some consistancy in state standards. Historically the EPA has often permitted California to have stricter standards. The automakers didn't mind too much because it gave them a chance to evaluate cleaner cars in a limited market prior to going nation wide.