I have no issue with the concept, but this needs to be done nationally--not piecemeal with a bunch of politicians in each state enacting its own "flavor" of what constitutes a "clean vehicle."

If we, as taxpayers, are going to try and save what is left of the Big Three with billions in subsidies, loans, or whatever, THAT is where change can (and should) be effected.

A major aspect of the Clean Cars bill -- as proposed in Minnesota and already adopted in more than a dozen other states (but awaiting an EPA waiver that the Obama administration is pledged to give before it can go into effect) -- is in fact that it does _not_ allow politicians to choose their own "'flavor' of what constitutes a 'clean vehicle'" on a state-by-state basis.

The Clean Air Act allows California, and only California, to propose air quality legislation stricter than federal standards -- and also requires an EPA waiver before that legislation can go into effect.

Other states may then choose to adopt the CA standards. But they are _not_ free to make up their own.

So the states have only two options: either stay with (weaker) federal standards, or, through legislation or through administrative action, adopt the (tougher) pollution standards set by California statute.

A federal standard equal to CA's Clean Cars bill would be a very good thing to have. In the meantime, however, there is no danger of winding up with a pastiche of widely-varying state standards.

Wow. Where to start?

First of all, I must remind the author that there are 2 Big Beggars on their knees before the public; Ford has opted out.

The author goes on to say:

"If Detroit had been listening all along to the calls for cleaner, greener vehicles, the Big 3 might not have found themselves begging for a multibillion-dollar bailout last month."

But the fact of the matter is that all three US automakers have had high efficiency cars for sale for *years*. The public simply wasn't interested.

"It is heartening that they appear to have started to listen."

Are they listening? Or are they kowtowing to a Democrat controlled congress they are hoping to recieve untold billions of public dollars from?

Time (and the market) will tell.

More troubling, to me at least, is the way the author plays fast and loose with her choice of words, for instance..

"Last spring, the Minnesota Legislature considered allowing Minnesotans to join the more than 40 percent of Americans who live in states that have chosen clean vehicles, giving us the opportunity to purchase the cleanest cars and trucks on the market by bringing that market to our state."

"Allowing Minnesotans to choose" clean vehicles?

"Giving them the opportunity" by "bringing the market" to our state?

OUCH!

I wonder if the President-elect's "no torture" rule will extend to editorials we read from the left?

What the author means to say, of course, but cannot bring herself to flirt with the obvious truth, is that she wishes the state to *stuff* "clean" vehicles down our car buying throats.

Well, that's one way to get those sales numbers up all right.

I could go on, but I think the thoughful, intelligent reader can read between the author's lines just as well as I.

Someone has to lead the nation. Why not Minnesota?

FYI to the naysayers -- regulation actually creates markets. Electric car technology only appeared after California required a clean car "zero emission" vehicle be included in fleets sold in California.

Similarly hybrid gas-electric technology only appeared after Clinton-era standards requiring it. The Japanese took this seriously: Honda developed the Insight for the 2000 market, and Toyota followed with the Prius in 2001.

The Big Three instead chose make immeidate profit off the Hummer and its massive ilk. Now these same "leaders" at the Big Three are asking for a bailout to "go green", what they could have a decade ago.

i do not want the goverment to tell me what car i drive. the big 3 have been building the the cars america wants. they have built the small high mileage cars that nobody wanted. hybred cars are not selling. if you want to ride around in a lawnmower motor powered tin can, ok with me, but dont tell me i have to do the same.
people talk about electric cars, with the recent weather we have been having, how far would an electric car go. i will give you a clue, take your laptop computer and set it outside overnight and see how well it operates in the morning.
there is no need to force people to drive small dangerous cars as there is no global warming.
GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX PERPETUAED BY PEOPLE OUT TO DESTROY AMERICA'S PROSPERITY AND WAY OF LIFE.

U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
December 11, 2008

Posted by Marc Morano – 9:30 AM EST - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.GOV

U. S. Senate Minority Report:

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008

Link to Full Printable PDF Report

INTRODUCTION:
Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernemntal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.



The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviwed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding CO2; the Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland; Mount Kilimanjaro; Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Floods; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; lack of atmosphieric dust; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.

In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 as the year the “consensus” collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exist. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.”

This new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the UN IPCC and Al Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & see: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]

Even the mainstream media has begun to take notice of the expanding number of scientists serving as “consensus busters.” A November 25, 2008 article in Politico noted that a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the “science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.” Canada’s Financial Post noted on October 20, 2008, that “the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly.” New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin noted on March 6, 2008, "As we all know, climate science is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue)," Revkin wrote. (LINK) In 2007, Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking."

The International Climate Conference in New York also featured hundreds of climate experts from around the world, who issued a March 4 “Manhattan Declaration” on man-made global warming, stating in part:

1) “That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.”

2) “That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.”

3) “That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.”

The declaration resolved that “scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method.”

Very interesting information, David.

I also need to point out that your willingness to provide the source of your information gives you much more credibility than those who toss out statements such as "...estimated a savings to consumers of $260 million by 2025." without a shred of evidence or a link to the source.

You're right in that many scientists have finally reached that point where their integrity and their political or financial interests intersect and have chosen the high road.

Expect the truthful, cold reality of true science to take a while to reach the volume necessary for the MSM to acknowledge it, but expect it just the same.