Coral did her usual superb summary of some of the key issues here. One clarification, though, and a few additional points. It shouldn’t be positioned originally as one state versus 49. Thirteen other states are following California’s lead. A major point is the Administration’s obsolete pre-sustainability view that regulations clash with economic progress. There is now a world of ideas and examples to show this doesn’t have to be true, economy and environment can often work together, both in this and nearly every other sector. Extending and deepening that confluence should be the overall direction upon which to build. On the similar theme of not learning, the car companies have forgotten the painful lessons of lost market share when you lose your technological edge. With their now “can’t-do” attitude, they risk having to re-learn it. Plus, they never absorbed the moral responsibility from taking taxpayer money they desperately needed to survive not so long ago. They owe it to us to be socially and environmentally responsible. If they backtrack and refuse to lead, why should we buy their products? Losing their customers from their lobbying efforts would be as ironic as getting more regulatory relief than they want.
Question for the reporters regarding this story - to what degree do international automotive markets also shape production realities for manufacturers? Even if California did not have these standards would the increasing demand for more fuel-efficient and electric/hybrid vehicles in China and the EU shape a company’s product development cycle in the US?