"John McCain will push on Monday for car makers to build more environmentally friendly vehicles, threatening new legislation if they do not comply and proposing tax breaks to encourage consumers to buy "cleaner" cars. ..."..

"Promoting and increasing rates of energy efficiency is a promising method of reducing CO2 emissions and avoiding the potentially devastating effects of climate change. The question is: How do we induce a cultural or behavioural change whereby people nationally and globally adopt more energy efficient lifestyles? We propose a new family of mathematical models, based on a statistical mechanics extension of discrete choice theory, that offer a set of formal tools to systematically analyse and quantify this problem. An application example is to predict the percentage of people choosing to buy new energy efficient light bulbs instead of the old incandescent versions; in particular, through statistical evaluation of survey responses, the models can identify the key driving factors in the decision-making process, for example the extent to which people imitate each other. These tools and models that allow us to account for social interactions could help us identify tipping points that may be used to trigger structural changes in our society. The results may provide tangible and deliverable evidence-based policy options to decision-makers. We believe that these models offer an opportunity for the research community, in both the social and physical sciences, and decision-makers, both in the private and public sectors, to work together towards preventing the potentially devastating social, economic and environmental effects of climate change. "

"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton joined a coalition of her colleagues in calling on Senate leaders to support a key program that would help city, county, and state governments expand on the success of local initiatives to increase energy efficiency, expand renewable energy supplies, and facilitate new employment opportunities."...

..."On April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Massachusetts versus EPA that the Clean Air Act provided EPA the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles if I determine in my judgment whether such emissions endanger public health and welfare under the Clean Air Act. Today the President has responded to the Supreme Court's landmark decision by calling on EPA and our federal partners to move forward and take the first regulatory step to craft a proposal to control greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles. This rule-making will be complex and will require a sustained commitment from the administration to complete it in a timely fashion. While the President's 20-in-10 plan, which would increase the supply of renewable and alternative fuel and reform the CAFE standards, will serve as a guide, we have not reached any conclusions about what the final regulation will look like. In most instances, by federal law, the Environmental Protection Agency must follow a specific process and take several steps before issuing a final regulation. This is a complex issue and EPA will ensure that any possible rule-making impacting emissions from all new mobile sources through the entire United States will adhere to the federal law. We will solicit comments on a proposed rule from a broad array of stakeholders and other interested members of the public. Our ultimate decision must reflect a thorough consideration of public comments and an evaluation of how it fits within the scope of the Clean Air Act. Only after EPA has issued a proposal and considered public comments can it finalize a regulation. Today's announcement reflects our commitment to move forward expeditiously and responsibly. While this is the first regulatory step, it builds on the Bush administration's unparalleled financial, international and domestic commitments to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. Since 2001, EPA and the entire administration have invested more than $37 billion to study climate change science, promote energy-efficient and carbon-dioxide-reducing technologies, and fund tax incentive programs. As you all know, that's more money than any other country in the world has spent to address this global challenge. "..."Q Wouldn't you be in violation of the Supreme Court ruling if you didn't go ahead and do this? I'm having a little trouble figuring out what the news is here, really. ADMINISTRATOR JOHNSON: The Supreme Court -- and I like to refer to the Scalia summary of the Supreme Court decision, even though he was dissenting. He, in essence, said, if I can paraphrase, that if the Administrator determines -- if I were to determine that there is endangerment, then I would be required to regulate. That's option one. Option two is, if I determine that there was not endangerment, then I would not be required to regulate. And then option three was, if there was some other reason and rational explanation for why it was not necessary to regulate, then that would be an option, as well. So the Supreme Court did not direct us to regulate. It identified, as I said, three options which the Scalia summary is, I think, a handy reference for. "...

"Following a 16-day trial, a judge on Wednesday was weighing the arguments in a case where the auto industry has sued Vermont over its legislation setting limits on greenhouse gases from vehicles. "..."In closing arguments, Andrew Clubok told the judge that the regulations — adopted by California and 11 other states but yet to take effect anywhere — won't stop global warming but will impose hard-to-meet fuel efficiency standards on automakers. "..."But the regulations should never take effect because federal law pre-empts states from regulating fuel economy, which is the exclusive province of the federal government, according to the auto industry, which is suing in several states to block them from taking effect. The Vermont case is the first one to go to trial. "..."By the automakers' count, the regulations would require average fuel economy standards of 43.7 miles per gallons for cars and 26.9 mpg for light trucks. "...

"A Senate committee approved a plan Tuesday to increase fuel efficiency standards to an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 in a move closely watched by automakers and environmental groups. The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee passed the measure on a voice vote. It would raise the nationwide fleet fuel economy average by about 40 percent compared with the current levels of 25 mpg and increase standards by 4 percent a year from 2020 through 2030. "..."Domestic automakers and the United Auto Workers have said the proposal would be unattainable and threaten jobs at a time when General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group have already announced thousands of job cuts. Alan Reuther, the UAW's legislative director, wrote that the proposal would force manufacturers "to close more facilities, destroying tens of thousands of additional jobs and undermining the economic base of communities across this country." Environmentalists said they were concerned that the proposal was weaker than one offered by President Bush, which would set a goal of a 4 percent annual increase while increasing use of alternative fuels. "