No, they can choose either the California standard or the federal standard. Over 17 states accounting for over 50% of US auto sales want the Cali standard, and the automakers will build to meet that standard, as they always.

The Clean Air Act gives California special authority to regulate vehicle pollution because the state began regulating such pollution before the federal government got into the act. But a federal waiver is still required; if the waiver is granted, other states can choose to adopt California's standards or the federal ones.

IowaSuby, ever heard of being behind the curve?

Obama has already stated he going to double energy production from renewable sources (including wind and solar) in 3 years, and also upgrade the energy grid into a "smartgrid" so this new energy can be utilized. It has all already been written into the Stimulus bill. Renewable energy plants is also usually substantial local support, as they mean high-paying jobs that can't be outsourced, excluding, of-course, the rare exceptions you cherry-picked.

"Critics of state-administrated emissions standards fear that the potential for 50 different requirements will result in a costly quagmire. It will undoubtedly cost automakers more to conform to various and differing requirements, eating up profits (not to mention bailout funds) as well."

This is blatant disinformation, Dan Roth. The law does not permit each state to set their own standard, it only allows them the option of choosing either the Califi standard or the federal standard. California has always been granted approval except for the one exception with Bush, and the automakers have always built ALL their models to comply with it. Explain how the status quo is going to "eat up their profits". Maybe you are so ignorant that you don't even know what you're talking about, or maybe you do know but you want take advantage of your readers by deliberately lying to them. Either way you should be fired.

On car emissions, the Clean Air Act gives California special authority to regulate vehicle pollution because the state began regulating such pollution before the federal government did. But a federal waiver is still required; if the waiver is granted, other states can choose to adopt California's standards or the federal ones.

Well nobody is going to tax gasoline as that loads all of the burden onto those who can least afford it. A rise in gas prices would have a similar effect as the increase in oil prices did early last year: drastic decline in autosales and severely impacted consumer spending, followed by a huge spike in inflation, creating dramatic instability in the US economy.

Just deal with it. All cars in the US will be made to Cali standards, as they always have been, and the air will be cleaner and you'll get more mileage as a result. If you don't want to pay the extra couple hundred bucks to get these features, then buy a used model and you'll save with depreciation. This is alot easier than raising gas taxes which will hurt consumer spending in the middle of a recession.

The automakers are already building their future models to comply with CARB, as the waiver was only turned down in late 2008 and nobody expected Obama to not reverse it. The new requirements are also required to be reviewed to take into consideration scientific and technological issues. Cali will have no trouble here, so stop with the BS.

There are other sources for electricity besides coal and power plant emissions are already separately regulated. Besides, even an EV powered with coal results in less emissions, as electric engines are substantially more efficient than ICE engines.

I don't know....to go from 900lbs to 1,300lbs,...and reduce costs by 50% in the process, does not seem like a bad deal at all, nor is it that huge an additional weight gain.

Who wants to bet Chrylser or Nissian gets in on this first.

Just wait till C.A.V.E. (Citizens Against Virtually Everything) here's about this.

"It depends upon the cars being compared. Also, "emissions" have to be considered at all levels of production. The "emisions" resulting from the production of a new car are huge, whereas there are no "emissions" involved in the production of a car that already exists."

Your argument works against itself. Cars are not made on-demand, they are produced months ahead of time. The car is produced regardless. Buying one does directly not lead to the production of new emissions, it only potentially increases sales forecasts which dictate future production. And even then, the pollution is localized to the production facilities where it can be more easily managed, instead of being dispersed on the roads where people live and where smog contributes to thousands of respiratory and heart related fatalities each year. The dividends paid by eliminated former guzzlers from the road is greater than the costs of potential future emissions increases resulting from future vehicle production.

"Often what he writes appears stupid and pointless, and only when you look at it from that angle does his motivation become obvious."

Who said they're pointless and stupid? These guys have an agenda to undercut and down-talk true "green" car-related issues. Some of their posts are deceptive, misleading, and frequently contain misinformation.

"Also, the odd shape of this craft isn't very good, aerodynamically speaking. "

Which just goes to show your depth on knowledge on Magnetohydrodynamics. Its interesting that you could have so many fatal misunderstandings in one post, when much of this tech is still little known and classified. One obvious: much like the standard airplane shape is the most practical and efficient for allow the plane to glide through the air, the saucer shape is the most efficient for plasma propulsion. Also the larger the saucer, the more efficient it is.