By on July 9, 2017

pumping fuel

Automakers’ ability to adhere to the regulatory standards set by the U.S. government are beginning to slip. Manufacturers predicted industry-wide economy inadequacies for 2016 model year vehicles, anticipating things would only worsen for 2017. The Trump administration has framed itself as a friend to automotive companies, with the president himself claiming he would remove regulatory hurdles while in office. Corporate economy guidelines established under President Obama are already under review, but now so are the penalties companies would have to pay for not meeting them.

In a regulatory filing on Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said it would be seeking public comment on how to revise plans, slated to go into effect from the 2019 model year, which would more than double the penalties on auto manufacturers that fall short of meeting the government-set economy targets. 

“Seeking comment on the inflationary adjustment will allow stakeholders to provide input and provide NHTSA additional information to inform the agency’s decision regarding how the CAFE civil penalty should be adjusted for inflation,” said the agency in a statement.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group representing the corporate interests of 12 carmakers, stated the agency’s reconsideration was “good news for the auto industry and consumers.” The AAM, along with the Association of Global Automakers, have been petitioning for softer economy targets and less aggressive penalties for almost a year. However, the AAM has made corporate environmental issues its chief concern since 2002 and the AGA has been combating California for over a decade — claiming the state has no authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions beyond what federal agencies had already specified.

Currently, the NHTSA, EPA, and CAFE regulatory targets require gains in fleet-wide fuel efficiency to average 38.3 miles per gallon by 2021. New cars and trucks in the U.S. averaged 32.2 mpg in model year 2015 and automakers are worried they’ll be unable to meet next year’s guidelines, with several stating it would be impossible.

“In light of the fact that CAFE standards are set to rise at a significant rate over the next several years,” the NHTSA said in its filing, “it is likely that many manufacturers will face the possibility of paying larger CAFE penalties over the next several years than at present.”

Since the mid-1970s, automakers have been fined $55 for each mile-per-gallon shortfall, multiplied by the number of vehicles sold for that specific model year. In 2015, congress instructed all federal agencies to update their penalty formulas to account for inflation, and NHTSA suggested increasing the fine to $140 per miles per gallon penalty. Currently, it’s estimated automakers have paid roughly $890 million in civil penalties.

[Source: Automotive News]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

78 Comments on “Trump Administration Re-examining Penalties for Fuel Economy Flubs...”


  • avatar
    ajla

    “The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group representing the corporate interests of 12 carmakers … The AAM, along with the Association of Global Automakers, have been petitioning for softer economy targets and less aggressive penalties for almost a year.”

    “the AAM has made corporate environmental issues its chief concern since 2002 and the AGA has been combating California for over a decade — claiming the state has no authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions beyond what federal agencies had already specified.”

    AGA members:
    globalautomakers.org/members

    AAM members:
    autoalliance.org/connected-cars/automotive-privacy-2/participating-members/

    ____________________________________________________

    A few months ago:

    thetruthaboutcars.com/2017/06/even-automakers-disagree-trumps-choice-abandon-paris-accord/

    Someone smarter than me needs to explain how these positions aren’t at odds with each other.

    • 0 avatar
      etherpuppet

      Optics and Politics. It doesn’t matter that they are opposing positions.

      Orgs like AAM are spouting what automakers really want, if you got to the center of their Ayn Rand/Neoliberal-flavored tootsie pop. Ford/Chevy etc. can support or not support agreements like Paris, but it’s essentially politics and positioning, i.e. dogshit.

    • 0 avatar
      Matt Posky

      They are, to an extent. There is a big difference between the public position companies wants to portray and what their lobbyists are doing. Most automakers desperately want to be viewed as green and environmentally progressive. They also have a lot of technology wrapped up in making sure their cars can meet mpg regulations. But they don’t want to be slapped with fines when and if they cannot.

      For the most part, automakers simply don’t want any surprises. A lot of what the AGA and AAM are pressing for is predicability. While they are unlikely to mind if corporate mpg averages are scaled back, they’d probably be satisfied with more stable limits and lower financial penalties.

      • 0 avatar
        George B

        Matt, auto manufacturers want to appear to be “green” enough under federal regulations to avoid having to deal with separate fuel economy standards for the CARB states, but they can’t meet the federal fuel economy standards if buyers choose not to buy fuel efficient cars. They need both federal fuel economy standards and relatively low penalties if they fail to meet those standards.

  • avatar
    ttacgreg

    So, Europe, China, and Japan all continue on the path towards better vehicular efficiency, and the USA deliberately leaves itself behind. In some definitive ways we are deliberately moving towards a backward 3rd world nation.
    I can remember when the USA was leading the world in all sorts of things like standard of living, technology, life expectancy.
    Oh well, like a sticker I saw on a ski lift tower recently. . . .
    “Coal
    Guns
    Freedom”

    • 0 avatar
      brandloyalty

      ttacgreg: indeed. Sad to watch it happening but it wouldn’t be the first empire to rot from within. Still remains to be seem which side of the US is going to prevail. At least other parts of the world besides the US and Russia are ready and capable of taking up the leadership.

    • 0 avatar
      HahnZahn

      Agreed. My sincerest hope is that all this mess is an historical blip. But laments aside, we’re on an inexorable march toward electric cars, period. After Dieselgate, I bought what I fully expect to be my last ICE car. Maybe a hybrid interim. This rotten admin can try as they like, but the paradigm shift started before they could muck it up.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      ttacgreg, you are correct. America will be left behind. We are looking backward through a lens colored by time…

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      You should go to Japan and live for a year in 6ft tall room where bed folds into the wall. This is efficiency for you. Leave America alone. We’re big country with own character.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      The blind worship of rugged individualistic capitalism isn’t all that effective at dealing with issues that need to be managed altruistically.

      “How does this profit ME” as ones modus operandi doesn’t lend itself well to finding solutions for “greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people”.

      Climate change and Health care are prime examples.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        “The blind worship of rugged individualistic capitalism isn’t all that effective at dealing with issues that need to be managed altruistically.”

        Thanks. I needed that laugh.

  • avatar
    Whatnext

    Well that makes sense. Why would an administration that makes a habit out of lying penalize companies who lie?

  • avatar
    Fred

    “economy inadequacies” … I don’t really know what that means, which is probably why used that phrase.

  • avatar
    SnarkyRichard

    Isn’t ” The Chimp Administration” an oxymoron ? No elected administration here when fashion model family members and son in laws help decide government policies . I swear if those idiots keep calling earned retirement benefits , that hard working people have paid in for all their working lives , “entitlements” – I am going to effing lose it !

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      Dude. Who you want to be in administration, welfare recipients?

      • 0 avatar
        SnarkyRichard

        You’re an idiot , and that’s allowed in this country . But what good do you think the states giving the Chimp in Chief all the voting records of all the states will do other than make fixing future elections easier for his Russian friends to hack ? You’d make a good little Nazi ! Go back to Slavuta and oil up your sookas !

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Why go to Slavuta? I like it here with Trump

        • 0 avatar
          joeaverage

          Didn’t you hear?

          Trump wants to work with the Russians to build an cypersecurity unit…

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “Trump wants to work with the Russians to build an cypersecurity unit…”

            …and in other news, the Trump Administration announced plans to partner with the Taliban to build an elite anti-terrorist squad…

        • 0 avatar
          FOG

          @SnarkyRichard,

          If you are going to call people idiots you really should proofread what you post. It also would help if you raised you own thought level to realize that calling the President of the United States a “Chimp” reveals how much of a moron you are. Imagine what would happen if you used that same title for the previous president.

          I am pretty sure I am asking way too much of you. Based on what you have posted so far your mental capacity is too diminished to register any true thought.

      • 0 avatar
        SnarkyRichard

        BTW Drumpf’s children and in laws ARE WElFARE recipients ! People who worked and paid into the system for 45-50 years earned their benefits !

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Hey, Snarky, if you’re going to rant about Trump – and there’s plenty to rant about – make sure the rants make some sense.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    I really don’t understand, why automakers need to be responsible for fuel efficiency? Place this on people. If your car makes 30mpg or more – no tax. 28-29 – $1000 annual tax, 26-27 – $2000, and so on. Soon, you will not see people shopping V8s for no reason.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      You could accomplish the same thing by doing away with oil subsidies and by retroactively indexing the gas tax to inflation without committing complete political suicide by tacking on an annual gas guzzler tax on top of the GG tax already in place.

    • 0 avatar
      joeaverage

      Kind of like the rest of the world does with registration costs and road taxes?

      I think the conservative voters would spontaneously combust…

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      slavuta,
      I agree.

      If you can afford to operate a vehicle similar to a HSV Maloo ute with a supercharged LS3. Then so be it.

      But, to control fuel usage devise a realistic tax and ensure all vehicles meet a standard to export.

      Look at the Ford Mustang. Ford claims to have fixed the problem with its 2 Star crash rating. Its now 3 Stars. What a joke.

      If the US wants to keep manufacturing of vehicles alive it really needs to start restructuring all industries related to motor vehicles, even the energy sector.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      There is no reason to punish people with additional taxes for driving less fuel-efficient cars. Let people buy what they want and pay for the extra gas, for Christ’s sake. It is the new Puritanism. Why not tax people who have sex more often? They are having more fun, just like people who drive powerful cars. Still, they create more babies and venereal disease and that is an externality that we all pay for, so let’s tax them by the inserted inch. Also, motorcyclists should be taxed more because they also have fun and sometimes become meth gangs and they also crash a lot and those are externalities that we ALL pay for. Also, tall people and fat people and attractive people and poor people and rich people…

      At some point, perceptive people will shake off the indoctrination they have been receiving their whole lives and realize that there is no shortage of hydrocarbons. They are abundant, and the recoverable reserves keep RISING. The more we look, the more we find and the technology for recovery keeps getting better and cheaper. Let us enjoy our wealth and prosperity. Everything from our housing to health care to security to environment depends upon this hydrocarbon-fueled economic machine.

      Leave people alone. They are not hurting you buy buying a V-8 that gets 12 mpg. Tax yourself if you are so concerned.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        thelaine – poor metaphor. Having sex more often doesn’t necessarily lead to more babies.

        “In a longitudinal, unadjusted model, our findings provide evidence that increased sexuality education within school curricula is associated with lower adolescent birthrates (average sexuality education topics β=−0.61; P=.001). However, the effect of sexuality education disappeared when taking into consideration the demographic characteristics, religiosity, and abortion policies of the state (average sexuality education topics β=−0.12; P=.26). States with higher religiosity rankings and greater political conservatism had higher adolescent birthrates.”

        I found the last line rather amusing!

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          You are right Lou. If you kill them before they are born, they will not be born. Still, for the record, I oppose the Nookie Tax, regardless of the consequences.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        thelaine,
        I hear and read a lot regarding how the Chinese are taking jobs, etc. The Chinese, (like the US in the past with it’s Interstate Highway program) are building massive amounts of transport infrastructure.

        Like the US the Chinese in 40-50 years from now will have a massive infrastructure issue, primarily the cost of maintenance. Concrete is only good for 40 years.

        So, you guys need to tax fuel to fix up your highways and put in decent public transport to reduce on road traffic congestion.

        Taxation isn’t necessarily a bad thing if the money is invested in the correct areas.

        I do know you dislike social welfare. But the reality is social welfare is far better than industrial welfare. Any welfare must provide the best possible outcome for the consumer, not the other way around. Propping up industry only gives money to the wealthy, with little return to the consumers.

        A healthy consumer economy will provide enough jobs to sustain industry. So, artificially protecting (eg. chicken tax) or subsidising (corn, EVs, solar, etc) is counter productive in the longer term via the reduction of real competition.

        I do believe you can’t see the forest through the trees and your values tend to be quite selfish.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          I am against most welfare, social and corporate, but certainly not all. Corporate welfare is the the worst and is usually the result of government corruption. I have railed against it consistently.

          It is not selfish for people to keep as much of what they earn as they can. It is the incentive for hard work, risk, creativity, efficiency, the unleashing of human potential, and productivity. It is a jobs machine as well. Human freedom is energizing.

          It is not magnanimous to advocate the confiscation of people’s earnings so it can be redistributed. It is, usually, destructive and often the result of nothing more than ego, arrogance, and envy. The money is often in large part wasted, or is destructive due to the warping of markets. Using your own money to help others is compassionate. People would do more of that, if their money was not being confiscated.

          People advocate all sorts of redistribution to the point of the current absurdity and then justify it by using examples of basic services and welfare with which virtually no one disagrees. It is quite a deceptive form of argument, but very common.

          You don’t have to oppose taxation to be in favor of limiting the size and power of government. It was a basic principle which guided the formation of the United States.

          China has not done better, and
          Europe is, at best, stagnant and at worst, falling apart. I have read a great deal about the USSR’s miraculous egalitarian paradise and industrial miracle. The New York Times, among others, was fascinated and enchanted by it.
          I remember “Japan as #1” due to advanced industrial planning. They are stagnant now. I have heard endless talk of the superior European welfare state. It was and is all bullsht. Give China time, and we will see. Government corruption is going to take a huge toll, since they have no competing political parties who can call it out.

          The US had a better idea. Limited government is essential to human freedom and human freedom created a nation which, despite all the bad, has given more freedom and more prosperity to more people than any nation in human history. This includes protection of free nations such as Australia, and the establishment of new capitalist democracies in nations defeated in war.

          The left, as usual, has set about to destroy what has been built, as they have done or will eventually do to every society they come to dominate. They do not produce, they suck the life out of the productive. You want to talk about selfish?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “The left, as usual, has set about to destroy what has been built, as they have done or will eventually do to every society they come to dominate. They do not produce, they suck the life out of the productive. You want to talk about selfish?”

            I contend that you have your hands swapped. It is the Right that is trying to tear down what the left has built. We see this almost every day in the news, no mater WHICH news source you read or watch.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            The 2 worst things in life are leftism and feminism

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Yeah, right.

  • avatar
    deanst

    The old saying of watch what people do, and not what they say applies here. If people feel the need to burn less gas, there are plenty of ways to do this today – buy a Prius, take mass transit, live closer to work. But no, it’s all the fault of big government or big business that I can’t get a pickup with the power of a v8 and 50 mpg.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      Agreed.
      Kill CAFE. Forget all the punitive tax schemes. Kill the tax subsidies. Allow people to decide the mileage tradeoffs for themselves. Give up the control and tame the arrogance and let individuals in the marketplace decide how much they value gas mileage vs other vehicle attributes.

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        CAFE, shmafe… They want to save the planet, start with number of planes in the air, private jets and Hollywood mansions. some people say, “you don’t need to drive your car, computer will drive for you”. I say, you don’t need to fly to Europe, watch a youtube video about it.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Ah, so blame the “Hollywood elite.” Never mind that making Alec Baldwin fly commercial will affect climate change by +/- .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000993%.

          Got it.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          Agreed. Let the hypocrites walk the walk. They are so full of sht preaching things they do not believe so they can signal their virtue while using enough energy in a year to power a small town.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “Let the hypocrites walk the walk.”

            I don’t care about hypocrisy. Only Nixon could go to China, after all. I care about results.

            The result I want is better, cleaner, more efficient energy that doesn’t run out or make the Earth a worse place to live for my kids. If we can produce that, then the Liberal Hollywood Elites and Evil Soul Crushing Rightwing Capitalists (or insert whatever bogeyman you want) can fly on their private planes all day long without harming one damn polar bear. Win.

            And then we all get to fly around in planes that work better. People replace the old planes with the new ones, creating jobs. People spend money for the new energy sources, creating jobs.

            This is how progress works.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            Honestly, if Alec Baldwin and those like him just disappeared, there would be so much less noise pollution. It would be so nice, so you can turn TV on and watch about real stuff. Contemporary “Baldwins” are useless jokers. They think that their opinion is even interesting. Another thing Ronald Reagan. He cared for country, he dropped his movie stuff and ran for office. He was always an interesting person to listen to. “Baldwins” want to tell us what car to drive, who to elect into office. I am happy that they are the sore losers now, in every aspect.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            FreedMike,

            thanks for defining how progress works. Here is the reality – wars, famine, overpopulation, cancer, poisoned food, solar or extra-terrestrial activity, violent crime, terrorism, acts of nature, etc – one of this things will kill people eventually. There is nothing to worry about.

            In the short term, we need to have large supply of condoms to India, China, and to anyone on welfare in our country. Because poor people should have mercy on middle class and not produce more poor people as long as middle must pay for their medical issues.

            Did you see that episode of poverty in Detroit? They receive welfare, there is no work. The more children they make, more welfare they get. Each holds an iPhone in their hand. Money would be spent much more wisely for relocation program, where these people can go do some work. But politicians are Ok with current condition because welfare people vote for welfare politicians. Working people may vote for someone like Trump.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Yes, Slavuta, the Great Society welfare programs and their progeny have been a catastrophe. They have destroyed the family unit among much of poor and have created multigenerational dependence, tragic and shocking levels of violence, bottomless ignorance, a victim mentality, the destruction of productive values, and a permanent underclass. It is yet another unforgivable horror visited on the most vulnerable by the supposedly compassionate.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I do believe the comments from the US manufacturers is not true. It is only true to what is the best outcome they can get with current regulations, controls, etc in place.

    I do recall a couple of years ago or so where Ford wanted the US to adopt the globally harmonised vehicle regulatory arrangement.

    Trump wants vehicle exports, then harmonise your vehicles to suit the rest of the world. Build vehicles worthy of export.

    So, what the manufacturers are stating is in support of the status quo in the US’es unique framework of technical barriers, regulations and tariffs in support of average quality large vehicles.

    The US can’t compete effectively in any other area.

    If Donnie Crump gets his way with the import tax on steel will spell the end of US vehicle manufacturing, unless the chicken tax is spread across all US/NAFTA made vehicles.

    His tax will force US vehicle manufacturers to buy expensive local steel. Not only will this make motor vehicles more expensive, it will also make anything with steel in it more expensive. You can also kiss Trumps Grumps on the lack of US vehicle exports. Who will buy an even more expensive averagely put together Chev, Ford or Chrysler?

    The steel tax will definitely drive companies like BMW, MB, etc offshore.

    The rest of the globe will still have access to cheaper steel to produce and support local production.

    Yup, to all the silly Trumpettes, you guys are going to screw up your country.

    The US needs to adopt what everyone else is doing to survive.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      Juvenile insults of the current US president are as common as the fevered knob polishing of the last one, and usually done by the same people. Still, the proof is in the results. You should wait and see, rather than criticize your own prediction.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Seems to me that someone who throws juvenile insults at others all the time will end up with juvenile insults thrown at him.

        But that’s just me.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          That is a fair point FreedMike, but he generally wins those battles.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Define “win.”

            I’m sure it’s a “win” with people who supported him already. It’s a *massive* loss with everyone else, and that includes a lot of folks in the Republican Party.

            This is the first president I can think of that literally doesn’t give a flying f**k about what the people who didn’t vote for him think. And I suppose he can try that if he wants. Problem is, before too long, he’s going to run into something that requires Americans to rally behind him. I’m not looking forward to that day.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “but he generally wins those battles”

            This photo sums that up rather nicely:

            https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/7/8/1678950/-Trump-Sitting-Alone-At-G20-Meeting-The-Perfect-Metaphor

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        thelaine,
        No, I speak the truth.

        Trump has whined to Angela in Germany regarding why Germans are not buying US made vehicles. Well Opel failed, a US owned GM manufacturer. So, the US was given a golden opportunity to produce “US” vehicles and sell them to the Germans.

        The US is the only country running it’s current set of regulations, they are unique. CAFE is apart of this. Canada is drifting towards setting itself up to suit globally harmonised vehicles.

        The impending steel tax will be a great loss to US manufacturing. It will raise the price of all steel made products. This leaves the rest of the world with cheaper steel, hence in a more competitive position. This again takes away from the US’es ability to export.

        To keep a few steel workers on the pay roll will lose many multiples of other workers in manufacturing.

        Trump is a self absorbed narcistic celeb and that’s all he is. His rants and innuendoes and taunts of allies and major trading partners can only harm the US.

        CAFE, which I disapprove of is in a sense making the US closer in producing what is required globally, except for large vehicles, hence CAFE is apart of protecting US large vehicle production. Unfortunately moving away from CAFE will further alienate US vehicles from being a globally marketable product. Then add the increase costs of production.

        The US (Big 3) can become very competitive producers of better quality vehicles more suitable for export. All you guys need to do is produce what is wanted globally.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          I have always agreed with you regarding CAFE and protectionism BigAl. The rest of your Trump-bashing is based upon your predictions. Let’s wait and see how things look in a couple of years. Calling Trump names when you avoided doing the same to his predecessor only reveals your political perspective. Nothing wrong with that, by the way. Just be honest about it. I have never defended Trump and I don’t intend to start. It is less about who you like than who you dislike less.

          Please do not presume I adopt or defend anything he says or advocates. I like the fact that his every utterance turns the leftists into crack-smoking Tasmanian Devils, but that is hardly an endorsement. Most politicians are scum. That is why we should give them less power. The president should have so little power that most people shouldn’t even care who he is except in times of war.

    • 0 avatar
      joeaverage

      I suspect that somebody doesn’t want to harmonize international vehicle standards too much lest we start seeing Renaults, Citroens, and Mahindra vehicles being sold here.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        I wish we did start seeing those other brands here.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          Agreed

          • 0 avatar
            joeaverage

            I’d like to see those unavailable brands here too. I suspect that there would be a number of Americans who wouldn’t know what to do with them – kind of like the Fiats.

            Can’t tow a cattle trailer or can’t haul a football team or isn’t as faster as a 500 HP muscle car so what’s the point?

            The education of the American consumer continues…

  • avatar
    stingray65

    The Trump administration is about the only one in the world that recognizes that companies need to earn a profit to survive and prosper. NO ONE is making money on small fuel efficient cars or green cars of any size, so if you force manufacturers to only build the “politician’s choice” or “eco-weenies” kind of car it will suck all the profits out of the business. Funny that politicians and journalists care so little about the profits that also generate the employment and the tax revenue that fund all their redistribution ambitions, but very few besides Trump have ever run a profit-making business or taken an economics course.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      Bingo Stingray. Competition and consumer choice also increase innovation and reduce prices, making everyone richer.

    • 0 avatar
      bikegoesbaa

      “NO ONE is making money on small fuel efficient cars or green cars of any size”

      I bet MINI is.

      • 0 avatar
        stingray65

        Mini is at best marginally profitable and probably doesn’t generate a profit that is equal to the cost of capital. This is why all the new Mini models are based on a BMW FWD platform so they can get higher volume and cut costs, but Brexit and declining volume due to retro styling weariness and low fuel prices are profit killers going forward.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      “The Trump administration is about the only one in the world that recognizes that companies need to earn a profit to survive and prosper.”

      Nonsense. Hyperbolic nonsense.

      • 0 avatar
        stingray65

        Show me another western leader who is business friendly? European and Japanese leaders believe in more regulation, more taxes, higher energy prices, and more government “investment” – which are all well known ways to kill business profits. Trump is far from perfect, but he appears to at least be heading in the right direction. For example, pulling out of the Paris Climate agreement is a huge win for consumers and industry:

        “Calculations using the best peer-reviewed economic models show the global price tag of all the Paris Treaty promises –through slower GDP growth from higher energy costs – would reach $1 trillion to $2 trillion every year from 2030. Without US involvement, the rest of the world must cough up between $800 billion and $1.6 trillion annually…Legally binding – only go up to 2030, and only commit the world to achieving less than 1 per cent of the carbon cuts that would be needed to keep temperature rises under 2 degrees Celsius.” – Lomborg 2017.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          This is the real reason Merkel is so angry. Much of the cost of this economy-strangling redistribution scheme will now fall on the Germans. Euros were hoping to get Uncle Sucker to carry the load, as usual. The president wisely said no. Sorry Angela.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Oh, good lord, Stingray…of course governments are “business friendly.” They have to be. Otherwise their citizens – their taxpayers – don’t eat.

          The question is how to balance the needs of the public with the needs of businesses…because businesses won’t care about things like pollution until governments make them care. I’d argue that they probably shouldn’t care. Making money is their job. Figuring out how that balances with peoples’ health and the environment is government’s job.

          And issues like pollution and energy use are *inarguably* things that voters and governments should care about.

          • 0 avatar
            stingray65

            Good Lord FreedMike – government is only business friendly in the sense they grant monopoly rights and provide subsidies to their favored interest groups (e.g. major campaign donors). $15 minimum wage laws, expensive Obamacare mandates, expensive renewable energy mandates, expensive CAFE mandates, expensive climate control agreements, etc. are not cost effective for consumers or industry. If regulations, mandates, and treaties had to pass a true cost-benefit hurdle 90% of them would have to be rejected or rescinded. Government is mostly about providing steady work, early retirement, and a generous pension for bureaucracies, which is why the closest thing to having eternal life is a government agency.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    I think the penalties should be quadrupled; the Republicans need the money.

  • avatar
    RS

    If they want regulations like these to be successful, they will have to pass a consumer hypocrisy and double standards act and fine consumers and politicians that won’t buy the vehicles they love to mandate.

    “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who tell me it’s a crisis act like it’s a crisis.”

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      RS – Climate change is supposed to be the biggest crisis to man-kind, causing major flooding to all coastal areas. Funny that coastal real-estate prices seem to remain very high. Global warming activist Richard Branson who makes his money jetting people around the world owns at least one island. I believe the global warming activist Kennedy family is still in low lying Hyannis Port. Inconvenient Truth Al Gore insists that his limousine idle outside as he gives his 50 minute speech warning about global warming. Leonardo DiCaprio charters a private jet to fly across the Atlantic to pick up an environmental award.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        We haven’t gotten to the “crisis stage” yet.
        You have to view abating/mitigating climate change like trying to stop a loaded freight train with a main bridge out 20 miles down the track. Do you try to stop or slow the train down well in advance and repair the bridge or do you “steam on” until you are 100 feet from the fallen bridge?

        “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who tell me it’s a crisis act like it’s a crisis.”

        The very wealthy are in a position to easily move or pay people to protect them in time of crisis. “They” don’t give a sh!t. The lower end of the socioeconomic scale are the ones that will suffer the most.

        Case in point, do you see any billionaires being personally harmed by the wars in the Middle East?

        A huge majority of the scientific community say a crisis is imminent.
        Obviously, they must not count!

        • 0 avatar
          stingray65

          So in other words its “do as I say, not as I do” or “sacrifice is for suckers”.

        • 0 avatar
          joeaverage

          Tangier Island, VA

          Miami, FL apparently has flooding problems regularly now?

          I have visions of the frog in the pot scenario.

          SOME people are dealing with it now. Others not so much b/c they are far from the affected areas.

  • avatar
    mikey

    Alberta in January -February theres a wind that blows through, and can raise the temperature 20 degrees in an hour. “Chinook winds” is an indigenous term that translates to “snow eater”.

    While filming the “Revenant” Mr DiCaprio using his best meteorological skills, pronounced that a temperature rise of that magnitude could only be an effect of climate change….I guess the native people reached the same conclusion…about 300 years ago.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @mikey – So does that mean the confused rants of an actor renders invalid the works of the scientific community?

      • 0 avatar
        FOG

        No, the lack of sufficient accurate data puts the climate change argument into question. This is further muddied by the split position of, “AN ICE AGE IS GOING TO KILL US ALL!” vs “WE WILL ALL BE FLOODED OUT BY THE MELTING OF THE POLAR ICE CAPS!”

        The problem isn’t DiCaprio being confused it is that scientists didn’t correct him for fear that it would show how little they really know.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • stevelovescars: I’m a 5’6″ man and the seats were woefully unsupportive for me. In comparison, the...
  • APaGttH: We had a 2017 LaCrosse as a rental. I was so impressed with the stop/start system. Even better than the 2015...
  • APaGttH: I have to question the veracity of this. There are many places in the country you can’t buy 93 Octane...
  • SilverCoupe: Is this a trick question? I have never bought anything but a coupe since I started driving in ’73....
  • WalterRohrl: “On Wednesday, the union reached out to GM in the hopes of re-starting negotiations. So far,...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States