California accounts for a huge chunk of America’s new car sales (at least for the transplants). And 13 other states (Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington) follow its vehicular emissions laws. Put them together and they account for just under half of all American new vehicle sales. And now, thanks to President Obama’s decision to grant California a waiver from federal emissions regulations, they’re going to call the shots for the entire U.S. automotive industry.
President Obama will free California impose its own vehicular tailpipe regulations. Those rules, already drafted, consider CO2 a pollutant. (Global warming and all that.) Manufacturers wishing to sell vehicles in California and its legislative clones will have to meet a new, fleet-wide CO2 standard. As CO2 emissions are directly related to fuel economy, CA et. al. will be, effectively, directing the carmakers to sell higher mileage vehicles. Significantly higher.
“The California law, which was originally meant to take effect in the 2009 model year, requires automakers to cut emissions by nearly a third by 2016, four years ahead of the federal timetable,” The New York Times reports. “The result would be an increase in fuel efficiency in the American car and light truck fleet to roughly 35 miles per gallon from the current average of 27.”
There are two schools of thought on the effects of this move. First, not only can Detroit and the rest of them meet the higher standards, but it’s about fucking time.
“This is a complete reversal of President Bush’s policy of censoring or ignoring global warming science,” Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress in Washington, told the Gray Lady. “With the fuel economy measures and clean energy investments in the recovery package, President Obama has done more in one week to reduce oil dependence and global warming than George Bush did in eight years.”
For environmental activists, the idea that automakers can meet the new California standard is a given. Another shibboleth: carmakers would have already done so if not for their greedy, SUV-pimping, foot-dragging ways. The fact that $4 a gallon gas did more for the environmentalist’s cause than decades of federal corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards is shoved aside. As is the fact that the electorate voted with their wallets.
There’s a planet to be saved; free markets be damned. From this perspective, the federal waiver is a victory for Mother Earth that will be fully vindicated by its non-impact on the auto industry and its immeasurable impact on the earth’s climate. One way and the other, decades hence, people will wonder what all the fuss was about.
Alternatively, the decision to empower California to set national fuel economy standards will, as the automakers have warned, wreak havoc on a fragile industry, drive-up prices for consumers and, ultimately, fail.
There’s no way automakers selling cars in America can meet the California mob’s higher, fleet-wide fuel economy standards within the deadline without chopping low-mileage models from their lineup within the relevant states. (The fuel-sucking CUV halfway house, for example, just became an evolutionary dead end.) Detroit News columnist Daniel Howes described the CA mandate as the involuntary hybridization of the nation’s fleet. That sounds about right to me.
Whether manufacturers would offer low[er] mileage vehicles for sale outside of the 14-states is a tricky question, given the intersection of politics, PR and commercial reality. Whether those non-CA-friendly vehicles could be “imported” into the 14-state cabal is even trickier. And speaking of tricky…
As The NYT points out, the new laws mean “automobile manufacturers will quickly have to retool to begin producing and selling cars and trucks that get higher mileage than the national standard, and on a faster phase-in schedule.”
Has anyone looked at the U.S. new car market recently? Who’s got money for that shit? And who’s going to pay cash money to buy these newfangled fuel misers? What if these wonderful machines don’t sell?
All of which highlights the small matter of what “we” (i.e. taxpayers) are going to do about GM and Chrysler, currently (and for the foreseeable future) sucking on Uncle Sam’s teat.
While the Department of Energy is preparing to dole out dole worth $25b for retooling “loans” to build these more left-coast compliant vehicles, this turn of events suggests that Uncle Sam will be on the hook for even more more money for GM and ChryCo. Hey, you want us to build way cool fuel efficient vehicles? You gotta pay. I mean, loan.
I understand the rationale behind California’s zeal and President Obama’s support. But there’s no doubt that they’ve just invoked the law of unintended consequences. Thought politically toxic, a gas tax hike would have been a far more effective solution. As we shall soon see.
144 Comments on “Editorial: Obama Lets California Determine National Fuel Economy Standards...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Poor California, they are about to get a lot less cars to choose from.
…and the wheels of the bus go round and round…
Actually, the idea of every state having freedom to do its own standards does not strike me to be quite as bad as you mention. True, generally speaking, all cars will be more expensive for all U.S. consumers, because the automakers will have to produce several versions in smaller batches.
Some automakers will disappear entirely as the demand is reduced due to higher prices and due to the additional overhead.
But letting every state do its thing will also lead, down the road, to competition and benchmarking. The bad states will tend to wither and die and the free states will become healthier and stronger.
Stonger like Ireland in Europe and Texas in the States.
you mean:
poor California, Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
vww12:
actually there will be only 2 standards, Federal and California. The states have the right to choose which one they follow.
All this will do is raise prices on the remaining new vehicles AND raise prices on the used grandfathered cars. The end result is the same: fewer people will be able to afford to drive cars and will be forced onto public transportation.
This is nuts. Can you imagine the billions it will cost to engineer cars to meet dozens of state emission standards? Most will be determined by zealots to conform to the environmental whim of the day. The domestic manufacturers are already on life support. This should rocket them over the edge.
If Californians hate the damn car so much, then why do they buy so many of them, then drive them excessively, and rarely use public transit? Oh, that’s right, its somebody else’s problem to solve. If I want to live in Irvine and work in Burbank, I’m gonna do it dammit! Or maybe Los Banos and commute to San Jose. Somebody else figure out how to take care of the problem.
I wish more than anything California wasn’t as big as it is. Then maybe instead of having to pay any attention to them throwing their weight around, the rest of this country could just ignore their wacky ideas and get on with our lives.
Obama and the EPA is wrong on this one. ESPECIALLY in this economy. You’re right, nobody has the money, and nobody has the money plus the time to do this realistically. And even beyond that, you’re right that if gas sits at $1.80 whos gonna wanna buy the damn things? Even extending this, the plethora of various fuel standards and ethanol requirements, etc already waste untold amounts of energy and money. Take it a step further. Fuel standards should be nationalized as well. Or go the other way….why shouldn’t states be allowed to set their own crash standards? 50 different rollover test methods with 50 different minimum requirements. Then maybe the rest of us can take our rollover standards from Arizona while our bumper standards come from Oklahoma. RIDICULOUS.
I can’t wait for it to result in horribly expensive cars and/or a combination of that with no choice of anything over the size of a Civic or Prius. Just WAIT until Californians then go bitching about how they have no choices. Arnold, do something, I can’t get my kids and all their stuff in the Prius! Then CA and CARB will reverse their boneheaded decision (like they did with their equally ridiculous electric-car requirements). Unfortunately, by the time that happens, they’ll have created total havoc in the international auto business, and probably take a few companies down with them. But who cares, right? They’re just big evil faceless corporations from somewhere east of Lake Tahoe.
California is the most messed up state in the entire country. Hands down. Once people realize they can live better, cheaper, and with more choice elsewhere, they will. And California will end up in an even bigger mess than they’re already in.
Maybe its more the environtal extremists….most just happen to live in California. Can’t we please move on to another flavor of the week….maybe go back to fear of communists fluoridating the water supply….anything?
Why not turn the question around? Is the current energy waste behavior sustainable? Doing nothing now is NOT the least expensive option, and mandating efficiency will create the necessary investment in structural changes.
The Transplants were rolling in the aisles with laughter as CAFE rolled out the red carpet to half the U.S. auto sales for them.
I believe you can hear the second wave of laughter as the red carpet is again rolled out for half the remaining auto sales for them.
The Detroit automakers can about halfway see this coming.
The UAW, dreaming of sugarplums with those billions of healthcare dollars soon to be entrusted to their care, could give a rip.
Crap like this absolutely hammers the full product line automakers.
More witch’s brew of voo doo numbers is NOT the answer.
The way this works, the carmakers have to sell cars that meet a fuel efficiency standard averaged over the number of cars sold. So it’s not hard to meet that standard. You only have to sell more small cars. It’s not like an emissions standard that every car has to meet.
But the idea is that this will force carmakers to spend the money on designing big cars that get better efficiency. Never mind that it never worked in the past. Someone found a loophole, or the law was waived.
Odds are, we will all spend billions for nothing. Just like when sports utility vehicles replaced cars. And when carmakers made their gas guzzlers flex fuel vehicles.
The old is new again. History repeats itself.
I would rather it be a CAFE mandate to 35mpg, than $4 gas again, to make manufacturers make fuel efficient cars.
MBella :
Why?
“fewer people will be able to afford to drive cars and will be forced onto public transportation”
What public transportation???
“This is nuts.”
Just a preview. Much more of the same to follow…
The Americans must learn that elections have consequences.
…to paraphrase our old pal stan, here’s another fine mess we’re about to get into.
I thought that was Oliver Hardy’s line to Stanley Laurel, “Well here’s another nice mess you’ve gotten me into.” Yes, I’m a Laurel and Hardy geek.
“California, Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington”
Didja notice that most of these states are in economic decline, have high taxes and impose harsh regulation on business? And not a few have rotten political environments. Good places to avoid, and lots of people are doing just that.
I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.
The value of old Buick 225s is going to skyrocket in California. OTOH, kei cars will finally make it to America.
California tumbles into the sea
That will be the day I go
Back to Annandale.
Tried to warn you
About Chino and Daddy Gee,
But I can’t seem to get to you
Through the U.S. Mail.
@ 50merc
Didja notice that most of these states are in economic decline, have high taxes and impose harsh regulation on business? And not a few have rotten political environments.
Which states are not in long term economic decline in the USA?
Living on Long Island in New York, I am still trying to figure out why we have the same emissions laws as California. Its 22 degrees outside right now and this is probably the warmest part of the state at this point in time. How is this climate similar to California?
“How is this climate similar to California?”
Your POLITICAL climate IS…
That’s all that matters.
dastanley :
Doh! Anyway, I’ve rewritten the ending.
Robert Schwartz :
Are you with me Dr. Wu?
So if a state says they want no emissions standards it will be ok? I will write my local representative right now and get rid of these standards and get some cool cars that are not legal now. This might back fire on the greenies if a lot of the conservative states ban the standards.
Why not just take the Mercedes route and just pay the penalties? How much cash would it take for GM to pay the penalties on a fleet that met federal regs and ignored Cali regs?
So if I drive a non approved vehicle to the CA state line will I be stopped? If I am pulled over in LA can they ticket me, or even impound my car? If I move there do I have to sell my non Ca cars and buy different ones(note I did not state new) or else take the bus?
It’s not right for the federal government to impose upon a state that which is left up to states to decide, the constitution is clear on that, but to have one state impose on the others what they want is another matter entirely.
It’s time to chop up the US into 4 states and leave it at that. Let the left coast and New England become worker’s paradise, the south can make changes as they see fit, and the middle north can go their own way and trade with Canada. Someone has to provide health care for the Canucks that cannot wait for it.
toxicroach :
So we use my federal tax money to prop-up GM so it can pay fines to California for rules on interstate commerce upon which the federal government deferred. Excuse me while I fall down this rabbit hole.
GS650G :
At the moment, the laws would only effect the types of vehicles being sold as new within the participating states. But yours is a sensible leap of logic. Car dealers operating in the high mileage-only states would be MAD not to close the “loophole” allowing CA car buyers to buy what they really, really want from out of state and bring it in. Because that’s exactly what they’ll do.
Look at “dry” and “wet” counties in the south.
“Your POLITICAL climate IS…
That’s all that matters.”
Exactly!
A governor we did not elect, a thief who stole 50 billion allowed to stay in his penthouse, and taxes that are soaring out of control.
As always we are getting forced into a folly.
“How is this climate similar to California?”
Political hot air is the same in every state..
“would rather it be a CAFE mandate to 35mpg, than $4 gas again, to make manufacturers make fuel efficient cars.”
So you would rather go down to the dealer and have only a few small models to choose from instead of having a full lineup? At $4.00 gas driving consumer decisions, larger vehicles could still be made for those willing to pay the price. CAFE or CO2 rules will limit choice to those vehicles that conform to the law, regardless of whether the consumers want them.
MBella says: I would rather it be a CAFE mandate to 35mpg, than $4 gas again, to make manufacturers make fuel efficient cars.
I guess this means you actually believe CAFE, soundly proven to generally be ineffective in increasing vehicle fuel economy in the United States, deserves yet another chance? That year 31 will finally be the charm?
I’m sorry but it’s time to let go and let barrel head taxes yet again show you how to meaningfully increase U.S. fleet fuel mileage in very short order. A side (major?) benefit is that people will continue get to choose the right size vehicle for their needs and the automakers are smart enough to provide good choices at the economy end of the scale.
I have a hunch we’d see a wave of new car buying and a lot of the unsafe junk at the bottom would finally be pushed off the roads.
Whine and bitch and moan all you want. I love how the right wing is all for states rights unless it is something they disagree with.
I’d rather just have no CAFE and gas taxes (not even gas taxes, but just let gas pay for highways, oil wars and everything else that is transportation related), but since a gas tax is untenable, CAFE standards will have to do…
Akatsuki:
States’ rights isn’t a right or left wing issue. It’s a constitutional question.
In this case, the federal government has clear precedence. After all, they’re granting California a waiver. They’re ceding the right to set air quality standards to CA and their 13 acolytes in this case– not abandoning their power over a matter which affects interstate commerce.
Should we grant the states the right to set automotive safety standards? Same deal.
Does this mean an end to California Reformulated Gasoline version 2 with 10% ethanol? If so, I’m all for it! (Well, I’m all for getting rid of the fed/cal fuel mismatch; CAFE is still stupid.)
Here’s how to sell a $2/gallon fuel tax… first, it will be phased from the current $0.18 by incrementing it $0.02 per month over 8 years. Second, each adult tax filer gets a tax rebate equal to the tax cost of purchasing 1000 gallons of fuel. Note that since diesel and jet fuel are also taxed and that commercial use is also taxed, 1000 gallons includes driving, flying, and transportation for all the junk people typically buy. Finally, keep CAFE right where it is currently and then just kill it in 8 years–it won’t be relevant by that time anyway. As a last thought… unify European and USA crash and emissions standards so that the majority of European cars could be purchased and used in the US without major headache.
I’d like to know what the automakers have spent since the late 60’s developing vehicles to meet the myriad of emission rules, safety regs, and fuel economy standards. Frankly I wish one of the CEO’s would’ve stood up in the hearings and said “Mr. Senator, we’ve spent xxx Billion dollars (I’m guessing it’s north of 200B) over the last 30 years meeting all the regulations you and your buddies have choked us with. We’d like a rebate on that now, please.”
I’m all for efficiency, and clean air, but c’mon making the OEM’s meet 2 different sets of rules, one of which will cost every bailout dollar and more to meet seems really counterproductive. If anything the Gov’t should freeze all new rules and regs until they get thier money back. You don’t loan someone money then tell them they can’t do this or that to make the money they need to to pay you back. Think about it…it’s hilarious.
dwford:
It doesn’t have to be preference — accepting the fact that markets cannot be trusted to take care of all the folks all the time is enough. Recent events could reasonably lead one to this conclusion … Enron, oil ca. 2008, etc.
Sometimes the gummint has to step in and do something, in this case allowing California et al to lead on policy for a while might well be political genuis — if it works, the feds claim it as their own, if not, California takes the fall. It also gives us all time to watch and learn from the California experiment, deferring the decision on which policy will do the most good in the long run until there’s better information on what that policy needs to be. No one in D.C. can pull off managing pollution/mileage than CARB does, or they’d have done it by now.
Like most (?) here, I believe a gas tax will do the most good in the long run, but the time for that comes later, on the way out of the recession.
I knew that there would be a bad ending when the environmentalists starting trying to tell us that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.
First, carbon dioxide is not some trace product that can be done away with by more efficient combustion. It is the main end product, along with water vapor, of combustion of carbonaceous materials, whether that combustion process takes place in the bodies of warm-blooded mammals, in a coal-fired electric power plant, or in the cylinders of my Accord. The only way to get less of it is to burn less carbon, or in the case of mammals to eat less carbon. Period. The only way for that to happen is for the economy to decline. Or, I suppose, the earth’s population to decline.
Second, carbon dioxide, far from being a pollutant, is the lifestuff of plants. They need it like we need oxygen. Slight increases in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere such as we have had in recent years are helpful to plant growth in general. The planet earth has come through periods in the distant past when the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was much greater than it is now, without apparent ill effect.
And this is aside from the fact that human activities contribute only a portion of the total carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere. And carbon dioxide contributes only a small portion of any global warming that might be taking place, water vapor being the major contributor to the greenhouse effect.
Policies such as President Obama’s idea to let California set auto emission standards for the whole country probably will not do irreparable damage to the US economy, but they will do damage. California’s state government has shown little evidence that there is any understanding of economic cause and effect, in environmental issues as well as economics in general. There is a reason for the net outflow of productive jobs from that state.
So now that CA is the new EPA, who exactly is creating the policies dictating this new direction? What automotive experience do the wise leaders of CA have?
We here in CA are awesome at everything! Just look at how great our public schools are (roughly 1/2 of high school students don’t graduate in LA county). Look at how well we’ve managed ourselves into a $41B deficit. The state has already said it will issue IOU’s for tax refunds as we’ll soon be out of cash. We’ve done a great job at cutting frivolous spending. Why, look at the $3B choo choo train our brilliant electorate just voted in favor of funding.
We effing suck!
sweet!!!
good to see some balls on somebody…
though – don’t know if a gas tax would be a better solution or not.
It would be a lot easier (in 2012) for somebody to campaign on a ‘repeal Obama’s gas tax’ than to run on ‘lets make cars more polluting’…
or for that matter actually doing it…
Am I the only one who think this is a great news?
How many of you guys lived in CA 10 years ago? 20 years ago? The pollution was really really bad here. The air quality just sucked. Now, it’s not so bad.
Yes I as the consumer will end up paying for the retooling and R&D. I for one don’t mind paying if it means I can get some clean air.
I’d rather see $4/gal gas than this. At least then the burden is off the manufacturer and on the consumer to decide what they’re willing to pay.
This is funny, much weeping and gnashing of the teeth over nothing. Mandating fuel economy and emissions has never reduced options, engineering excellence or automotive capability.
Honestly, if Peugeot can make interesting vehicles that meet similar standards there is nothing to say that Ford or GM can’t.
In effect, what is happening is that California is setting the standards rather than the EPA. Ford and GM will not build vehicles separately, they will all meet the common denominator.
The tradeoff will be that V8 and high-horsepower engines will become luxury items and American engineering will need to get a lot better at building C segment vehicles that consumers want.
First, housekeeping for those who talk about other states setting standards. CARB (California Air Resources Board) pre-dates the EPA (1967 vs. 1970) in the action of regulation vehicle emissions, and thus is the only State that could be granted a waiver as it’s grandfathered. As someone mentioned, states can use California Standards, or EPA standards. No state regulated crash standards before the NHTSA did so, so there is no grandfathering of safety standards to other states, so its a non-issue.
Having said that, the level of emissions coming from vehicles these days is orders of magnitude lower than 1960’s standards (even 1980’s). More importantly, consider that California now proposes to regulate CO2 because of its GLOBAL impact. CARB was formed due to the unique smog forming environment of the LA basin. Thus CARB’s early activities were justified because there were health concerns there not seen in other states. However, California’s new regulations are not addressing a local (i.e. State) concern, but a global concern (i.e. global warming). Whether or not you believe global warming (I think its a crock of sh*t), that fact is that it is a national concern that should be played by our Federal Government on an international state. A single state has no business setting emission standards based on global concerns. I’m a big states-rights advocate, but what California is doing is legislation not about their state but about the international community – in which they have no business. BO is stupid for granting this waiver, as California is trying to trump the Federal Govt in the international stage and it makes the Federal Govt look bad.
In my opinion, in the early to mid nineties when all automakers were profiatable, every automaker selling in the US should have joined together and universally boycotted selling cars in California, or just intentionally not met Cali standards. Given how car crazed Californian’s are, after just one model year of no new cars, we would never have heard of separate CARB standards again. Voters in LA would have made sure of that. Now that several states have signed on, and all automakers are hurting, that can never happen now. Should have nipped it in the bud when they had the chance.
Lastly, to those who say Honda and Toyota have no issue with this, think again. They may not vocally oppose CARB regulation (they are too crafty for that), but they are with Detroit lock step in opposition to this. 35 MPG CAFE by 2016? That will hurt everyone. Honda still sells more Accords than Fits, and I have yet to see a 35mpg Acccord.
@ golf4me
I’d like to know what the automakers have spent since the late 60’s developing vehicles to meet the myriad of emission rules, safety regs, and fuel economy standards.
It’s the same playing field for all manufacturers isn’t it? Why should the Bigish3 be “special”?
Whinge whinge whinge….
If CA regs are the “lowest common denominator” then aim for those. Expenses come when you have regs that aren’t subsets or have mutually exclusive requirements. Governments have a responsibility to ensure requirements aren’t inconsistent across state borders, and preferrably all around the world.
If CA sets the standard and that standard is the best, then you’re “50-state legal”, and every manufacturer has the same requirements, what’s the big deal??? The answer; it’s so UNFAIR to the Bigish3. Boo-hoo.
The way I look at it, higher fuel efficiency standards are coming no matter what. There are two ways for this to happen.
Gasoline could go up to $4+ a gallon, and like this past summer, everyone will dump or try to dump their gas guzzler, and get the most fuel efficient car that sill meets their needs. It was the reason I bought a 4cyl Ranger, instead of a full size truck, because it will still haul most of my junk, (way more slowly) but will not eat as much gas. If this happens, manufacturers will be forced to increase fuel economy anyway.
If CAFE is increased, manufacturers will have to increase their fuel economy directly.
The end result as far as the auto industry is concerned is the same. This just stops people from paying a penalty when filling up.
The ultimate solution would be for the government not to intervene period, but let’s face it. That’s not going to happen.
CAFE stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy
The cars a manufacturer sells have to average together, in the proposed case, at 35mpg. They can still sell their full sized truck, that makes 20mpg, they would just have to sell two cars at 42.5mpg to make up for it.
Another reason to not buy anything new, and just keep what you have running as long as possible.
Of course, the environmental socialist know that, so they will also attempt to force you to pay much higher gasoline taxes, or much higher registration fees, in order to get you to come around to their way of thinking.
The next step will be much higher gasoline taxes in order to get you to buy the new pieces of crap that Detroit is being forced to sell.
Isn’t living in a free country great?
California has shown how well it leads in energy policy. We deregulated the electricity market here several years ago. It was a disaster. In the end, the fiasco cost the governor his job.
Not that I’m against government regulation, or deregulation. If the government uses a light touch, I think it can do a lot of good.
But politicians here do a terrible job. We fight fierce battles over issues like affirmative action, abortion, gay marriage, and even whether horse meat can be eaten (it is now against the law here). And then our politicians treat economic issues in the same partisan way, liberals fighting conservatives as though politics triumphed over economics. And as though you can stop global warming by passing a law against it.
I thought states’ rights were quashed in 1865.
This policy will fail in a predictable way. The 1990 luxury excise tax shows the pattern.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE4DC1239F932A15754C0A967958260
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Luxury+excise+tax-a010527875
First, car buyers will generally not substitute new hybrids for new large cars and trucks. Consumers will substitute refurbished USED large cars and trucks for new.
Second, there will be some loophole in the CO2 emissions standard that has unintended consequences. The 1990 luxury excise tax exempted vehicles weighing more than 6000 lbs, for example.
Third, the workers who build and sell new cars will be the people most hurt by the California CO2 emissions standard. They will protest very loudly and for good reason.
Fourth, political pressure will cause the separate California CO2 emissions standard to be either repealed or severely watered down. Think the California zero emissions vehicle standard evolving into PZEV.
Note that California doesn’t need permission to raise its own excise tax on gasoline and high gasoline taxes have a proven track record of raising demand for fuel efficiency. However, voting to raise gasoline excise taxes is also a good way for a politician to lose his or her job.
abcd:
How many of you guys lived in CA 10 years ago? 20 years ago? The pollution was really really bad here. The air quality just sucked. Now, it’s not so bad.
Yes I as the consumer will end up paying for the retooling and R&D. I for one don’t mind paying if it means I can get some clean air.
EPA and CARB nuked the vast majority of car pollution 10+ years ago. Any further gains (like mandating carbon capture) will be very expensive.
CARB has achieved impressive results with auto and INDUSTRY emission standards. It has had enormous impacts on CA industry like coal power generation, but even mom & pop bakeries have been hit.
My point is that there’s not much more that can be cleaned from auto tailpipes, unless you go after CO2. That’ll be very expensive.
RF, in response to this comment:
“MBella :
Why?”
$4/gallon gas is an inconvenience to everyone north of the middle-class income level. To everyone else, it’s a dibilitating money sink that eats into more crucial funds. You are clearly not as affected by this as the more impoverished, or don’t care.
The truth is, federal mandates help everyone involved except for the bottom lines on the domestics in the short term, assuming all other factors constant. Everytime we tighten regulations, politically libertarian leaning folk cry and wail about it, but eventually come to realize that the arguments against these mandates are largely unfounded and FUD.
And also, all this talk about free markets is nonsense. There are no free markets. They don’t work. If they did, we wouldn’t need regulations. Market regulations don’t arise from the whims of the lib’rul left, they are consequences of destructive behavior that result from people working within the constructs of a capitalist system.
How is this climate similar to California?
I can’t tell if this is a joke statement or not, but if it isn’t, climate =/= weather. Global warming doesn’t mean it will be 70 degrees everywhere.