By on December 7, 2016

Scott Pruitt (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

It looks like the Environmental Protection Agency’s rush to cement fuel economy targets before Inauguration Day wasn’t due to paranoia.

According to the New York Times, President-elect Donald Trump has tapped Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt to head the EPA. Pruitt, 48, is a top opponent of the Obama administration’s environmental regulations and climate change policy, going so far as to organize legal action against the federal government.

Pruitt’s nod is bad news for environmentalists, and good news for industry. Automakers could soon find themselves less burdened by green tape.

With oil and gas extraction being a major economic driver in Oklahoma, Pruitt’s legal efforts sought to keep the investment flowing. Backed by energy firms, he targeted the EPA, claiming the agency overestimated greenhouse gas emissions from energy companies.

Along with 27 other states, numerous companies, and industry groups, Pruitt filed a lawsuit against the federal government’s climate change policies, citing predicted impact to industry and utilities. That case awaits a decision in federal court. Trump touted the coal industry and criticized Obama’s environmental initiatives during the election campaign, making Pruitt’s nomination less than surprising.

With an unabashed oil and gas proponent soon in charge of the EPA, it’s hard to imagine that sweeping regulatory changes aren’t on the way. Some could be the answer to the auto industry’s prayers.

For automakers, one nagging policy stands above all else: corporate average fuel economy (CAFE), and the target of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 set four years ago. Reaching the target means greater spending on fuel-saving technology. Even though industry groups and automakers complained that the target is too high, the EPA recently gave it a tentative thumbs-up in its midterm review. (This, despite its own estimates that automakers would fall short.)

Most automakers would prefer lower fuel economy targets, or the elimination of CAFE altogether. Ford CEO Mark Fields has promised to lobby the Trump administration for lower state and federal targets.

After hearing the news, Mitch Bainwol, CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, hailed Pruitt’s appointment. Bainwol stated the alliance wants to see the midterm fuel economy review completed “thoroughly,” with attention to “achieving a balanced outcome.”

With Republicans controlling the agenda in the executive office, Congress, and Senate for the next few years to come, Fields and the Auto Alliance could easily get their way.

[Image: Gage Skidmore/Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

155 Comments on “Trump Taps Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma AG and Top Obama Foe, to Head EPA...”


  • avatar
    IBx1

    MORE HELLCATS

    Less downsizing beyond the point of diminishing returns! We’re fine right where we are for emissions controls in this country.

  • avatar
    RS

    It’s time to clean-up of the EPA’s political based regulation disaster. Maybe science and economic balance will be allowed now.

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    Good. My only hope is that he’ll support getting ethanol out of our gasoline. I’m sick and tired of the sh—y mileage I’m getting on E10, my lawn equipment needing carb rebuilds all the time, and worrying about some jackholes forcing me to use E15, and screwing up my cars.

  • avatar
    Middle-Aged Miata Man

    Best news since Gen. Mattis for SecDef.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      Its good news if one is an ignorant idiot. Putting this guy in charge of the very agency that is supposed to protect us from the money hungry .5%ers is like putting Adolf Hitler in charge of investigating war crimes.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        Unfortunately for you, Trump is not an ignorant idiot. He knows the reality of the misanthropic green community because of a small snail in Ireland.

        http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38228037

        Forget gutting the EPA. Repeal the underlying acts. Trump played the game, citing climate change in his application to build a seawall that would provide employment and tax revenue to a community that wanted both. Greens found a 3 mm mollusk to employ as their excuse for killing the project. Misanthropes will rue the day they won this battle and lost the war to end private property!

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    The tug-of-war with the CARB should be interesting.

    You can be sure the mfrs of $35k EVs are sweating. Perhaps the EV incentive will dry up sooner than the 200k vehicle per mfr timeframe.

    Edit: ‘sweating’ for now. In Tesla’s case, they already know that most of the Model 3 production will not receive a Federal incentive, since the company’s 200,000th EV will roll off the line near the beginning of the Model 3 run.

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      CARB is prohibited by federal law from setting their own separate fuel economy standard, but the state of California is free to increase state fuel excise taxes and/or provide state incentives to buy EVs.

  • avatar
    mtmmo

    Another impressive pick by the Trump transition team. I look forward to seeing a more effective EPA after Pruitt dispenses of all the corrupt employees that are known to fill the ranks of the EPA.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Evidence? I know a number of EPA employees and they are about the furthest thing from corrupt. If you want to study those subjects and get paid, you go into the fossil fuel industry, not the EPA.

      • 0 avatar
        Duaney

        The EPA came to Colorado and they released millions of gallons of highly toxic polluted water. To this date I’ve never heard of any of them reprimanded in any way.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          Mistakes are not the same as corruption.

          • 0 avatar
            Duaney

            True, the corruption is evident when no one is fired or reprimanded for their mistake.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Firings are not always the best way to manage legimate mistakes. Not every damaging mistake results from an obvious oversight or negligence.

            And you have no idea if any discipline happened short of a firing, as federal personnel records are confidential.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Are there still people who think the EPA accidentally poisoned the river? Oy vey.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Corruption is a violation, ie, knowingly doing something wrong.

            Mistake is an error. This can occur through incompetence or not having knowledge.

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          Who created the polluted water, profited from it, and then left it on the backs of the American people to deal with, Duaney?

          • 0 avatar
            Duaney

            The pollution was in an containment pond, as required by the EPA. Created by mining, that we’ll probably never stop doing.There are many lawsuits against the EPA now for this, maybe more information will come out about the employee’s responsible.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            You left out “improperly mitigated by a private industry who then packed up and left the mess for future generations to deal with”.

            There’s a reason the Superfund program exists and it isn’t because corporations universally have the health of the public at heart. Locals near the mine, incidentally, refused the Superfund status that would have allowed the site to be cleaned up, opting instead for perpetual maintenance, because they feared lost tourist dollars. But sure, blame the EPA for it all. Confirmation bias makes the world a nice, simple place.

          • 0 avatar
            npaladin2000

            If you really think the EPA and the Superfund status are so wonderful at cleaning up, I invite you to come swim in the Hudson River.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            If you think the current state of the nation’s waterways are proof that pollution control standards are worthless, I invite you to go swim in the river of a major urban area in a nation without them.

            Believing a regulatory agency worthless simply because they cannot fully remediate the poor decisions of individuals and corporations. You people are unbelievable.

          • 0 avatar
            Astigmatism

            If you think they’re terrible, I invite you to take a swim in the Boston harbor. I’ve done it; it’s delightful. Thirty years ago, you couldn’t walk within a quarter mile of the harbor without choking from the stench.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            When I was in Baghdad we ran only night missions. Night after night I would see the trucks that emptied the ports johns on the Fob pumping their loads into the Diliah River which ran into the Tigris.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “If you think the current state of the nation’s waterways are proof that pollution control standards are worthless, I invite you to go swim in the river of a major urban area in a nation without them.”

            Yes. I don’t think they are holding water ski and wakeboard competitions in the middle of a major metropolitan like they do on the Mississippi in Minneapolis.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            don’t you get it, 30-mile fetch? the regulations worked, so we don’t need them anymore! just ask any Breitbart-swallowing Real American.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          who created that toxic waste in the first place? That would be the mining industry. Put the blame where it belongs.

    • 0 avatar
      Astigmatism

      I’ve never understood the idea that a bunch of STEM grads with excellent grades all decided to spurn lucrative job offers in engineering and private industry in order to sign up for six years as an overworked PhD student making less than minimum wage followed by four years as a postdoc making less than a first-year public school teacher for a one-in-fifty shot at an entry-level tenure-track position that, if they’re _extremely_ lucky, might pay them $90k a year by the time they’re fifty, all while working seventy hours a week writing research proposals, advising grad students and “volunteer”-editing journals because they’re corrupt and in it for the money.

      I guess this is why we end up with #pizzagate.

    • 0 avatar
      thunderjet

      Please read the link:

      http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/teaching/co300man/pop12d.cfm

      Just because you believe something does not make it fact. I’m not trying to be mean or condescending here. I really just want people to conduct legitimate research before saying “a thing is a thing”.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      This whole trainwreck of a thread is in dire need of citations. And I don’t mean Chevrolets.

  • avatar
    Duaney

    “Reaching the target means more spending on fuel-saving technology” Not mentioned, (as I’ve pointed out before),is the increase in highway fatalities, and injuries due to flimsy, light weight automobiles necessary to achieve these ridiculous standards.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      “…flimsy, light weight automobiles necessary to achieve these ridiculous standards.”

      That won’t happen. I’d rather crash in a Prius than an 84 Honda CRX, yet they achieve the same fuel economy, and the Prius is the much better car and better value. Safety standards are here to stay.

      • 0 avatar
        Duaney

        A cafe standard of 54 mph will result in more deaths, in spite of safety standards. It’s already happened before with lighter weight and smaller vehicles. Ever go to a wrecking yard with totaled out vehicles? That will open your eyes.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          “A cafe standard of 54 mph will result in more deaths,”

          assumes facts not in evidence. Just more blather.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            Why exert effort to prove yourself wrong when you can just fabricate what you want to hear? He’s very mental-energy efficient.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Light vehicles can perform well in barrier crashes, where the force involved is a function of their own mass. They do less well in multi-vehicle accidents, where mass relative to other vehicles involved is significant. There was an IIHS test a number of years ago involving partial offset crashes between small and mid-sized cars from the same manufacturers that illustrated this point extremely effectively. I believe all the cars used were good performers in contemporary crash testing, but the midsized cars annihilated the small ones.

            http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/new-crash-tests-demonstrate-the-influence-of-vehicle-size-and-weight-on-safety-in-crashes-results-are-relevant-to-fuel-economy-policies

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            Mass disparity will exist as long as there are different vehicle size classes. Your only solution is to sell the same size vehicle to everybody. The best selling vehicle in the US is a 5200-lb full size pickup, which would crush those midsizers in the IIHS test the same way the midsizers crushed the subcompacts.

            Automotive fatalities per mile driven have been dropping during the same period that fuel economy has been rising.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            I didn’t really believe facts would sway your position even a bit. CAFE is about forcing people into more efficient cars than they would buy if given the choice. The easy way to save fuel after you’ve been caught simply lying about your fuel economy is to shed weight. Trucks do weigh tons and sell in huge numbers to people who can afford them. I guess safety isn’t something everyone deserves, only people who can pay the premium put in place by politicians who are smarter than markets.

            Fatalities are on the rise again as our fleet economy average has been increasing under the new CAFE targets. I doubt you care about that much either, or simply blame it on something you feel is bad instead of physics; which you dismiss after pretending you didn’t understand it previously.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          Duaney,
          More deaths??

          How come the US has worse fatality rates the most any OECD economy?

          The countries with 1/3 to 1/2 the fatalities are getting fantastically better average FE.

          • 0 avatar
            Duaney

            We drive much more. All of Europe has fuel at double or triple our price, thus limiting travel. They also have way more diesel cars thus their fuel economy is better. In the West, our distances are vast, compared to European countries. I’m just saying that the EPA, in their mad zeal for high MPG figures, are ignoring vehicle safety.

          • 0 avatar
            Fred

            By the same token the NHTSA cares little about pollution or mileage, or the costs to repair your car. It’s up to the individual to make the decision what is best for you.

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            Death statistics without miles driven is a meaningless statistic.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Even considering miles driven, the U S has a much higher fatality rate.

            This doesn’t take into consideration countries with lower vehicle densities tend to carry more passengers.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      Ah, the “post-facts” era is a wonderful thing.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        Colbert was more correct than I think even he imagined. “Truthiness” is a thing. If it “sounds” or “feels” right, then it *is* right.

        doesn’t matter if it’s patently f*cking wrong.

  • avatar
    George B

    The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 supports a 35 mpg average fuel economy goal by 2020. The 54.5 mpg by 2025 agreement between the Obama administration and auto makers doesn’t appear to be based on any law congress passed and the president signed. Sure looks like the deal could be easily renegotiated.

  • avatar
    npaladin2000

    This is at least partially a reaction to the EPA’s VERY early green-lighting of those CAFE targets no one can hit. Definitely some message sending going on. If the EPA is going to try and get away with as much as it can before Nomination Day, then they’re going to be under tight control afterwards.

  • avatar
    OldManPants

    Hallelujah!

    With a guy like this running the show my SIG can finally begin moving toward our goal of producing biodiesel from fat welfare recipients (pardon any redundancy) and prisoners!

    Through all the preceding years of frustration and rejection we’ve endured, our spirits remained high because of this one simple reality:

    The longer it takes, the fatter they’ll be.

  • avatar
    Fred

    Well at some point the pendulum will swing back and the EPA will be again be working to clean up the environment instead of making it easy for manufacturers and fossil fuel burners.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    15 comments on this story and just one takes a position that just maybe the EPA does something useful. That’s TTAC for you, I guess.

    Coal rollers 1, lungs 0

    • 0 avatar
      npaladin2000

      This is an automotive fan website. What were you expecting, us to demand the end of the ICE engine?

      • 0 avatar
        Astigmatism

        I’m an automotive fan. So? I’m also a breathing, living, enjoying nature, and passing the planet on to my children fan.

        • 0 avatar
          fiasco

          I love flames shooting out of exhausts and the wonderful sounds and sensations from playing with cars. I like figuring out mechanical problems and improving them. I may even know of a car or two on the planet that had a catalytic converter meltdown and was repaired with an iron bar through the clogged matrix or a possibly a failed secondary air system bypassed with a resistor across two pins of an ECU.

          Still, I want to have clean air to breathe and a climate where I can enjoy snow in the winter and warmth in the summer.

          I don’t like everything the EPA does, but even Richard Ducking Nixon saw the need for a healthy environment. Encouraging efficiency and cleanliness is not a Bad Thing.

          I thought the swamp by the Potomac was going to be drained by President-electoral-colleged Clownstick. Instead it seems to be getting filled with reptiles and the finest of Flint, Michigan’s municipal water supply.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        “What were you expecting,”

        I expect better than “Breitbart Lite.”

    • 0 avatar
      Duaney

      To have an honest debate about it, the EPA does more harm than good. Many people have lost their lives due to tiny, light weight automobiles. In addition, many people have lost their lives when rubber fuel lines have ruptured due to ethanol in the fuel, and the vehicle catches fire. No one at the EPA has ever even apologized.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        Citation needed.

        Also, the ethanol fuel (“renewable,” but the corn lobbyists knew what they meant) mandate came from Congress, not the EPA.

        • 0 avatar
          Duaney

          Congress gets the blame for the ethanol mandate. There should have been pure gasoline available for older vehicles so as to prevent the early fuel components from disintegrating and killing people. I run a wrecking yard and have seen the burned up vehicles and can show where the fuel lines burst and catch fire. See New York Times, May 26, 1981, “Highway Deaths Rise as Small Automobiles and Speeding Increase” Details increases of deaths in small cars. There are other articles covering this as well.

          • 0 avatar
            Fred

            Congress gets the blame at the bequest of corn growing agribusiness.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Card-carrying member of the Big Corn Ethanol Conspiracy(TM) here, whaddya wanna know?

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            Blame the states for the ethanol mandates that prevent people from buying E0 not the federal gov’t. The federal mandate is that a certain amount of ethanol is used, not that fuel has to be E10. It could all be used in Flex fuel vehicles if people would just buy E85 for the millions of FFVs that are already on the road.

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        I think our tiny little cars are killing people ‘cuz I’ve seen smashed cars in wrecking yards! Never mind that fatalities per mile driven has been declining!:

        https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

        Air pollution kills people as well. No one named Duaney has ever even apologized.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1637679/pdf/envhper00313-0112.pdf

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4037163/

        • 0 avatar
          Duaney

          Air pollution has killed people, but consider that our vehicle emissions today are a fraction of what they used to be. I would also wager that a 54 cafe average would kill more people from traffic deaths than all of the air pollution.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            Why wager when you can prove it? Or can’t you?

            And why are our individual vehicle emissions a fraction of what they used to be? More corporate magnanimity?

          • 0 avatar
            05lgt

            Someone explain to Duaney the difference between CAFE MPG and Monroney MPG. Once/if he gets that the fear level will drop and his ears may work again.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        “Many people have lost their lives due to tiny, light weight automobiles.”

        I’m sure that death by “sh!tbox” is WAY more common than death by lung cancer or COPD.

        “many people have lost their lives when rubber fuel lines have ruptured due to ethanol in the fuel”

        I’m sure more have been born due to failed “rubber” but hey, let’s not logic ever get in the way of a political debate!

        “No one at the EPA has ever even apologized.”

        ????

        Time to step away from the keyboard.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        How many people died due to pollution, lax safety laws, and industry putting profit over everything else? Our cars are safer because of regulation, period.

  • avatar
    Astigmatism

    “Pruitt’s nod is bad news for environmentalists, and good news for industry.”

    Well, sure, until there’s another oil shock, gas goes to $5.50 a gallon, and Japanese and European manufacturers all have fleets of 40mpg vehicles to sell us while American manufacturers are caught flat-footed after having over-invested in high-profit-margin 18mpg trucks for a domestic market that continues to be the only major economy not to build at least some small part of the macro costs of oil into the cost of gas.

    But that would _never_ happen, right?

    • 0 avatar
      djoelt1

      I came here to say this but you said it for me.

      So obvious this will happen, possibly within 5 years. Only a small percentage of humans are able to understand this and take pre-emptive action in the present. That small percentage of humans pretty much is the only source of innovation and advancement in society.

    • 0 avatar
      brandloyalty

      Can you say: “vast stranded assets”?

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al From 'Murica

      I’m not sure it will happen. Fracking seems to have sort of put a cap on what the OPEC nations can charge and sort of popped the bubble. Additionally the transplants have been a part of those same lobbying groups that seek to roll back CAFE.

  • avatar
    zipster

    These people define themselves by what they drive. They care little if anything about the environmental consequences. I only wish that my children did not have to deal with the world that they are creating with their ignorance The hysteria they feel about fuel-saving regulations will be equaled by their hysteria when they start to experience the more profound effects of climate change.

    • 0 avatar
      brandloyalty

      Consider that the election of Trump is one of the early signs of this madness.

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      “Climate change” is hysteria. It’s a political movement.

      “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated” – Ottmar Edenhofer 2010

      For those who may not know, Ottmar Edenhofer was the co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III. 2008-2015

      • 0 avatar
        Astigmatism

        I’m so glad that America has decided to throw knowledge overboard and just go all-in with the conspiracy-mongering now. It’s good to drop the facade of reasonableness.

        • 0 avatar
          EBFlex

          “I’m so glad that America has decided to throw knowledge overboard and just go all-in with the conspiracy-mongering now. It’s good to drop the facade of reasonableness.”

          If global warming is real, answer me two extremely simple and basic questions:

          1. What is the temperature supposed to be?

          2. What time frame, year, decade, was the climate “correct”?

          • 0 avatar
            Shane Rimmer

            I’ve seen this one pop up in several places recently, so I’m guessing it probably originated on some talk radio show. However, your two questions are nonsense. The problem isn’t that we aren’t at some perfect temperature that happened at some point in the past. The problem is that we are moving toward temperatures we simply don’t have a record for and there are likely to be serious consequences for that.

            It’s just a web comic, but notice the drastic difference in the world when it was 4 degrees (Celsius) cooler than it is now: http://xkcd.com/1732/

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @Thornmark – wow. Rather selective.

        ““One might legitimately argue that the fight
        against global warming is as morally imperative
        as abolishing child labour or slavery. One
        might argue — just as legitimately — that poverty
        and diseases in many parts of the world
        are more imminent problems that should be
        addressed first.”
        However, he adds, some perspectives cannot
        be tolerated. “Denying out-and-out that
        climate change is a problem to humanity, as
        some cynics do, is an unethical, unacceptable
        position.”
        Ottmar Edenhofer

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        Ottmar Edenhofer “is a German economist dealing with climate change policy, environmental and energy policy, and energy economics…Regarding climate change he says: ‘Denying out and out that climate change is a problem for humanity, as some cynics do, is an unethical, unacceptable position.\'”

        For those who may not know, thornmark, Ottmar Edenhofer was the co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III. 2008-2015

        So be careful how you quote. Edenhofer seems like a reasonable intellectual who has put a lot of thought into finding effective policies for addressing climate change, the consequences of them, and recognizing it as a complex issue. Whereas you just want a quick political bomb to chuck.

        This article was way more informative than your selective quotation:

        http://www.nature.com/news/ipcc-the-climate-chairman-1.13755

        • 0 avatar
          thornmark

          The gig is up for the Climate Change industry/political movement. Faked data torpedoed the alleged science part years ago.

          Not coincidentally, no prez from the Left – Clinton or Obama – has submitted any “climate” treaty they signed to the Senate. Kyoto was effectively rejected by the Senate BEFORE Clinton could submit it 95-0. So he withdrew it before he withdrew it. End game – it was never ratified. Canada withdrew from the same climate accord in 2011. Radical right wing Canada.

          No “climate” treaty has been ratified by the Senate. Obama just did another end run around the Senate by “ratifying” the Paris Accord by executive order/agreement. And the minions of the media, authors of fake news, say the new prez must abide – wrong. Before the election Trump stated he would not adhere to Obama’s action. Additionally the next Congress will block funding for it anyway.

          Let’s face it, if the Climate “science” could withstand scrutiny these Dem prezs would gladly have submitted the treaties for debate in the Senate. They did not and would not because they feared the debate’s outcome.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            Nice deflection, thornmark. Caught in a lie so you move on to something else. Political reality and scientific understanding are different issues. You seem to have some idea about political reality.

            But you are absolutely clueless when it comes to science.

  • avatar
    Land Ark

    This could mean bad things at my house, as my wife works for EPA. Fortunately for us, she’s in one of the few departments that those who really despise it might think should be kept around – emergency response.

    But, no matter how hard I try, not even the threat of her entire organization being riffed gets her motivated to find a civilian position on base somewhere in Japan like I would like.

  • avatar
    brandloyalty

    Sheesh. All these comments about more people dying in small flimsy cars. What happened to the b&b?

    Is there an epidemic in fatalities of pedestrians, cyclists or golf cart drivers? Is the death rate for heavy truck drivers going down?

    This site often carries well-attended articles on the rapid deployment of collision avoidance systems. A question for the bright folks: do cars need to be big and heavy if they never run into things?

    • 0 avatar
      Hydromatic

      I think it’s more about nostalgia for big cars and the affirmation that “size matters” and “might equals right.”

      There’s a certain rush and aura of invincibility about being a big, broad-shouldered giant in a sea of average-sized people.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      No avoidance technology is fool or failure proof so when things go bad your going to need that ruggedly overbuilt chassis to mitigate potentially fatal consequences.

      Otherwise its the so called “calculus of war” (so to speak) your rationalizing that an avoidance system can reduce the chance of being in a fatal or severe life changing crash to the point where a decidedly less safe structure can produce a significant increase in efficiency with the same or lower numbers of fatalities or life changing injuries.

      Frankly I’d rather have both a crash avoidance system and a sturdy structure.

      In my personal experience I’m glad at the time of an offset frontal collision I was in a much newer vehicle (2015 Mustang GT). A driver in a 2007 Civic crossed into my lane and hit the car on the driver’s side. I was sore as hell and ended up with some dislocated ribs and a dislocated vertebrae. I assume right up until the impact we were both going about the speed limit (35 mph). The other driver had to be cut out of the car and carried away in an ambulance. I was alert and pumped on adrenaline the other driver was somewhere out past Pluto chatting with Voyager 1.

      An avoidance system would probably have prevented that accident but all the same I liked the fact I essentially walked away from what could have been a much worse accident thanks to the beefy structure on my car.

  • avatar
    ajla

    The asthma of the next generation shall be my legacy.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    COUGH

    COUGH

    WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZEE

    Where did I put my puffer?

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Lou,
      Two weeks ago a massive super cell hit Melbourne.

      It killed 9 people by inducing asthma attacks.

      Ambo’s couldn’t keep up.

      All the hospitals ran out of puffers (or whatever they use). 1000s were affected by this storm.

      Apparently the storm carried massive amounts of pollen and dust.

  • avatar
    schmitt trigger

    Npaladin2000:

    To any of those who claim that the EPA has been a “failure”:
    most likely have never visited China, and for sure have NEVER experienced firsthand what a PM2.5 particulate count of over 200 microgram per cubic meter feels like on your respiratory system.

    • 0 avatar
      npaladin2000

      Oops, wrong, try again. I’ve probably seen more of the world than you.

      • 0 avatar
        zipster

        Then why aren’t you living in China if bad air does’t bother you?

        • 0 avatar
          npaladin2000

          Because I can make more money in New York, where the air is almost as bad, and the water is worse. Despite (or perhaps because of) the vaunted EPA.

          • 0 avatar
            raph

            Somehow I get the feeling your reply is a bit hyperbolic?

            I’ve never been to China but I’ve been to New York and New York isn’t that bad compared to my home state which I can remember as a young lad having much worse air quality compared to the last time I visited New York.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            Oops, wrong, try again npaladin. I’ll hazard a guess that you know even less than your thin 2-liners would suggest. Can you describe in any kind of detail how the EPA has worsened the air quality in New York City, with emphasis on how they have increased PM2.5, NOx, and ozone sources and concentrations? I mean, if your world travels have made you half as informed as you imply, this shouldn’t take much of your time.

          • 0 avatar
            npaladin2000

            Again, go take a look at the Hudson.

          • 0 avatar
            Astigmatism

            By “almost as bad,” of course, you mean “not even in the same discussion,” right? Because there is actual data on this, and, well, yeah.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-chinas-war-on-bad-air-government-decision-to-release-data-gives-fresh-hope/2014/02/02/5e50c872-8745-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html

          • 0 avatar
            epc

            npaladin2000:

            I have lived in, traveled to, or worked in Shanghai, Jiangsu, Beijing or Shenzhen since 2005. Your statement is without factual basis. In another word, it’s a lie.

            The air and water quality in the US, even in NYC, is better than anywhere in China, except in the western-most regions of China, because it’s upwind and upstream of the industrial regions.

            If you believe otherwise, then you probably also believe that Hillary is torturing children in a pizzeria in the DC.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            npaladin,
            Moving from thin 2-liners to even thinner 1-liners. You have absolutely no idea what you are writing about and the only one unaware of that is you.

          • 0 avatar
            npaladin2000

            I just don’t waste much time on the Environmental Perturbation Army and their organized marches on the comment sections of articles that are negative about the EPA. But sometimes it’s fun watching them squirm.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            And now the bravado comes out to save face. “Squirm”? No, that’s me shaking my head in disbelief that I’m interacting with an adult who is using the analytical techniques of a junior high student. It was apparent in your first comment that you are clueless on this issue and every subsequent one has just dug that hole deeper for you.

          • 0 avatar
            zipster

            AMC:

            You are so right, the air is really, really bad in New York (to borrow some of your idol’s use of adjectives). Why every time I go there I think I am in Beijing because of all the people wearing face masks.

      • 0 avatar
        schmitt trigger

        You don’t know who I am. How can you make that statement with a straight face?
        Probably you might have traveled more, probably you haven’t. The point is, you don’t know for sure.

        My son has lived in the NYC tri-state area for a long time. We visit him often, having actually returned a couple of weeks ago to meet our new granddaughter.
        I know the area well, and never has the air pollution been nowhere as bad as in the major Chinese Metroplexes.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al From 'Murica

      I’ll see your China and raise you Southeast Baghdad on the ruins of a bombed out nuclear reactor next to a brick factory that fired their kilns with crude oil. Between that and my earlier comment about pumping the contents of the porta-Jon into the river I see a need for the EPA.

      HOWEVER that doesn’t mean that they don’t make some decisions that the effects aren’t worth the costs or otherwise politically versus environmentally motivated decisions. Some of the decisions can be reeled in with minimal to no measurable impact. I don’t recall anyone on the Trump Transition team calling to dismantle the EPA.

    • 0 avatar
      NigelShiftright

      The EPA was almost universally supported when it confined its activities to stopping pollution that could actually be seen, smelled, or tasted.

  • avatar
    April S

    Fox meet henhouse…

  • avatar
    thornmark

    Hen meets Fox – Nitwit attacks new pick for EPA:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TkEH_T0X4Y

    It’s amazing how so many profit from nonprofits.

    • 0 avatar
      April S

      Fox news. Go figure.

      • 0 avatar
        thornmark

        Yup, Fox is the most trusted source of cable news. Remember, Fox became dominant because of the fake news of the existing channels.

        Watch your head explode:
        Fox News is the most trusted national news channel. And it’s not that close.
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/03/09/fox-news-is-the-most-trusted-national-news-channel-and-its-not-that-close/?utm_term=.3ce2b9a0a28e

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      “It’s amazing how so many profit from nonprofits.”

      Indeed.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/us/politics/donald-trump-foundation-charity.html?_r=0

      I’d be careful about levying the accusation of “nitwit” when exhibiting said behavior.

      • 0 avatar
        thornmark

        Clinton Foundation Slush Fund. Paid for Chelsea’s wedding – wikileaks. And her permanent campaign staff.

        Case closed.

        btw, they have nothing left to sell. So how soon ’til they close up shop?

      • 0 avatar
        thornmark

        >>I’d be careful about levying the accusation of “nitwit” when exhibiting said behavior.

        Being a nitwit is surely something you own. Altho that might be actually a compliment. If you watched the video it’s clear that “Erin” has no idea what she is bloviating about.

        As for college scams, no one tops the Clintons.

        Inside Bill Clinton’s nearly $18 million job as ‘honorary chancellor’ of a for-profit college
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-bill-clintons-nearly-18-million-job-as-honorary-chancellor-of-a-for-profit-college/2016/09/05/8496db42-655b-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html?utm_term=.93c9508a1c14

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          You’re essentially arguing that Trump is just as bad as the establishment Clintons. You sure that was the point you were trying to make? The cognitive dissonance within your skull must be deafening.

          I’m not a fan of the Clintons because they are political animals and carry the undesirable baggage that comes with that. But I’m less of a fan of that pathological liar Trump and the element of information-deficient fact-immune emotional reactionaries that has been motivated by him.

          Enjoy your echo chamber, thornmark. The ignorance it creates may comfort you in its simplicity, but everyone else can see right through it.

          • 0 avatar
            April S

            I borrowed this from another news site I follow.

            So far we have…

            Labor Sec who hates workers,
            Education Sec who hates public schools,
            EPA Director who has sued the EPA multiple times,
            HUD Director who is you know a black guy so he must know all about that “urban” stuff,
            A couple of ex-generals who like to bomb stuff,
            A wrestling chick in charge of something,
            An Ambassador to China who met the Chinese leader a couple of decades ago (and therefore is an expert on China policy),
            A UN Ambassador with no none nada foreign policy experience what’s-so-ever
            Three sycophant kids with security clearances (maybe, probably) …
            What can possibly go wrong?

          • 0 avatar
            npaladin2000

            Did you ever think that having someone critical of an agency is the best path towards finding and eliminating its problems? Or are you one of those people who think Washington is just fine and everything works hunky-dory there?

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            Apparently April has been listening to Nancy Grace a little too long.

          • 0 avatar
            April S

            Why yes, while AG of my state the oil industry would write up how they wanted a law and send it to his office and he would transfer it word for word onto the AG letterhead as their “opinion” and forward it to the legislature.

            Not to mention while Attorney General he has been an anti-LGBT bully.

            He is not a good person.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I do believe there needs to be changes made to how we manage environmental challenges.

    I also don’t agree with the use of CAFE. CAFE has offered protection to the US manufacturers, even the “foreign” manufacturers.

    I also know 54mpg is achievable, there are countries that are already achieving this. The simplest way to change mpg culture is to incrementally increase taxes on fuel.

    What this will do is allow for any engine in any platform. So, it would be feasible to have a 6.2 supercharged Colorado, if you can afford it.

    This will not occur in the US as this will leave the US manufacturers uncompetitive.

    As I’ve pointed out previously on TTAC, the US is only competitive manufacturing larger vehicles.

    My view on global warming is simple. Science is proving its occurring. Many now realise this. The problem is how do we manage this, this were it becomes political.

    The best possible solution is to adopt the ever growing Global Vehicle Harmonisation. This doesn’t mean EU. As here in Australia we have V8s and no additional taxes on engine size, etc. But yet our vehicles can be sold in most any country and we accept vehicles from the many nations we are aligned with.

    This will reduce how much the consumer forks out.

    As I”ve also stated the US will gradually loses its competitiveness even further under CAFE and the other regulatory controls and taxes.

    Why do I say this? Because how many here at TTAC complain about the costs of vehicles in the US? Here in Australia a Corolla, Pulsar, etc size vehicle cost around $20k in 1991 and still cost the same today and income has more than doubled.

    Australian ADRs (regs) has gradually transitioned to global standards over 30 years so we are now apart of 100s of million size market and not 20 million.

    As large as the US market is, its becoming a Jurrasic Park and shrinking proportionally. Even the Chinese are adopting global harmonisation.

    If the US starts changing now it will take at least 20 years minimum to be were the US’es competition is.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al From 'Murica

      Wouldn’t part of a global standard involve shifting to left hand drive as that is where most of the world’s drivers sit. Weight and complexity could be removed if vehicles were engineered to have the driver on one side.

      And many excellent selling small cars are built by US companies. My quick Google Fu showed that 4 of the top 10 best selling vehicles globally were from US makers in 2014. The Focus at number 2, the Cruise at number 10, the Fiesta at 7 and your favorite, the Ford F series at number 6. I’ll grant you that the F series primarily nets it sales in the US market (though it is still a ton of sales), but the others enjoy significant sales globally. The numbers may have changed a bit since 2014 but this shows US automakers to have the ability to be quite competitive in a global market. And yes, I am aware many of those are built outside the US, but these are US companies so…

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al From 'Murica

        Oh yeah, from the US Toyota website…MSRP for a Corolla, 18,500 bucks. I could step up to the Camry for 23 MSRP. They are likely closer given the money Toyota piles on the hood of the midsize offering. If these are the type cars you want I don’t know anyone complaining about cost.

  • avatar
    Paragon

    As someone who has been visiting this site for many years, was so very pleased to see the first posting read: MORE HELLCATS! seems like everything is OK in the world again! Oh, and, be sure to visit a CJDR store to check them out in person. While I can acknowledge I’ve been a car nut since I was a kid, and basically like all kinds of cars and other vehicles, I am first and foremost a MOPAR guy.

  • avatar
    doublechili

    Based on the tone of comments in this thread, is the new head of the EPA going to try to abolish the EPA? Because I guess there are only two options: continue exactly the way the Obama administration did; or abolish the EPA entirely. Changing some things to be more in keeping with the philosophy of the incoming administration is apparently not an option.

    • 0 avatar
      npaladin2000

      If you mean based on the tone of the comments of this thread the entire EPA and their supports have come out in an organized effort to discredit any anti-EPA news, like they do on pretty much every other anti-EPA news or thread item on the Internet in order to preserve their power and save their jobs, yes. The sooner people realize that states can manage their environments better than some think tank in Washington, the better off everyone will be. CARB has done better work for the environment than the EPA has. So has Riverkeeper, and a variety of other state and local agencies.

  • avatar
    DougD

    Yup, worked in China for a while, Beijing is not the same thing as industrial central China. Too bad we can’t post photos, got some lovely green and yellow smoke coming out of coal fired generating stations.

    I’ll take an imperfect EPA any day over what most of the rest of the world is offering. I would hope that some of you get what you’re wishing for, but your kids don’t deserve that.

    • 0 avatar
      Shane Rimmer

      Indeed, I went to a conference in China a few years back and my asthma suffering wife would have had to get back on the plane in Shanghai. I got to walk along a portion of the Great Wall when I was in Beijing and the smog was terrible.

    • 0 avatar
      don1967

      “your kids don’t deserve that”

      Do you really believe that anyone wants polluted air for their children?

      Consider the more plausible explanation that they simply don’t like ethanol, GDI, CVT, and other flawed technolgies being rammed down their throats by Church of Global Warming zealots. If Pruitt’s skepticism restores a little balance to the EPA it will be good for consumers and the environment in the long run.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        “Do you really believe that anyone wants polluted air for their children?”

        Apparently Donald “Abolish the EPA” Trump does. His desired policies would leave us without any mechanism for enforcing the country’s air and water laws.

        • 0 avatar
          don1967

          “Apparently Donald “Abolish the EPA” Trump does.”

          So distrust of the EPA = desire to poison children. Right.

          If this conclusion of yours seems silly that’s because it is. It’s a straw-man argument whose only purpose is to squelch debate, and in case you didn’t notice on November 8 people have had enough of that.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            I’m just going by what he says.

            He proposed abolishing the EPA without any replacement. The EPA is the mechanism through which the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act are enforced. The acts don’t provide any other method of enforcement.

            You’re assuming that he didn’t mean what he said. I’m assuming he meant exactly what he said.

          • 0 avatar
            don1967

            If you’re “just going by what he says” then please tell us exactly what Donald Trump said about poisoning children. That particular citation seems to be missing from my internet.

            You’re assuming that (a) without the EPA children will be poisoned, and (b) Donald Trump wants children to be poisoned. The first assumption is debatable, and the second is just plain idiotic.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      I don’t have kids and in 40 years or less me and everyone I know won’t exist anymore.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • SCE to AUX: I was shocked to see an SSR in the wild the other day. The Hummer EV will do better, but I wouldn’t...
  • SCE to AUX: Yeah, I’ll bet the engineers didn’t think of that. Have you seen the armor plate under the...
  • CaddyDaddy: Ya, but when Dalton got to Missouri and the Roadhouse, the Riv was the one to go with for the Dirty Work.
  • Corey Lewis: You do British condescension so well!
  • Old_WRX: If they don’t offer that interior in magenta crushed velour fabric it would be such a shame.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber