By on March 27, 2017

pumping fuel

California has green-lit light-vehicle pollution targets that the Trump administration has placed under review. As expected, the Golden State is going to continue playing hardball over Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

Already critical of the automotive industry for asking the president to reconsider federal guidelines through 2025, the California Air Resources Board hinted that it wouldn’t stray from the emission targets set by the Obama administration in 2012. On Friday, CARB finalized its state emissions rules while setting an updated ordinance on zero-emission vehicles. “We’re going to press on,” said Mary Nichols, head of the board, during last week’s press conference. 

The target for passenger-vehicle sales made up of fuel cell, battery, or hybridized powertrains in California is set at 15 percent by 2025 — a five-fold increase from today’s number. That’s ambitious but, according to experts, not out of the question for the Pacific Coast. Although, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers disagrees.

The goal will, however, put the entire state at odds with the president’s maxim of, “I am, to a large extent, an environmentalist. I believe in it. But it’s out of control.”

Trump told Automotive CEOs that they would get the leeway they needed to be successful by curbing unnecessary regulations in January. This was followed by an announcement that the EPA would undergo steep budget cuts as its new administrator, Scott Pruitt, placed the former emissions standards under review. CARB’s decision to stay the course flies in the face of everything the current administration is hoping to achieve. The board seems to have no misgivings over challenging the president or the industry that was seeking favor with him.

“What were you thinking when you threw yourselves on the mercy of the Trump administration to solve your problems?” Nichols asked during Friday’s meeting. “What did you mean when you said you don’t want to question the overall thrust of the standards? Why do another review if the current program is basically Okay?”

The head of Trump’s EPA transition team, Myron Ebell, explained to Bloomberg that the Transportation Department may decide that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration could regulate fuel economy and exclude the EPA and California from any decision-making.

Pruitt intends to review the state’s legal authority to enforce its own limits on emissions as well.

“We tried very hard not to provoke or defy the national government and we’ve had a good past with the EPA,” Nichols told Automotive News after the hearing. “I don’t expect there to be a war on California. I was obviously disappointed when I heard Pruitt commenting that he might reconsider the California waiver.”

Nine other states, including New York, have promised to adopt California’s targets. However, according to IHS Markit, zero-emission vehicles amounted to less than one percent of new car sales in those nine states throughout 2016.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

105 Comments on “California Maintains Obama-era Emissions Rules in Affront to Trump’s EPA...”


  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    This is going to get interesting.

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    That’s fine, let ’em do it. In 2025 California, it’ll be electric cars and donkey carts.

  • avatar

    Revoke the California waiver now.

  • avatar
    srd275

    Wonder if CA and CARB every heard of the Federal laws SUPERCEDE state law??

    I believe that was in Business Law 101. (but ask a real lawyer).

    CA will lose.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      (but ask a real lawyer)

      Well, Until the current administration starts doing that, I’m betting on California.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        Don’t bet your retirement fund, or any money you can’t afford to lose. When Alabam defied the federal government, a Republican, Eisenhower, sent federal troops in.

        Legally, the President can declare martial law and appoint a military governor of the state. Any department head or state official who defies a military order could be tried in a military court and if convicted be sent to a military prison. California agreed to that possibility when it joined the United States. Lincoln did just that during the civil war, even in areas where civilian courts were still operating.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        Real lawyer here.

        Right now, federal law specifically gives California the right to set emissions standards.

        Der Drumpfenfuehrer can’t change that by himself. Congress does have the power to change it, although doing so would rely on an assertion of federal power under the interstate commerce clause, something conservatives hate in other contexts. But the change would require 60 votes in the Senate under current rules, giving the Democrats the ability to filibuster (it’s not a budget item that can change through reconciliation). To push this change through, Senate Republicans would have to abolish the filibuster altogether. That requires the votes of 51 of the 53 Republicans (including Mike Pence), and there are at least a few of them who don’t want the filibuster to go away.

        Short answer: not likely to happen unless the Republicans win 60 seats in the Senate in the 2018 election.

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          Couldn’t anyone challenge the constitutionality of the law giving California an exemption to the constitution? It seems pretty fragile, and ending it would be a good first step towards restoring law and order in our land. If anyone did challenge the law, what would stop Trump from refusing to enforce it, like Obama with our immigration laws? That’s the funny thing about the lawlessness of the Obama regime and their mindless and principleless supporters. They all assumed that every election would be as phony as 2012’s going forward, and they would never be at the mercy of the government of people they replaced our nation of laws with. Now they are going to pay a Jonestown-sized idiot tax.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            On what basis would you challenge constitutionality?

            California is not granted “an exemption to the constitution.” It’s granted regulatory authority that would otherwise belong to the federal government. The car business is about as canonical an example of interstate commerce as you can get. The federal government clearly has the authority to regulate vehicle emissions under the interstate commerce clause. And there is nothing prohibiting the federal government from allowing California to set standards as part of the regulation it imposes.

            The constitution doesn’t mean “laws I don’t like are invalid.” It means what it says, as refined by hundreds of Supreme Court cases interpreting it over the years.

            The ball is not in Trump’s hands with respect to enforcement here. It’s in California’s hands. If he tried to prevent California from enforcing its own rules without a change in the statute, California would sue him and win.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            Just wait for the constitutional convention.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Are you aware of the tenth amendment? The enumerated powers of congress are expressly not the jurisdiction of the states. California is in direct violation of the US constitution when it interferes with interstate commerce, as designated to the US congress by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution. It is time to stop playing make believe to serve the needs of petty tyrants.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “Are you aware of the tenth amendment?”

            I’m sure someone who finished law school and passed board exams has more than just a passing familiarity with the constitution.

    • 0 avatar
      carguy

      @srd275: Conservatism is all about states rights. Even if it’s inconvenient.

    • 0 avatar
      Reuleaux

      Um no, states are free to restrict things further than federal law and they do so all the time. There’s no federal restriction to alcohol sales on Sunday but plenty of states and local municipalities have such restrictions.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        I sure hope this holds and the states that choose to not bury their heads in the sand prevail. I’d much rather have a uniform standard but if the feds choose to water it down then there will be two standards. Oh, well. I really don’t care so much about zero emission mandates as I do with overall emission reduction.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          ” I’d much rather have a uniform standard ”

          Before that, we had 49-state legal + CA-legal.

          And it worked OK. Just couldn’t sell 49-state legal cars in CA, new or used.

          • 0 avatar
            Splorg McGillicuddy

            It only “worked okay” if more pollution is okay.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            More pollution than California permits is more than okay. It’s necessary to sustain the lives of the people who currently live in California. Just look at what they have to import while they export jobs: Minor things like water and energy.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        The constitutional amendment ending prohibition specifically gave that authority to the states, so that’s a poor example.

        Even with that constitutional authority, states that lowered the drinking age to 18 were forced to return to age 21 by the federal government, not directly, but through federal payments to states. It was a case of ‘change the drinking age back to 21, or no more transportation funds, or sewer funds, or medicaid funds, or this, or that , or the other’, until the states caved.

        Even when states have the legal authority, it can be made meaningless, because of the Golden Rule: whoever has the gold makes the rules. In the case of national air pollution rules, the states don’t even have the Federal Constitution on their side, and defiance equals rebellion, giving the Commander In Chief a military option. It’s that serious.

  • avatar
    Felix Hoenikker

    CARB only needs to hold out till summer when the impeachment and treason trials begin.

    Resist!

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      /s?

    • 0 avatar

      ““We tried very hard not to provoke or defy the national government and we’ve had a good past with the EPA,” Nichols told reporters following the hearing. “I don’t expect there to be a war on California. I was obviously disappointed when I heard Pruitt commenting that he might reconsider the California waiver.””

      That waiver was an agreement with the USEPA that California would not implement its own standards (thereby creating a two-tier market headache for manufacturers) as long as CARB’s buddies at the EPA issued effectively the same standards that California was going to issue in the first place. It strikes me as being of a piece with the EPA making sweetheart legal settlements with environmental groups the EPA wanted to sue them so they could make those deals.

      Anyhow, California is complaining about an unelected board called CARB not getting to dictate how much Americans living in 49 other states have to pay for their cars.

      I’m a federalist and all for the people of California having their own standards but what works for or is needed in Los Angeles is not the same as what works or is needed in Peoria.

      I bet some of the same folks who want California to decide national air pollution standards also want California to secede to create their own blue Shangri La.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      As much as I dislike our President on a personality level, I don’t think he’s committed any impeachable acts. At least, certainly not impeachable by a GOP-majority Congress.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        I didn’t vote for Trump either but all this talk about impeachment is just wishing and hoping by losers since the ‘crats are not in control of anything, and can’t even control their own water thereby p!ss!ng all over themselves with talk of impeachment and a big win for their healthcare death-spiral.

        The Republicans have proven once again that they cannot govern either because of the infighting within the GOP and the self-destructive nature of the conservative members.

        The end result will be that We, The People, will be the big losers as long as either ‘crats and repugs are running our government.

        Neither party is going to help Trump.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        “I don’t think he’s committed any impeachable acts.”

        That depends on what the story is with Russian involvement in the 2016 election. If Trump collaborated with the Russians seeking to interfere in the election — something that is absolutely not established yet — then that was IMO an impeachable offense.

        The other thing that might get to the level of impeachment would be if the violations of the Emoluments Clause continue unabated.

        Other than those two things, I agree. And I agree with you that as long as Trump’s approval ratings stay sky-high among GOP leaners — no matter how terrible they get among everyone else — then the GOP congress won’t do anything. If Trump ever falls below 50% among Republicans, though, then watch out.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          I probably should have added a “yet.”

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          ” If Trump ever falls below 50% among Republicans,”

          Trump is at 36% with Republicans — the same 36% that were with him since the beginning.

        • 0 avatar
          TW5

          @dal

          There is no Trump-Russia affair. What’s happening is that people in our government realized Trump was getting intel from somewhere in the lead up to the campaign. They either felt the content was false or the revelations were designed to harm the United States, and for some reason the DC establishment convinced themselves Russia was behind it.

          The beltway is merely rifling through a rolodex of Trump associates, accusing them of working for the Russians, and then seeing if they flush anything out into the open. They want to know how Trump won and who was supporting him.

          They want to uncover whatever intel network Trump was using. It is apparently completely unknown to intel insiders like McCain and Graham, and they are petrified.

          • 0 avatar
            Erikstrawn

            The intelligence community was spying on Russia (like they’re supposed to do) and came across Trump campaign personnel engaging in negotiations with Russia. That’s illegal and impeachable. The question is how high in the campaign such activity went. The longer the administration tries to obfuscate and impede the investigation, the harder the intelligence community is going to screw them. They should know better than to get into a knife-in-the-back game with people who do it as a way of life.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            “engaging in negotiations with Russia. That’s illegal and impeachable.”

            You’re going to have to elaborate here a bit.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “personnel engaging in negotiations with Russia”

            Everyone talks to everyone. Everything I’ve read says that it is fairly common practice and it isn’t illegal.
            What is illegal is collusion with a foreign power. That aspect is still under investigation.
            Another aspect in this case is conflict of interest due to business holdings which can be part of the Emoluments clause.
            Even if Twitterpotus and his crew are cleared of illegal activity, it has already been shown that Russia interfered with the USA election by hacking political parties and their staff. They then released information that had an effect on the election.
            One does not need to hack the electoral voting devices to sway an election. It is a common ploy used by many countries including the USA to affect political change.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Russian interference in the election is illegal, but there’s nothing we can do about it, and it’s really pretty routine.

            Trump receiving intelligence from the Russians is despicable, but not illegal.

            What would be illegal (and IMO impeachable), but hasn’t been proven, is if the Trump campaign actively collaborated with the Russians, either by feeding them information or collaborating on strategy.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I wonder how Bernie feels about the conspiracy against him which was never investigated.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            A pretty big difference between interference by an actor in our political process and interference by a foreign country.

            Bernie wasn’t treated right, but the two situations are very different.

  • avatar
    carlisimo

    A lot of the administration’s advocates for a partial or full dismantling of the EPA want its duties to be handled at the state level. So why the complaints?

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      The complaints come when the “state” chooses something the Administration does not like.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      “A lot of the administration’s advocates for a partial or full dismantling of the EPA want its duties to be handled at the state level.”

      That’s exactly right! States should determine what works for them.

      A uniform standard is nice but there will always be one or two states who want tighter restrictions and even more mandates.

      It took a long time to get the current uniform standard which was helpful for the automakers’ compliance, but everyone in the auto industry recognized that eventually one or two states would want to break away, like CA and/or CO.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      Direct government control of products is a dubious pastime, especially in the case of CAFE. It has achieved very little, and the unintended consequences of CAFE have been far reaching and unexpected (like the SUV boom).

      Furthermore, allowing 50 different versions of state meddling in good manufacturing is a huge cost for the consumer. That’s what California is trying to do. Convince the automakers they will incur enormous costs making CA compliance vehicles and their customers will incur enormous costs for CA compliance vehicles, and they would be wiser to change their minds and support CAFE 2025.

      This isn’t states rights. This is the same old CARB strategy they’ve used forever. Threaten to shut companies out of CA, which costs more than whatever socialist boondoggle CA is foisting on the public. It’s political brinksmanship at its worst, and it may not work this time, considering the onerousness of the regulations and California’s dwindling economic and political clout.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        “Direct government control of products is a dubious pastime…”

        Well, then, it’s a good thing that you posted this on the Internet, which would not exist in its present state without the Department of Defense.

        • 0 avatar
          TW5

          The government already builds and controls most of our roads. They don’t need to control our vehicles either.

          Similarly, the government has long controlled various communications architectures. They don’t need to control the content.

          I’d expect you to understand this basic tenet as a member of the enlightened liberal left-wing.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Ad hominem attacks in the form of name-calling accomplish nothing, especially when they’re untrue. I’m more conservative than you might realize.

            I think “as well” would better suit your argument than “either.”

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        “It has achieved very little, and the unintended consequences of CAFE have been far reaching and unexpected (like the SUV boom).”

        “In total, SUV sales accounted for 25 percent of all European passenger vehicle sales in 2016 — up from 21 percent the previous year. That doesn’t quite equal the United States’ fervent addiction but, if the European Union keeps this pace, it’ll be less than a decade before it closes the gap.”

        On the subject of unintended consequences, my current 5.4 SuperCrew 4×4 gets 35% better mpg my than my 1990 regular cab 5.0 and has around 55% more horsepower. It is much safer and much cleaner to drive. Add to that the fact that if one runs it through an inflation calculator, isn’t much more expensive than my 1990 truck. If one just looks at reg cab 3/4 ton trucks, a 6.2 litre Ford costs the same and gets similar mpg but is vastly superior in every way.
        One can argue that if it wasn’t for regulations, they’d still be making the same thing. That can easily be refuted by looking at vehicles made globally in jurisdictions with lesser safety standards.
        Anyone who lived in the Los Angeles basin in the 60’s or 70’s would beg to differ. Even with reduced pollution, “Nationally, the deaths were estimated at 9,320 a year, which is comparable to the number of lives lost annually to drunken driving.”
        The authors of that report stated that they used “conservative” estimates. They did not include cancer deaths nor did they account for “pollution” illnesses that would exacerbate other primary health issues.

      • 0 avatar

        If California holds out, automakers can just implement a “California Tune” and electronically cut power for better emissions or fuel economy.

    • 0 avatar
      philipwitak

      states will never get sufficient funding from republican feds to provide similar levels of service at the state level. [same with all the ‘block-granting’ they are perpetually pushing] so when budgets get stressed and somethings gotta give, states governed by people who don’t give a shit environmentally, end up getting screwed.

  • avatar
    Rday

    i live in southern Ca and i think we need the stricter standards. While i support trump on most of his ideas, on amending the clean air act i think he is completely wrong.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      We could all drive Priuses if we wanted to. Few of us do. I’m assuming you do not. Forcing everyone to drive a Prius does not fix anything. It is quite literally the dumbest and most heavy-handed way to affect change, and that’s why liberals love it.

      Never underestimate the power of failing to change anything and then blaming someone else. Empires have been built on scapegoating and denial.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        Did anything in your comment directly address the original poster’s claims? Also, in this case it’s “effect”.

        • 0 avatar
          TW5

          Effect is a noun. Yes, my post addressed the original post, though I’m not in the mood to discuss policy alternatives. Only to iterate that CAFE is expensive, ineffective, and wholly inadequate when it comes to altering human behavior.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            You’re correct that affect is the verb, and effect the noun under most circumstances, but “effect” can also be used as a verb, meaning “to bring about,” most notably in the phrase “to effect change.”

            https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/affect-or-effect

            If someone’s not “in the mood” to discuss alternatives, just slamming the status quo ad nauseum doesn’t accomplish anything. And I say that in a broader context, not just in this comments section–I’m sick of hearing Grandma complain about how incompetent her church’s pastor is as an administrator if she’s not willing to think of or brave enough to implement any solutions.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “Only to iterate that CAFE is expensive, ineffective, and wholly inadequate when it comes to altering human behavior.”

            I would have to say that setting and enforcing enhanced mpg and emissions standards is done because “they” know all too well that it is incredibly difficult to alter human behavior.

            @TW5, What would be a superior way to alter negative human behavior when it comes to pollution and excess consumption of resources?

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            @Lou BC

            As a hypothetical, suppose Congress provided a $5,000 rebate for every vehicle that achieved a certain mpg threshold. If every vehicle qualified, the cost of the program would be roughly $100B, which is about 2.5% of the federal budget. The rebates would raise demand for new economy cars and raise margins for the manufacturers, who often complain that Americans see no value in fuel efficient vehicles. It would also offset the cost of hybrid technology.

            A rebate system would improve fuel efficiency overnight while rewarding manufacturers and consumers for purchasing fuel efficient vehicles. A majority of the externalized costs would be borne by the polluting industries. Rebate systems also allow regulators to dictate the point of final assembly.

            This arrangement also has problems. If the rebate applies to electric cars, the rebate would effectively be a subsidy to gas and goal producers. It still externalizes costs. Congress will find a way to screw it up eventually, and control the auto industry indirectly, and it still requires complicated mpg testing. However, it does not upend the entire automobile industry or install back door controls for automobile manufacturing.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @TW5 – that sounds interesting but then the direct cost is borne by the government. It would also depend upon the threshold for the rebate.
            Your proposal would cost 100 billion whereas the EPA 8.267 billion to run.
            The International Council on Clean Transportation found that the EPA’s recent estimates on the cost to meet current guidelines was overestimated by 32-40%.
            I personally don’t have a problem paying a few thousand extra to buy a cleaner vehicle that gets better mpg.

            I’m all for downsizing government but we can vote politicians out but we can’t vote corporations to operate in the public’s best interest. There is always the argument of not buying what doesn’t meet one’s needs or interests but if one company drops its standards to make a buck, competitors will do the same.
            One has to look at a place like Brazil as evidence. IIRC, All of the car companies there offer significantly less safe vehicles than what is available elsewhere. Companies state that all is fine because they are following the letter of the law.

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            @Lou BC

            Is 2.5% of federal revenue really too expensive to save the planet?

            If you want to know how little care is given to saving the planet (probably because it’s a fake cause), just look at how much money we spend. The US spends about $150B to perform medical experiments on seniors in their final year of life. That’s something our government and the healthcare lobbies really care about. And, no, it’s not a conspiracy. It’s a statistical fact that about 1/3 of Medicare goes to fund procedures that will fail to save lives, hence Obama’s obsession with death panels. Who knows how much money is spent on procedures that also fail to improve lives.

            Not to get off track, I’m just saying that mileage requirements in the US are a power grab that intentionally inconvenience the public in order to avoid federal spending. That is why CAFE causes huge swings in consumer sentiment. CAFE 1979 led to the SUV boom. CAFE 2016 is leading to a CUV boom. Who knows what CAFE 2025 will do, but regulators are already signaling it will fall short of expectations. I can add guess that CAFE 2025 will almost certainly kill the BoF offroad segment and probably family sedans. This outcome is not necessary to reduce total fuel consumption. It is merely the bidding of a government that desires to monitor the engineering departments at the major manufacturers.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @TW5 – people focus on government waste and bang for the buck. 100 billion in refunds is a waste when 8.267 billion covers environmental protection beyond just automobiles.

            why doesn’t the USA invest that 100 billion in research to stem pollution as well as alternative energy sources?

            Lets discuss your off topic straw man:

            “The US spends about $150B to perform medical experiments on seniors in their final year of life.’
            I’d like to see several citations covering medical “experimentation” upon the elderly.

            You propose we stop treating the elderly or anyone with a long term or chronic condition?

            or are you suggesting euthanasia?

            ” It’s a statistical fact that about 1/3 of Medicare goes to fund procedures that will fail to save lives”
            Not all medical procedures are intended to save lives. There is a quality of life issue as well.
            Chronic illness treatment doesn’t by definition “save” lives. it extends them but can be extremely costly.
            Palliative care does not save lives but has been proven to not only improve the quality of life but the duration of life.

            That does bring up the problem with the USA “for pay” system that still exists post-ObamaCare.

            Statistically, the USA system does well with low complication high volume “throughput” procedures. Orthopedic surgeries like hip and knee replacements tend to get done faster in the USA because it makes everyone in the system a lot of money. Hospital stays are on average 3-5 days with 3 being the norm. Complications tend to be in the 1-3% range.
            The USA system does poorly with the management of long term chronic illnesses like renal failure and hemodialysis. It is costly and intensive consuming a large number of resources.

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            1/3 of the budget is spent on procedures that fail. Bureaucrats are aware of the failure and the spending, and they’ve authorized it for nearly a generation. They are allowing doctors to engage in some of the most expensive and aggressive applications of treatment to allow them to see what happens. Sometimes they also perform irrelevant procedures, like hip replacements, knowing the terminally ill person will probably never benefit. They are using seniors and Medicare to develop treatments that otherwise wouldn’t exist. They don’t really care about the human costs incurred by the patients and their families.

            Obama was not obsessed with death panels for no reason. He understood the problem, and he had seen it first hand with his grandmother. Ultimately, I do not support oversight from a government panel ala single payer or nationalized care, but he was at least pointing to the problem, which is more than can be said of Republicans in the 111th.

            I appreciate the Pollyanna optimism that surely Medicare isn’t as bad as people say. Sorry, it’s one of the poorest performing public care and insurance systems in the OECD. It is intentionally mismanaged for the purposes of political power by catering to demanding citizens who want care, and demanding doctors who want big paychecks.

            Regarding auto subsidies, I’m merely proposing them as a hypothetical. I don’t care to discuss bang for buck because no bill has been proposed, and, obviously, every vehicle sold will not qualify. Regardless, the benefits to people and industry are obvious, particularly considering the market failures surrounding pollution and small cars.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @TW5 – a “for profit” health system encourages the use of “futile” procedures. If someone has the money either through insurance or cash in pocket, someone will perform a procedure. “The customer is always right.”
            In other cases, physicians are great salesmen. I’ve seen the line, ” You do want everything possible done, don’t you?” used too often even in non-profit health care. People do not understand what that entails. Many physicians chose that option since it is emotionally easier than explaining why a procedure or course of treatment is futile. It is an easy sell to almost anyone when that “someone” is standing peering down into the dark abyss.

            Ethics are seriously lacking.

      • 0 avatar
        jkross22

        I’m in California and CARB doesn’t force me to buy a Prius. I’m guessing you don’t live in the state. CARB did require more stringent standards on emissions as there were days when air quality was so bad that it was recommended that people stay inside.

        I can’t have “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” if the air is toxic.

  • avatar
    shaker

    Temporary relaxation of standards will only result in more pain later when even more stringent standards will be agreed upon to reverse the damage done by a shortsighted administration (party).

    Environmentalism can BE THE NEW AGE of job growth – NEW products, NEW technologies, NEW construction methods, NEW recycling/material sciences the list goes ON and ON.

    Roosevelt had the right idea with the WPA and CCC – make the infrastructure and environment the forefront of the new economy, but the Nazis had other ideas, so that experiment couldn’t be fully evaluated, as such growth and progress is slow, yet steady.

    Now, our second chance at self-improvement is being derailed by political parties that refuse to recognize the new economic realities mean that the old ways have to be abandoned – capitalism must evolve to meet the new reality, rather than trying to change reality back to a 20th century model.

    • 0 avatar
      OldManPants

      I’m with ya, Pizza, but feel compelled to mention that unrestrained population growth is the rock upon which all environmentalist initiative ultimately founders in a democracy.

      We need a big ass eraser and only serious greenies will consider that.

      • 0 avatar
        shaker

        We need a sane scientific initiative to throw aside all religious and cultural taboos about population control.

        Unfortunately for the U.S., to get buy-in, it would mean that we’d have to admit that we’re hogging the world’s resources ‘bigly’.

        Personally, I’d be willing to give up a little of my own wealth to see that done, but the rich would find a way to hoard regardless.

        • 0 avatar
          OldManPants

          We’re also bigly hogging the world’s supply of self-restraint, hygiene and intelligence.

          And we’re still at the mercy of our own fat chimpanzees. MAGA!

          • 0 avatar
            shaker

            May America Go Atavistic

          • 0 avatar
            OldManPants

            Ook!

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “May America Go Atavistic”

            Technology may be 21st century but our brain still functions at the primitive “fat chimpanzee” level.
            Unfortunately that big orange monolith in the WhiteHouse/Mar-A-Lago has those billionaire chimps wanting to club everything and anything back to the 18th century.

          • 0 avatar
            OldManPants

            Hey! That’s #MyPresident you’re talkin bout.

            BTW, good choice of a century. There was no confusion back then about who owned what and whom.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @OldManPants – “Hey! That’s #MyPresident you’re talkin bout.”

            I’m not sure how to answer that without setting off a sh!tstorm.

  • avatar
    FOG

    The Arrogant Left Coast is in a unique position that they don’t manufacture anything useful to the other 49 states. They consume cars they don’t manufacture them. If it was a realistic expectation, they would build their own plant and produce these vehicles themselves, taxing the hell out of any out-of=state manufacturers. They make demands of others without providing any resources to find the solution. caLifOrnia StatE of feaR.

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      This is true to an extent. CA voters have chosen a business hostile political class to run the state but then don’t understand why better paying jobs flee.

      CA does what big companies do to their vendors. The state demands more stringent emissions standards in cars and trucks and does so effectively because of the size “customer” it is. CA residents benefit from improved air quality.

      The same way you benefit from shopping at Target, Amazon, Wal-Mart, Trader Joe’s… Pretty much everywhere.

    • 0 avatar

      They make movies about how great Hollywood is. They make awards to show how great movies about how great Hollywood is are. They also make award ceremonies to celebrate awards to show how great movies about how great Hollywood is are. The also make wine.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      “They don’t manufacture anything useful to the other 49 states.” Well, there is software development, that’s kinda useful…

      Who am I kidding, software is useless.

    • 0 avatar
      philipwitak

      somebody’s thinking on this topic is apparently all fogged up.

      a vast majority of automobile manufacturers want california customers more than california wants crappy cars degrading our environment. so california insists on something better. california DEMANDS something better.

      if current manufacturers don’t desire access to our market, they don’t have to pursue it – in which case we probably would develop transporters of our own [ie tesla in palo alto] but the truth of the matter is that they do. automobile manufacturers WANT to be in this market – cuz they all want their crack at our money.

      seems to me that even with trump and his menagerie of menace in office, california still sits in the driver’s seat.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        philipwitak – agreed. If California was some poor backwater where no one wanted to live and/or had a low population density, they would not stand a hope in hell of pressuring for change.

  • avatar
    Daniel J

    I say let the states figure it out. If auto companies want to sell to that state or not, its up to them. For example, for the longest time high gravity beer couldn’t be sold in Alabama. Just a few years ago they passed a bill to allow it. Let the citizens and states decide what cars they want.

  • avatar
    Steve_S

    While I don’t thing CAFÉ rules should be relaxed having individual states mandating their own laws is going to be a huge headache for the industry. I think it could handle two tunes for cars but having 20 different sets of rules is not sustainable. Also pollution doesn’t stay in arbitrary state boundaries so if you have one state outputting huge amounts of pollution it will affect other states.

  • avatar
    bullnuke

    California is a beautiful state. I can say this having lived there for several years. I remember the smog of LA from years ago and have seen how the air has cleaned up somewhat from those times. Living in a coastal strip of land with a mountain range that impedes the coastal air flow exacerbates issues with air quality for a large population. I remember the expense connected with living there, a “California-Tax” if you will; high cost of living, high taxes and some crazy laws and regulations. I chose to move as the “California Tax” became more of a negative than the positive of beauty of the state. Many folks who live there enjoy the experience enough to ignore the “California Tax” as just the cost of the enjoyment of living there, and, good for them. Stricter CAFE/EPA rules should not be a problem, just another increase in the cost of the “California Tax”. I see folks living in a rather unique area such as California as being similar to folks living in New Orleans, LA. These folks choose to live in a city below sea level on a coast that is exposed to very active and energetic weather patterns that can and have negatively impacted their city. I could probably research several other unique areas of our country and find similar issues for areas where people choose to live, issues that the other large percentage of the country would never see. I do not think that my wallet should be opened through higher vehicle pricing or more restrictive purchasing choices to support the local issues of folks who choose to live in California and self-restrict themselves due to their relatively unique situation any more than I should pay for new dikes and levees for New Orleans. If you choose to live there, I’m good with that. Deal with the consequences of your choice and pay for it yourself whether it be higher prices, lesser choices, dike/levee repair, whatever. When CARB started enforcing restrictions in the early-’70s, California residents lost several choices of vehicles for purchase (such as the Corvette). They put up with it then and they can put up with it again as they choose to live in a beautiful state.

  • avatar
    jimmyy

    As a long time homeowner of a Newport Beach home, I understand the need for more restrictive emission standards in Los Angeles and Orange County. No question the smog levels need to be kept under control. The auto industry thinks it can shed tears that force SoCal to accept higher smog levels just so the auto industry can increase their profit margins. Bull. This is a real opportunity for Toyota hybrid vehicles. Heck, if Detroit is not smart enough to meet the more restrictive emission standards, tell them to stop selling their products in Ca. And, I am a strong Trump supporter and a huge Clinton hater.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Cars of today are already pretty clean and meet even the strictest CA emission standards.

      Those existing CA standards are already way more restrictive for most of the other states. Hence, the former 49-state legal + CA-legal standards.

      No reason why we can’t go back to a dual standard or even triple standard again for cars in the future, should Colorado decide they want their own clean-air standard because of all that marijuana-smoke pollution.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    “marijuana-smoke pollution”

    Citation required.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    A Colorado standard that emitted weed smoke could be a very popular vehicle in the other 49 states especially if they added a water catalyst to enhance the effect. This gives people a much higher opinion of pollution standards especially if they get high from the emissions. Colorado could advertise that they have the highest and greenest standards and give a new definition of the grass is always greener in Colorado.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Jeff S – that would be an interesting ‘green’ car. That was a recurring theme in Cheech and Chong movies.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      I just read a comment I found interesting, in Colorado the marijuana business is generating billions in revenue as a industry and those revenues will ultimately be invested in two major categories there: small business and real estate.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        28-Cars-Later – That makes sense. Legalization shifts the profits away from the black market underworld.
        Our government announced that marijuana should be legal by July 1st of next year. Talk about a Canada Day celebration ;)

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Just BC or all provinces?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @28-Cars-Later – federally, so yes, all provinces.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            That should be interesting.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @28-Cars-Later – Ironically, multiple Construction and Industrial Safety groups are concerned that the legislation will increase workplace fatalities and injuries. Even some labour unions are worried. I read that 40% of workplace fatalities are caused by alcohol or drug/substance impairment.
            Some lawyers are trying to sort out who to litigate in the event of marijuana related workplace injuries/death.Is it the worker’s problem or the employers?
            As we have seen in some of the articles on TTAC about driving and marijuana impairment, there is no clearly defined blood or tissue concentration that directly correlates to impairment like alcohol.
            It is a bold new experiment on a massive scale.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I’m surprised the Canadian gov’t didn’t opt for a trial area/period first, eh.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @Lou_BC–Yes Cheech and Chong. You could say that if Colorado enacted the newer green standards that I suggested then the current Federal Standards would be “up in smoke.” Couldn’t resist.

    Today’s vehicles are much cleaner and efficient than they were years ago and I would hope that future vehicles will even be cleaner and more efficient. I think the best approach would be to delay the new standards and not eliminate standards. Hybrid systems have improved and the batteries will become smaller, more affordable, and longer range. Even Ford is going to offer hybrid F-150s. It would be better if the developed nations could develop a Global standard that would make production of cleaner and more efficient vehicles less costly in the long run.

  • avatar
    NMGOM

    California is not compatible with these United States.
    It needs to secede from the Union, and maybe take Oregon and Washington with it.
    But they want to do that anyway:
    http://www.businessinsider.com/calexit-california-versus-texas-texit-2017-2
    http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/27/california-succession-movement-starts-gathering-petition-signatures.html

    And Oregon:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/oregon-secession/

    And Washington:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_(independence_movement)

    Problem Solved. Good riddance.
    Let’s get America back to being America again, and not a pseudo socialist Euro-style republic…

    ====================

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      This is silly, there are too many military assets in all of those states, not to mention Federal lands and other valuable real estate. The neutron bomb exists for a reason, why not call upon it?

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      If you lost the West Coast, you’d lose a good chunk of the economic growth powering the entire country.

      Although every day we have Trump is a day you get closer to that goal. It’s hard to overstate the universality of contempt for him here. In the city of Seattle, more than half of the registered Republicans who voted (including my wife) did not vote for him. They are about 18% of the voters here, and he got 7% of the vote. Meanwhile, a couple of reasonable local Republicans won statewide elections.

      • 0 avatar
        shaker

        “If you lost the West Coast, you’d lose a good chunk of the economic growth powering the entire country.”

        I’d bet that North Korea has had the same thought.

        I’m not moving there any time soon.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Well, there was a “secession movement” in Texas, and I’m sure a lot of the country would bid them good riddance as well.

      Now comes the part where someone argues that Texas is too vital to leave but California could go easily.

      And it’s all nonsense, no matter where it’s coming from.

    • 0 avatar
      philipwitak

      @nmgom – “California is not compatible with these United States.”

      that is for certain – the rest of you guys need to try harder and catch up. :: sarcasm ::

      c’mon, get with the program.

      you have to drink water just like californians do. let’s ensure that it’s clean. you have to breathe air, just like golden-staters do. let’s ensure that air remains fresh and healthy. you also need sustainable jobs with decent compensation – jobs that compliment and address legitimate environmental concerns – not jobs that compromise them.

      you guys want a sustainable future? green energy can help lead the way. lots of opportunity for hardworking americans willing to look forward rather than back. the environmental protection agency as originally devised simply provides some essential motivation for those naturally lacking it.

      and regarding succession, i have a feeling that states on the west coast would do quite well on their own – separate from ‘your’ united states. in all honesty, i cannot say the same thing about most of the others, many of which are actually dependent on california tax dollars to one degree or another for sustenance.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    It is ridiculous to talk about secession. This discussion should include California and an agreement should be reached to have uniform safety, emission, and efficiency standards that can be obtained in a reasonable amount of time without too great a cost. The automobile industry is already working on making more efficient and safer vehicles. It seems to me that auto engineers should be included with Federal and State agencies to determine a 50 state uniform standards which would benefit the automotive industry in that they would not have to comply with different standards for the states along with different Federal standards. There should be Global standards. A major issue is the manufacturers complying with different standards and designing and manufacturing Global vehicles to meet all those standards. The first step should be extending the 2025 deadline and then having meetings with the auto manufacturing industry and the governmental agencies both Federal and State. It costs the manufacturers more to meet the all the different standards than uniform standards–much more efficient an easier to budget for. Clean air is one factor but having obtainable standards that do not break the industry and the consumer. It doesn’t do any good to have unobtainable standards that cause customers to hold on to their vehicles longer because they cannot afford to buy newer vehicles.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Inside Looking Out: Considering German fascination with everything mechanical, e.g. using vacuum pipes instead of...
  • dusterdude: Looks ok, but I think price point is about $30K too high
  • Inside Looking Out: I wander. No, I wonder what Peter thinks about Farley risky racing?
  • Ryan: I liked the Countryman and then I drove two…. Sadly, after a bit of wheel time – I agree with you....
  • Inside Looking Out: What was article about again? I just wasted 5 minutes of my life. Donnie is bad Hunter is good, I...

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