By on April 27, 2017

pumping-gas fuel

A slew of automakers are scheduled for a Thursday meeting with the heads of the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Transportation to go over existing Obama-era efficiency rules. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt will both be on hand to discuss — and likely reassure — manufacturers on the future of the guidelines.

In March, President Donald Trump ordered an extensive review of U.S. light vehicle fuel-efficiency standards for the 2022-2025 time frame, despite the Obama administration locking them in well ahead of the midterm review’s April 2018 deadline. The decision was rushed to maintain the administration’s climate change policy and avoid any tampering from incoming Trump appointees. While there remains much to be done before the standing emission limits can be rolled back, wheels are now in motion. 

Spokespersons for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM), a trade group representing the interests of Volkswagen AG, General Motors, Ford Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp., Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Daimler AG and other major manufactures, declined to comment on the meeting. However, the most likely scenario includes regulatory heads and the Alliance’s board using the time to discuss exactly how much the current guidelines should change.

Those levels, negotiated with automakers in 2011, aimed to double average fleet-wide fuel efficiency to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. But the Trump administration has made itself out to be a friend of carmakers, with the president himself suggesting governmental regulations have gotten out of hand and risk harming the industry. There is no reason to think Trump appointees wouldn’t at least attempt to give the AAM some of what it asks for — a scenario to which some are vehemently opposed.

The California Air Resources Board has been publicly opposed to the review since day one and has promised to stick to the Obama-era rules, regardless of a rollback. California regulators and numerous consumer advocacy groups have echoed the Obama claim that the standing emission caps would save motorists $1.7 trillion in fuel costs, improve air quality, preserve natural resources, and stimulate the economy — leaving the auto industry footing a $200 billion bill for development costs. The AAM refutes these claims, and says the cost to the industry would be substantially higher than estimated.

Mitch Bainwol, chief executive of the AAM, claims his group is seeking a “rational, predictable, stable policy,” and not a rollback of the existing standards. However, it’s hard to imagine the AAM turning down a softening of the status quo were it to be offered. Ideally, automakers would like to come to a beneficial arrangement that California could support. The alternative would be a drawn-out, tortuous mess.

Several American jurisdictions plan to pursue whatever course of action California takes, and the Golden State says it is prepared to mount a legal defense against the federal government.

[Source: Automotive News]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

84 Comments on “As California Fumes, Automakers Head to Washington to Talk Emissions...”


  • avatar
    highdesertcat

    I hope there will be some massive changes and deletions made to the existing rules set forth by the previous administration.

    CA can set up its own rules. They did so in the past when cars were CA-legal and 49-state legal.

    There is a new administration in DC.

    • 0 avatar
      Fred

      At some point a more liberal administration will come in and redo the rules. Until all parites come together to work on a solution together, we will be in a hopeless flux of change and nothing will get done.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        Fred, That’s for sure! Nothing continues to get done in DC. And no one is going to help Trump drain that swamp because it is their jobs he would be eliminating.

        Politicians have a vested interest only in……themselves. Once they get elected, they don’t give a damn about the folks back home who elected them.

        That’s why Trump made such a populist impact across the political divide. But he needs to keep those promises he made. Else he is toast, starting in 2018 at the mid-term.

        The biggies are repeal&replace, and that’s shot — what we’ll end up getting is O’care Light; and tax reform — and that will never get 60 votes in the Senate, because of all the special interests.

        Trump’s policies will have an impact on the global auto industry, and other aspects of the US economy, but they will last only as long as his presidency.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        ….At some point a more liberal administration will come in and redo the rules. Until all parites come together to work on a solution together, we will be in a hopeless flux of change and nothing will get done….

        This is exactly what will happen. Trump, always critical of Obama for using executive orders, has been fully dependent on them. So they will be erased by the next president. Our government has to stop with the swinging back and forth and create some real change where both sides will have to make major compromises to pass lasting legislation. We have no balance and worse, no respect for other opinions.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          golden2husky, ” Our government has to stop with the swinging back and forth and create some real change where both sides will have to make major compromises to pass lasting legislation.”

          Short of an all-out existential world war, I don’t see any of that happening, the having “to make major compromises to pass lasting legislation.”

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @golden2husky – “We have no balance and worse, no respect for other opinions.”

          The current potus is a master of divisiveness. it may work keeping a reality TV show up in the ratings but is isn’t a very effective way to run a country or keep trusted allies.

          His core supporters will remain his core supporters. Truth be damned.

          The “Fairness Doctrine” should be re-instituted in mass media but this current regime won’t change that since it thrives on it and was born because of it’s absence.

          • 0 avatar
            chuckrs

            The so-called “Fairness Doctrine” opens the door to suppression of free speech by the government. Who else would be the referee if not the government or a board appointed by them? That is the biggest of no-nos – directly in conflict with the US Constitution’s 1st (and foremost) Amendment. “Shut up, the government explained” may work in the UK or Canada. It doesn’t work here. Given the weaponization of the Treasury and Justice Departments under the immediate previous administration, I am in no mood to support the abrogation of my 1st Amendment rights. Don’t like what someone is saying? Get your own soapbox. Or if you think its warranted, use libel and slander laws. You might read Jonathan Rauch’s old monograph – Kindly Inquisitors for some cogent thoughts on the subject.

          • 0 avatar
            Salzigtal

            @ chuckrs
            That’s not how the Fairness Doctrine worked. Under the FD, if Jay Leno invites gubernatorial candidate Arnold to visit the show, he then has to invite the 2 Garys (Busey & Coleman) and all the other candidates for subsequent visits. The government had no control over the nonsense or sense presented during the equal time.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            “His core supporters will remain his core supporters. Truth be damned.”

            Do you mean the deplorables? Hitlery saying that wasn’t divisive in the least. LOL

  • avatar
    FOG

    Yes, The other 49 states would like at least some say in how standards are set, instead of buckling to the Snowflake State.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      …interesting that some of the same folks who like to poo-poo on California when it exercises its “states rights” to not breathe dirty air will also say that Alabama has the right to tell two guys named Jim what they can and can’t do in bed, regardless of what the rest of the country thinks.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        Maybe those are the same people who object to the repeal of the ACA and have states-rights determine what will be offered where.

      • 0 avatar
        pmirp1

        FreedMike, Stay to topic

      • 0 avatar
        Master Baiter

        “…Alabama has the right to tell two guys named Jim what they can and can’t do in bed…”

        What two guys named Jim do in bed has nothing to do with interstate commerce.
        .
        .

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          It may have something to do with emissions.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          “What two guys named Jim do in bed has nothing to do with interstate commerce.”

          Correct, it has to do with the Fourteenth Amendment and how it relates to individual rights, which people selectively forget about when they assert their “states right” to enact whatever laws they want.

          Like I said, some people get their panties in a wad when states want to “go their own way” when that way doesn’t sit well with them. That’s true when it comes to a lot of issues, and pollution is just one of them.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          “What two guys named Jim do in bed has nothing to do with interstate commerce.”

          What if they are in a motor-home?

      • 0 avatar
        dwford

        You could argue that emissions regulations on automobiles affects interstate commerce since it would be impractical to let each state set it’s own auto emission standards and therefore the realm of the federal government.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          dw, I’m trying to stay on topic……. not go the route of seed-splattering emissions control in AL.

        • 0 avatar
          George B

          dwford, we’re talking about fuel economy average, not pollution control equipment. The practical implementation of separate fuel economy standards for cars sold in California and the CARB states would be different prices to encourage a different sales mix combined with offering fewer lower fuel economy models in CARB territory. Ford might only offer the 2.7L ecoboost/tall gearing option for the F-150 in CARB states while customer in non-CARB states could get the 5.0 V8 too. California customers might get more cash on the hood of the Fusion hybrid, but miss out on rebates for trucks.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          You could argue that each state has some leeway to enact its’ own environmental standards, based on the unique needs of that state.

          Look, I get why people who don’t live in California don’t get why they feel the need to impose stricter regulations. If you’re living in, say, Indianapolis, it might not make much sense to have tighter emissions regs for cars. Smog isn’t a thing in Indianapolis. But it sure is in California. And they have the right to protect themselves from it.

      • 0 avatar
        TheDoctorIsOut

        +1

    • 0 avatar
      Salzigtal

      The other states are free to purchase 49-state cars. They can also enact regulations stricter than the Feds and less strict than CA and purchase 1-state cars (subject to availability). Under the States Rights doctrine the other states can enact regulations less strict than the Feds. Good luck in the appellate courts.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    I’m comforted knowing that CARB’s efforts to reduce my automotive choices will lower the global temperature by 0.000000000001°C by the year 2200.
    .
    .

  • avatar
    pmirp1

    California can stay with old Obama rules. And they can buy all the bolts, volts, Leads/Leaves, Prius and Tesla they like.

    The rest of the country will buy Hellcats, F150s, Silverados, RAMs, Corvettes, Mustangs, AMG, RS, and M cars. Sorry California, if you like cool cars, you can always change your rules or stay with rest of country.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Amen. I was born in CA and loved the auto-culture growing up. Big V8s and all.

      But not the CA of today. Those who relish the new CA can have it. The rest of us will go our own way.

      • 0 avatar
        Master Baiter

        “Those who relish the new CA can have it.”

        I’m only here for the money.
        .
        .

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          I understand.

          Those who can, have cashed out and vacated CA, among them two of my brothers who moved to Ensenada, BC, Mexico, along with hundreds of other expat American doctors, dentists, lawyers, etc. who preceded them.

          Remember that guy McAfee of Anti-virus fame, who lived in South America? He was ahead of his time. Lots of people catching on these days and doing the same.

          Un-assing CA!

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      “The rest of the country will buy Hellcats, F150s, Silverados, RAMs, Corvettes…”

      Yeah, let’s widen the cultural divide even further.
      .
      .

    • 0 avatar
      SD 328I

      And California doesn’t buy all those things?

      Considering California is the biggest consumer of all things, including just about every model of every car, the automakers will just make 49 state and Cali state versions of those cars, just like in the past. They can’t afford not to sell to their biggest customer.

      Plus Trump won’t survive beyond 4 years, I highly doubt anything he does in emission regulations will surpass much beyond him.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        “I highly doubt anything he does in emission regulations will surpass much beyond him”

        Nothing he has done so far, Executive Orders, has a lasting impact beyond his term in office because it is not legislation that was enacted by Congress. Emission regulations are also easily changed by the next lefty tree-hugger in office.

        But at least Trump tries to do what he promised the people who elected him – with a phone and a pen. That, and he can get settled law by going to the SCOTUS to overturn obstructionist/activist judges legislating from the bench.

        So I say, good on him! I’m impressed. He’s done more in 98 days than most others have done in eight years.

        Better enjoy it while it lasts.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al From 'Murica

          Most of his executive orders have been orders undoing Obama’s executive orders

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Sure, and that’s a good thing! But it isn’t law and the next leftie-lib guy who gets into office will just issue more of these limp-wristed EOs like the last administration.

            I suppose we should be happy with a respite from the leftie-libs agenda for at least the next four years.

    • 0 avatar
      TheDoctorIsOut

      We still buy plenty of great cars and trucks, all those that you mention and more. Those who want to buy hybrids and electrics, more power to them (pun unintentional), nothing stopping me from driving my Mustang GT on the weekends.

    • 0 avatar
      brandloyalty

      A Prius is far more interesting than a pile of cast metal.

    • 0 avatar
      Salzigtal

      Give us a call when the automakers abandon the CA market. We’ll give you a ride in the Benz or Porsche that will be imported to fill the void.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    I think we may have found a few more targets for a MOAB.

  • avatar
    dwford

    We need to keep the pressure on to develop EV and hybrid tech, but I think the target needs to be stretched 5 more years. Sticking to the original targets will force the manufacturers to sell loss leader EVs to offset what people are really buying – trucks and crossovers. Postpone the target one more generation and that will give the automakers time to get the costs down and spread the tech to more models. The automakers already have a ton of alt-energy models in the pipeline and would probably still introduce them to the market, but by postponing the target the pressure to sell mass quantities would be off and they could sell what the market demands.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      “We need to keep the pressure on to develop EV and hybrid tech”

      I’m all for that. I’m all about choice. EVs and Hybrids SHOULD be available for anyone who can afford them and wants to buy one.

      But they should not be tax-payer subsidized.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        highdesertcat – name something that isn’t tax payer subsidized or has not been manipulated by government in some shape or form?

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          You, Lou_BC.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Well, true, he’s Canadian.

            But I’d say your “new tech is great as long as it’s not tax-subsidized” argument is a bit ironic, given that you’re making it with a personal computer and transmitting it over the Internet, and both technologies came to be via tax subsidization.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @highdesertcat – funny.
            Your answer indicates that you are well aware that there isn’t anything to speak of that hasn’t been touched by US government policy.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            FreedMike, I’m against taxpayer funded ventures because it eliminates any risk for those receiving the money.

            I’m against Big Oil being taxpayer subsidized. What in the Fvck does Big Oil need taxpayer funding for??? They’ve got a gazillion tax deductions to offset expenses and losses.

            Solyndra, anyone? There’s a winner for ya’.

            If there is money to be made, the entrepreneurs will find the way to make it work.

            That said, I’m all for Venture Capitalists reaching out and touching someone with cash. Among the best is Lori Greiner.

            The Internet was derived from ARPA/DARPA, something we used while I was on active duty, way back when.

            Computers? My first one was a SWTechnical products Altair, then a Sinclair, then an Apple, and finally a Kaypro 10 MS-DOS. And it was MS-DOS after that, and later Windows and iPad Air’s iOS10.3.1. None of them subsidized.

            Bill Gates wasn’t taxpayer subsidized when he wrote MS-DOS and GWBasic.

            Once the taxpayers’ money gets to DC, the politicians find all sorts of projects to waste that precious money on.

            Maybe Trump will be able to change things, at least for as long as he is in office.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Lou_BC, would you give me a short list of places in the Vancouver, BC, area I really need to visit?

            I’m laying out my trip planner/calendar for my extended stay in Vancouver, BC, at my sister and brother in law’s, starting end of June and lasting through the summer.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            highdesertcat – I’m a long ways from Vancouver. How about East Hastings?
            Kidding. That is skid row area.

            Vancouver Aquarium, Stanley Park, Capilano Suspension Bridge, False Creek, Gas Town, Grouse Mountain, and Science world are a few things just off the top of my head.

            I prefer going out into the middle of no-where and not seeing another soul for a week. That sort of stuff drives my wife batty.

          • 0 avatar
            brandloyalty

            “Lou_BC, would you give me a short list of places in the Vancouver, BC, area I really need to visit?”

            If you like driving, the Vancouver- Whistler – Pemberton – Lilloet – Hope – Vancouver loop is a classic. Or take the lifts up Whistler Mt. Or hike somewhere. Or drive your suv up the High Falls Creek road from the Squamish Valley. There’s so much non-urban stuff to do here it’s not funny.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            brandloyalty – I’m not in the lower mainland enough to know much beyond the typical touristy stuff.
            I do agree that you can’t go wrong with Sea to Sky, Duffy Lake road to Lillooet and then back down through the Fraser Canyon. You finish up that route by staying on the North side of the Fraser River on the Loughheed Highway.

          • 0 avatar
            Jagboi

            Vancouver and the lower mainland is a diverse place with lots to see. What sort of things interest you? Kind of pointless to suggest a botanical garden if you’re allergic to flowers for instance.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            So Canadians are in no way subsidized by the giant US economy to the South and they don’t save any money on defense thanks to NATO and having the US military right there should something happen?

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            HDC, yes, entrepreneurs “will make it work.” The only questions are: 1) when will they make it work, and 2) where will the entrepreneurs who make it work be located?

            If we want to MAGA, then we want them to make it work sooner, and we want them to make it work here. And it makes 110% sense to help them along. You can use direct investment or tax code in a variety of ways to do that.

            And if you want to look at this from a venture capitalist’s perspective, OK. Let’s say you have a billion dollars to invest in a startup producing some new technology. If that startup has been able to amortize its’ costs through direct or indirect government incentives, it’s a lot less likely to fail. Sounds like smart business to me.

            So…we can stand on “principle” and watch the Chinese provide direct and indirect government aid to develop all the new technology that makes their folks rich, or we can smart the hell up and do the same. Given the economic track record of the technologies invented with this model – including the personal computer and Internet I’m using to send this message to you, two technologies that have created Lord knows how many trillions of dollars in wealth for shareholders and workers in these industries – I know which option I choose. Whatever investment the taxpayer made in those technologies has been paid back, to put it mildly. For every Solyndra, I can show a Microsoft, or an Apple, (or a Tesla) that’s been a good deal for taxpayers.

            (And, yes, Exxon should have NOT been getting tax credits at the same time they were reporting record profits, but that’s just cronyism, and saying “no more government involvement in business ’cause Exxon” is cutting our nose off to spite our face.)

          • 0 avatar
            brandloyalty

            Big Al From ‘Murica:
            “So Canadians are in no way subsidized by the giant US economy to the South and they don’t save any money on defense thanks to NATO and having the US military right there should something happen?”

            Recall the Avro Arrow. A fighter far more advanced than anything the US had developed. Scrapped by pressure from the US in favor of the US Bomarc missile. So much for the Canadian fighter industry.

            Some time ago I worked at a car parts factory in Canada. AP Parts of Canada, a subsidiary of the US parent. The highest quality parts produced were shipped to the US market. During my short time there a whole new advanced production line was set up. When the bugs were worked out of it, the entire line was shipped to another AP Parts factory in the US. So much for our productivity.

            I mention this because it is extremely difficult to determine whether Canada is leeching off the US, or the opposite, or neither. In the absence of such a determination, your accusation about military spending is gratuitous negativity.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @HDC:
            “Computers? My first one was a SWTechnical products Altair, then a Sinclair, then an Apple, and finally a Kaypro 10 MS-DOS. And it was MS-DOS after that, and later Windows and iPad Air’s iOS10.3.1. None of them subsidized.”

            The first modern microprocessors – the key tech used in personal computers – were developed almost 100% for defense and the space program. The granddaddy of the IBM PC was the flight control computer in the Apollo spacecraft.

            There’s no getting around it – the Apple you started on depended on technology all directly or indirectly underwritten by the big bad gummint. Steve Jobs was a bright guy, but he wasn’t bright enough to invent hundreds of millions of dollars to develop his own microprocessors with. Other companies did that, and Jobs built on the technology. And those other companies were able to do it quickly, and minimize the risk to their bottom lines, by direct or indirect underwriting by the evil socialist government.

            Would all this have happened anyway? Sure, but it’d have taken companies a LOT longer to do it without the big bad gummint directly underwriting a lot of their R&D via the space and defense programs, and giving tax credits to the companies that bought the first PCs.

            I’d say the taxpayers’ money was wisely invested, wouldn’t you?

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Thanks, all you guys for the lists you provided.

            I have copied them to my iPad notes App AND sent a combined extract to my sister at HER house in Kent-Desmoines.

            Looking forward to the extended trip. Been there before but only for a few days. This time we’re going for the whole swine and staying for the summer, hopefully living high on the hog, hamming it up.

            I’m thinking about parking the Sequoia in Fallbrook, CA, at my grandson’s and using the 1973 Southwind Motor Home that once belonged to my dad to travel up along CA coastal route and on to Olalla, WA to hook up with my sister and her Canadian husband.

            Then parking the Southwind on my sister’s property in Olalla, and riding along in their motorhome to his residence in Vancouver, and beyond.

            He and his sister inherited a boat from their parents, so we’ll spend some time on the water as well.

            I’ll even go 50/50 on gas and expenses with them!

            We’ll be doing lots of driving throughout the area and they have a Cabin in the wilderness about 90 miles from their home in Vancouver. Probably spend a couple of days there as well.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            FreedMike, I understand the benefits that we civilians often derive from research done by and for the government. That’s what the ARPA and DARPA were all about. Some of that is still in use today, like in Cryptography and Signals Intelligence.

            I am against the funding of winners like Solyndra et al. Because they were bogus ventures from the git-go. How about A123? Or the bailout of GM and Chrysler. At least we don’t own Chrysler any longer.

            However, without sounding political, the new guy in DC has said that he welcomes, and will promote, public sector involvement and funding for the things he has in mind.

            You know, I don’t mind paying toll on a toll road, as long as it was not funded by the taxpayers. Taxpayers always take the loss!

            That precious taxpayer money is so often squandered by the politicians in the swamp.

            I’m impressed by this new guy Trump. He’s done a lot in a very short time. The biggie was Justice Gorsuch. And look for another rightie Law&Order Justice to be appointed when the next vacancy occurs. Some say, very soon……..

            It’s too bad that none of the EOs will last beyond his term(s) in office. I also like the fact we can use lead-ammunition on Federal lands again. ’cause that’s all I have is lead. No frangibles.

      • 0 avatar
        Salzigtal

        @ highdesertcat Every MIL-SPEC semicondutor we produced in Silicon Valley / Alley / Gulch between 1974 & 1986 subsidized our sales of the civilian versions of the exact same products. The difference, post-production bake-freeze-shake and the price. The un-tested (un-used) product sold for less. Sometimes we got paid again to take them out to TTR or NAWS-CL and blow em up real good.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          Salzigtal, the cost of MIL-SPEC products is what it is because of the extensive testing/shielding/protection requirements set forth in the contract.

          I do not consider that subsidizing since the economy of scale applies for semiconductors.

          Like in, the more you make, the more to choose from to test against the MIL-SPEC standard.

          The left overs can be sold for less-critical or less-stringent use.

          HP did a lot of that for the 2100 series of mini-computers used in the development of JSTARS electronics, even going as far as relabeling semi-conductors and processors with their own numbers to hide the true nature of the device.

          None of the HP numbers were listed in the Reference Book of Semiconductors. But they were standard chips tested to the required MIL-SPEC.

          • 0 avatar
            Salzigtal

            We (multiple clients) used the same part numbers either prefixed or suffixed with M- or -M. And laughed during Free Beer Friday that Shinola-Head & Co. were paying 2-digit multiples of the price that Acme Electronics paid for the exact same product. With some extra ink.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Those were times of obfuscation and sleight of hand.

            I remember getting identical Huntron Tracker 2000 readings on the same pins when testing AND-NAND or gate-chips for the HP2100.

            So one day I tried just a run of the mill, non MILSPEC identical chip on one of my test boards sockets and got the same test results running a FORTRAN comb-filter routine.

            My supervisor was not impressed at all until I ran a Pi routine that turned out identical by comparison in the comb-filter. He was impressed then, uttering some obscenities about Uncle Sam getting ripped off by HP.

            Come to think of it, Perkin-Elmer used a lot of “proprietary” chips that were just rebadged run-of-mill civilian chips, without the need of mission-critical MILSPEC testing.

            Ahhh, but all that is behind me these days. I retired from the military decades ago.

    • 0 avatar
      brandloyalty

      “by postponing the target the pressure to sell mass quantities would be off and they could sell what the market demands.”

      Wakey wakey. The market is shaped by marketing. $500+ worth of marketing per “car”. You think that on their own so many people would choose to waste their hard earned money on huge expensive wasteful clumsy goofy pickups? Or violent hidey-hole womb-mobiles?

      Nope, the marketing could just as easily condition people to spend that extra money on hybrids etc. Nothing mysterious or impossible about it. And in the bargain you get cheaper fuel, less reliance on unpleasant countries and more healthy air and environment.

  • avatar
    zip89123

    Screw California. They’ve killed everyone’s mpg with their formulated gasoline & poisoned our water with MTBE. It’s sad when my vehicle gets less mpg now than it did when new. Get rid of 10 million illegal aliens and the air will clean itself.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      “10 million illegal aliens”

      Have you ever seen those polluting old vehicles many of the illegals drive in CA?

      It’s all they can afford, I know, but why aren’t the CA cops enforcing the anti-pollution laws by taking those vehicles off the road?

      Get a Whitey behind the wheel of a car emitting blue or black smoke and the cops don’t waste any time in pulling that person over and writing a citation!

      Yeah, it happened to my nephew in Palos Verdes, CA.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Pollution is racist.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        “Yeah, it happened to my nephew in Palos Verdes, CA.”

        Not surprisingly it’s a business like any other except if CA was a store, they’d be out of business.

        My alcoholic handyman in CA was pulled over by a CHP, drunk as hell, with 12 bench-warrants totaling over $100,000, and was simply tossed from the drunk-tank the next morning, but handed a court date, no bail necessary! Free on his on recognizance!!!

        They knew he wasn’t going to show up for his court date and they don’t care. I’m sure they ran his credit and it was clear he’s a no account deadbeat/burnout.

        Yeah, what about public safety?? He was pulled over a year later, again drunk as hell (13 warrants), weaving of course, but instead the deputy pulled his Tahoe along side, yelled at him to get his stupid alcoholic A$$ off the road, to park his POS, then the deputy hit the gas and sped off!!!

        The handyman sat there for a few seconds, in total disbelief, then drove home taking side streets to his shack. But when driving around CA, I see beater cars with ’11, ’10, etc, expired tags all the time. Driving like A$$holes sometimes. Broken tail lights, burned out head lights no problem.

        But get this: CA state is completely looting ticket/DUI fines/revenue from police depts and sheriffs within CA, (they used to get a small percentage) leaving them with almost nothing from traffic enforcement cash, and no real reason to enforce traffic laws.

        For CHiPs it’s business as usual though!

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          OK, I’m gonna go with the hard-drinking handyman maybe making that second story about the deputy up around the fifth shot of tequila…

          But in seriousness, the problem you’re talking about really lies with an overworked, under-funded court system. But if the state went to the taxpayers and said, “hey, guys, we need more money for the courts,” what would the response be, particularly from conservatives? You might as well declare it as Torches-And-Pitchforks day in Sacramento.

          The famous quote is “we get the government we deserve.” And part of “deserve” inevitably is how much we’re willing to pay.

          • 0 avatar
            sayahh

            Would you pay more taxes in order to keep Paris Hilton in our overcrowded jail cells when she gets another DUI?

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            sayahh, only if she does another burger commercial showing more skin.

            The girl doesn’t need the money. Must be an ego thing.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          DenverMike, “For CHiPs it’s business as usual though!”

          My grandson’s wife, a CHiP, got her brand new Explorer recently, and it is one mean-looking Interceptor. A wealth of electronics inside.

          I got pictures. Can’t publish them though.

          One reason she transferred out of San Diego’s North County Sheriff’s Department is because CHiPs have more and better statewide opportunities, and the pay is better. Plus, it opens up the door for the FBI, US Marshals, DHS, Secret Service, etc.

          Funny thing, some of the same guys who worked Patrol when my #2 son was a CHiP are now her supervisor, Lieutenant and Captain.

          Amazing how that works! Small world.

      • 0 avatar
        Salzigtal

        Up here in Palo Alto, every time I smell un-burnt hydrocarbons, it’s never a bus-boy or gardener. They’re all driving Civics, Corollas, F-150s or Tacomas to blend in. The stink is always an ambulance chaser or dentist on a Harley or a stockbroker who just spent $1000 painting his ’57 Chevy yet can’t afford to retrofit a catalytic converter.

    • 0 avatar
      sayahh

      “Screw California. They’ve killed everyone’s mpg with their formulated gasoline & poisoned our water with MTBE.”

      I think MTBE was introduced to reduce knock and phase out lead. Does MTBE hurt mpg? (Asking, not being snarky.)

      “It’s sad when my vehicle gets less mpg now than it did when new.”

      Isn’t this due to the introduction of up to 10% of ethanol in order to phase out MTBE? (IIRC, aside from racing fuel, you cannot buy pure, ethanol-free gas in California.)

      “Get rid of 10 million illegal aliens and the air will clean itself.”

      Yes, because all 10 million go back to their own country and drive their cars there and the wall will block CO2 emissions. And 10 million Americans from other states definitely won’t move in to take their place. /sarcasm

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        “10 million Americans from other states definitely won’t move in to take their place”

        Given growth rates, no.

        • 0 avatar
          Fred

          I just moved back to CA from Texas. In the last 2 weeks I’ve met about 4 people who knew someone that moved to Texas. Today I saw a Jeep with Texas plates, so I’m not the only one. But yea the statitics for my area aren’t on the up swing.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Fred, when I was in Ensenada, BC,Mexico for the winter I met a lot of expats from CA who live there. fulltime. It’s like “little America” down there.

            Several of them told me that with the new guy in DC they are tempted to kick out their renters and move back to CA.

          • 0 avatar
            Fred

            In Texas I saw a lot of Tea Party flags, here I see Jefferson flags. Same old bs about succession in Texas when Obama was in charge is now going on here in California that Trump is. None of that matters because I’m getting my Elan going and I’m ready to drive these mountain roads. Twisty roads, something that is hard to find in Texas.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Did you mean secession? As in parting ways with the rest of the 49 states?

            IMO, CA and TX should secede.

            But that’s just me.

            NM, where I live, might as well be Old Mexico because the whole state is a sanctuary state, overrun with illegal aliens of all kinds and nationalities, not just south of the border.

            This in spite of the fact that we have the ONLY Latina Republican Governor in the nation!

      • 0 avatar
        Salzigtal

        A neighbor works for SNARL Lee Vining. Via isotope mapping they can identify the Chinese county of origin of coal particles from frogs trapped within Yosemite National Park. The wall over there is doing a really lousy job of stopping the pollution. Perhaps the Mexican one from the POTUS Asteriscus V Dynasty will be mucho mas yuge. /sarcasm (good idea)

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • multicam: To FerrariLaFerrariFace’s point, this is true, but so far the Wrangler has not followed this trend....
  • Art Vandelay: Agreed. Clearly the Chevy Blazer is the one to get here.
  • Art Vandelay: Yep
  • mcs: @Jeff S: Yeah, I’d probably go with Toyota for a new offroad vehicle if I needed one. Instead of new,...
  • blppt: I think that was Fred Thompson’s character, wasn’t it?

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