By on June 7, 2019

The automotive industry is in turmoil. There’s an industrywide push toward electrification that has yet to prove itself as truly profitable, volume seems to be tapering off in the developed world, and emissions regulations aimed at improving air quality are operating counter to existing consumer tastes. As a result, automakers are scrambling to find the best path forward.

In 2017, that path involved encouraging the new U.S. president to roll back Obama-era fuel economy mandates, thus providing some breathing room and staving off fines as automakers began to realize they wouldn’t be able to meet tightening targets. The administration listened, leading to a proposal that would effectively freeze mileage standards at about 37 miles per gallon — rather than the previously decided 54.5 mpg — by 2025.

However, California and a coalition of supportive states claim they won’t be going along for the ride. This group says it will maintain the old standards, regardless of what the White House says. The staredown has automakers worried; they’ve now banded together to issue a letter asking both sides to calm down and keep talking. 

According to The New York Times, a letter signed by 17 manufacturers requests that President Trump return to the negotiating table and attempt to find some common ground. California also received a copy on Thursday, with automotive firms suggesting that a midpoint between the old standards and the proposed rollback could be best option for peace.

The letter purportedly warns of industrial upheaval and economic instability stemming from an American market fractured by disparate fueling rules.”We strongly believe the best path to preserve good auto jobs and keep new vehicles affordable for more Americans is a final rule supported by all parties — including California,” the letter states.

Not every major automaker signed the document. While most of the big names are there, notably absent was Fiat Chrysler. As for the receptiveness of governmental groups, neither side appears to be particularly interested in working with the other. While negotiations took place in the past, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) previously claimed it was having trouble making any headway. The White House similarly said that California seemed unwilling to compromise and pulled out of negotiations, along with the Environmental Protection Agency and Transportation Department, in February. Their responses to the letter appears to be more of the same.

From The New York Times:

A White House spokesman, Judd Deere, in an email put the blame on California, saying the state “failed to put forward a productive alternative.”

[California Governor Gavin] Newsom said he is not interested in a “midway” deal requiring California to loosen its rules. “A rollback of auto emissions standards is bad for the climate and bad for the economy,” he wrote in an email. “I applaud the automakers for saying as much in their letter today to the President. We should keep working towards one national standard — one that doesn’t backtrack on the progress states like California have made.”

The letters are the latest twist in Mr. Trump’s effort to roll back regulations on auto manufacturing, an industry he has vowed to support. Some industry chief executives and lobbyists have been privately telling the White House for months that the president’s efforts may do more harm than good, but Thursday’s action represents a particularly strong pushback.

We’re skeptical about forecasting the economic impact of either course. Forcing elevated economy mandates on automakers that now seem incapable of reaching them will result in massive fines or money-losing, low-volume electrics plunked into a unready market. However, rolling back targets could discourage manufacturers from seeking out new technologies and innovations, while effectively forcing environmental groups sound their war horns. Yet it’s hard to feel bad for an industry that got itself into this mess by promoting the rollback, after claiming they could manage, it in the first place.

Automakers cling to the hope that California and the White House can still agree on one national standard, preferably one that splits the difference. That way, they’re not forced to cater to two domestic markets and can still enjoy some of the benefits of deregulation. That scenario doesn’t appear incredibly likely, as California is readying itself for battle. Xavier Becerra, the state’s attorney general, said recently that the region intends to sue over the automotive rules.

California’s fighting for its right to self-governance, something the most recent draft of the rollback would change — at least in regard to automobiles. But it’s also fighting for the right to set national automotive trends. Regardless of California’s intent, automakers would have to cater to it and its member states in a divided market.

The can of worms that concept would open is immense. Would California residents be able to cross state lines to purchase gas guzzlers? Would automakers have different lineups for different states? What happens if manufacturers fail to meet California’s guidelines? Couldn’t they just try to adhere to the more rigid economy laws they previously agreed to, regardless of whatever the government decides, and call it a day?

The White House previously called on the industry to choose a side. The EPA has basically said that the existing fuel economy targets are unsustainable (something the Golden State disagrees with) and the current administration says it can’t work with California. With all options seemingly exhausted, the federal government wants manufacturers to plant their flags somewhere so it can decide how to proceed. And yet the industry’s fence-riding hasn’t come to an end.

As litigation seems inevitable at this point, we’re not even sure why automakers bothered to issue the letter. Perhaps companies realized a long, drawn out legal battle inside the government was less appetizing than the difficult process of boosting fuel efficiency. Perhaps they just want to look impartial after setting this conflict’s wheels in motion. Regardless, it still seems too little, too late. Unless the White House simply drops the issue or California blinks under the pressure, this will only get uglier.

[Image: Nithid Memanee/Shutterstock]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

75 Comments on “Meet Us in the Middle: Automakers Plead for Peace, Compromise Between White House and California...”


  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    The Federal government is allowed to regulate interstate commerce, so it should be able to force CA to adhere to the national standards. If only we had Republican in the white house, maybe we could do something. /s

    • 0 avatar
      aajax

      Yes, all they have to do is repeal the Clean Air Act. I mean, who cares about clean air? It’s time we got all those asthmatics out of the gene pool, anyway.

      • 0 avatar
        MoparRocker74

        We already have clean air right now. To try to get it cleaner, you’ll have to burn through mountains of cash and/or cripple standards of living in exchange for infinitesimal results. Ever hear of diminishing returns? We’re well past that point already.

      • 0 avatar
        Master Baiter

        “Yes, all they have to do is repeal the Clean Air Act.”

        The Clean Air Act is a Federal law, so I’m glad we’re in agreement that CA should not make its own rules.

        • 0 avatar
          Lorenzo

          California was given two exemptions, for the San Francisco bay area and Los Angeles basin, due to unique atmospheric conditions. The state established an air resources board which has expanded its oversight far beyond the original exemption, and now sees itself as independent of federal authority. I’m a Californian, and as supportive of states’ rights as the next guy, but this is unbridled bureaucratic arrogance, and needs to be slapped down.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          “The Clean Air Act is a Federal law, so I’m glad we’re in agreement that CA should not make its own rules.”

          if you weren’t such a moron, you’d have known that the CAA gave states the authority to implement what they needed in order to meet the standards. Thus California needed more stringent standards because of its unique geography.

  • avatar
    aajax

    The European standard is 57 mpg (US) for 2021. If they can do that in Europe, they can do 54.5 by 2025 in the US. Of course, Americans would have to get more realistic about how much vehicle they need. But, hey, it’s only the planet we’re talking about here.

    • 0 avatar
      R Henry

      China and India are the real smog issues, not the Western world.

    • 0 avatar
      arj9084

      This standard will also lead to more deaths as tiny/slow cars get plowed over by pickups and trucks. But hey, it’s only lives we are talking about here, not some religious belief in global warming caused by American ICE engine emissions.

      Of course, as well, automakers aren’t at all self-interested in forcing Americans to choose between tiny engines with ludicrous monroney sticker estimates. Impossible.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        Environmentalism is just a marketing term for misanthropy.

        • 0 avatar
          philipwitak

          todd a – not even close.

          misanthropy: noun / hatred, dislike, or distrust of humankind.

          environmentalism: noun / efforts to protect the air, water, animals [which include most human beings /s], plants, and other natural resources from pollution or its effects.

          so, for the sake of accuracy, turn it around. it is the anti-environmentists that are actually a true source of the ‘misanthropy’ you reference.

      • 0 avatar
        210delray

        Religious belief? No the zealots are generally on the anti-science side, as the earth was so “sluggish” it had to be the center of the universe, with the entirety of the heavens revolving around our home.

    • 0 avatar
      MoparRocker74

      Europe? This ain’t Europe and what flys there doesn’t work here. European standards of living, tax rates and costs of living are all ludicrous. How many Americans are beating down the door to live in Europe vs Europeans wanting to immigrate here? No one wants a 50+ mpg car. What it would take to attain those figures would result in a bad joke that you couldn’t give away on a bet.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    All automakers need to do – IGNORE California. Ah, our cars cant’t be sold – no problem. Drive bicycles. And people will run away from CA, so the government can govern itself

    • 0 avatar
      Astigmatism

      Right. Who would want to sell cars to a mere 37% of the U.S. population (when you include the other CARB states) representing only 44% of the U.S. GDP? You can make all the money you need in Kentucky.

      • 0 avatar
        285exp

        Are those states going to ban the sales of the vehicles, or just fine the automakers for non-compliance?

        Just add the fine to the sticker price.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        What about the huge competitive advantage you would have for the remaining 56% of the market if you weren’t forcing them to subsidize compliance cars and rent seekers like Tesla? Suddenly your R&D costs plummet and the ones you have can be focused on meeting the desires of customers instead of marxist bureaucrats. It would be a bold path, but it would be better than shopping for rare earth metals, cobalt and lithium.

      • 0 avatar
        MoparRocker74

        MFG’s won’t miss a thing. Sales of what? Money losers that no one wants? Why do you think sedans are vanishing from offerings? Profit talks, virtue signaling walks. There’s no money in high mpg eco-blobs without sales of larger more powerful vehicles delivering the profits to subsidize them. This is all a shell game to thinly disguise the money grab by environmentalist zealots.

        MFGs need to start tallying up all of the regulatory costs on the monroney sticker and clearly label it for what it is. The nutjobs pushing this can then own it come Election Day.

    • 0 avatar
      mtunofun1

      Yassss! Less traffic!!

  • avatar
    210delray

    It’s not just California; there are a dozen or so other states siding with CA, amounting to something like a third of the US population. No automaker is going to walk away from so many sales opportunities.

  • avatar
    johnnyz

    CARB has been shown time and time again to be a moronic agency.

    I believe it was in the 90s they were trying to mandate technology that was not ready for prime time.

    Getting cars to achieve 54 MPG is going to be quite expensive. It reminds me of the middle class housing shortage we have in Minnesota. everything the government does makes housing more expensive yet all they do is complain that there’s not enough low-income housing.

    Government is the problem.

    • 0 avatar
      MoparRocker74

      Perpetuated by brainwashed sheep that continue to pontificate about what’s ‘best for us’ while fully ignorant of the fact that they’re working directly against their own prosperity and self interest.

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      You are serious?

      • 0 avatar
        ttacgreg

        You are serious?
        Would carmakers have pursued the present clean air technologies that we have if it were not for the government prodding them to do so? I can remember when there were no emissions controls on vehicles it was definitely not good.
        Seems to me the only time government is the problem is when certain politicians who believe that government is the problem happen to be the actuaries in government. Any successful nation needs and intelligent forward-looking efficient and fair-minded government.
        We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
        You know, a government like what this describes.

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          The constitution created limits on governmental powers to achieve those goals, which is why marxists spend their time discrediting the framers and the legitimacy of self-government in general.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            yeah, except those sainted Framers didn’t even let the ink dry on the Constitution before they started p*ssing all over it with the Alien and Sedition Acts.

            Clearly your history classes were nothing more than rah-rah garbage force fed to you by Boomers. And you have the nerve to accuse people who disagree with you of being “mindless.”

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Refute my annihilation of your global marxist mass migration command economy belief system before you bother spreading your mindless drivel on other subjects peon.

          • 0 avatar
            bd2

            You do know that the Founding Fathers were liberals/progressives of their time?

  • avatar
    deanst

    Just let California impose whatever taxes are necessary to restrict demand for “gas guzzlers”. Transparency is the best policy.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      Even better: repeal the income tax and replace it with a carbon tax. Then, repeal CAFE and let the market sort out what kind of car everyone should own.

      You tax things when you want less of. I want more income and less carbon emissions, because I like income and I agree with the global scientific consensus on climate. More money & less carbon is win-win.

      It’ll never happen because people fear change, and these are manor changes to how we do things in the US. But, repealing the income tax seems like a change even Republicans would get behind, even if they have to accept some environmentalism to get it done.

  • avatar
    tylanner

    If the public demands no-nonsense climate reform and they will get it….when facing yo-yoing regulations any design that doesn’t account for the most restrictive limits is in a perilous position.

    The automakers fear should be commensurate with the danger posed by irreversible climate change….they’ve been comfortable for decades and gotten rich off the most embarrassing example of profit driven technological stagnation in modern human history.

    Automakers should be put in a sealed garage they built, breathing the exhaust they engineered…made to beg Tesla for a few draws of their pure sweet, safe and sustainable air…or just make better, more responsible vehicles…

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      You do know that the auto industry was revolutionized shortly after ICE cars superseded BEV cars as being the most user-friendly and dependable in 1905, right? Should I be investing in stables for when the environmental harm of a BEV industry becomes undeniable?

      • 0 avatar
        philipwitak

        your do realize that many things have changed since 1905!

        technology has vastly improved.

        greenhouse gas levels in our atmosphere continue to worsen.

        climate change, unaddressed, will become increasingly problematic – even for all the freedom-loving libertarian trumpoholics among us.

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        @ToddAtlasF1:
        “You do know that the auto industry was revolutionized shortly after ICE cars superseded BEV cars as being the most user-friendly and dependable in 1905, right? Should I be investing in stables for when the environmental harm of a BEV industry becomes undeniable?”

        Your argument relies on conflating a golf cart with a Tesla.

        If you knew more about those early 1900s “Detroit Electric” cars and modern electric cars, you’d realize that the early electric cars they were basically golf carts in terms of performance, range, and carrying capacity — as we’re the ICE cars of the time, too. And also these early electric cars never really went away — they just look more moder. Once you understand that, then you’d realize that a Tesla is something else entirely.

        And, yet, you’re trying to conflate these things.

        ICE cars *are* superior to lead acid battery EVs, despite their environmental, geopolitical, and climate side-effects. ICE vehicles are bloody useful, and will live on as niche vehicles even after EVs become the default choice.

        However, modern EVs with modern batteries are better for a lot is use-cases — particularly the suburban/highway commute and grocery-getter use case that a lot of us endure. And, yes, they have fewer side effects and make The Big Problems that we face as a society (which you deny are problems) much easier to solve.

        If you’re still unclear about the difference between a golf cart and a Tesla, I suggest a trip to your local drag strip. Stock Teslas are competitive with whatever the local guys will bring — and certainly with any golf carts that happen to be there.

        This is because battery technology (and the business of manufacturing these things efficiently) have both advanced greatly over the past couple of decades.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Uh, this is California we’re talking about. They don’t give two craps about what anyone breathes. At least not now. They’re only worried about being broke, keeping their jobs, eating etc.

    The whole charade is a gigantic cash grab. The “fines” are so small, no more than a few hundred dollars for the average “gas hog”, that CA consumers would keep on buying what they normally do, and probably not see a noticeable price/MSRP increase. And that tax base is nothing to sneeze at.

    Yet the fines would be into the billions, for CA alone. Annually. And all for near zero investment, all profit.

  • avatar
    mtunofun1

    Proud of my governor, Gavin Newsom for standing up for states’ rights! Don’t tread on me!

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      States rights used to be a big GOP issue. But then the GOP has turned it’s back on a huge proportion of its pre-trump positions and principles.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        The GOP platform in a nutshell:

        1) Do as I say, not as I do
        2) What is ok for me is not for thee
        3) I’m not p*ssing on your head, it’s raining
        4) “Family Values” are of utmost importance, unless I’m throwing away wives like old newspapers or trolling for d*** at rest stops, then it’s just a “crisis of faith.”
        5) God conveniently hates the same people I do
        6) Children are important before they’re born, but after that? To hell with them.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Please, post DEMs platform as well. So we can compare

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            The Democrats’ platform is basically “we’re not those guys” and “we’re trying to be reasonable here” — and it’s working.

            That’s why the difference between the moderate middle and the Sanders wing of the Democratic party don’t matter.

            Personally, I’m economically conservative and socially liberal. I fit right into the moderate middle of the Democratic Party. Yes, there’s a healthy tension between those things and I spend a lot of time arguing with myself — but the Republicans are wrong about pretty much everything, and hypocritical about it to boot (most of them are working off of incomplete and biased information).

        • 0 avatar
          The_Guru

          What a flippin moron.

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            I’m willing to pay higher taxes for better government services.

            Twenty year old me thought taxes were theft. Forty year old me realizes that taxes are the price of living in a civilized place.

            I do expect to receive value in exchange for my tax dollars (though not necessarily for me personally). But, that is more complex conversation than most conservatives are willing to engage in — because they’d rather fight the premise than get into the details of what being civilized entails.

  • avatar
    JD-Shifty

    the same cretins who whine about clean air laws are the same ones who bemoan cities because of the smog.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      typical Boomers. Same people who whine about taxes then complain about how bad the roads are. Their parents’ generation had no problem paying taxes and working to build all of our infrastructure. Their Boomer descendants willingly let it all go to hell and did nothing but look for someone else to blame for their own failures.

  • avatar

    Where is promised high speed rail California? I voted for it in 2008 and still nothing happened.

    Regarding cars – just sell BEV and and plug-in hybrids only in California – problem solved. Take Fusion e.g. I know it is dead but e.g. There are pure ICE Fusions, hybrid Fusions, plugin hybrid Fusions and theoretically BEV Fusions. Do not sell pure ICE Fusion in CA – that’s it. In any case 90% of Fusions sold in CA are hybrid and plugin hybrid Fusions anyway so it is already almost no ICE Fusions are sold in CA. And good luck to find ICE Fusions in Bay Area – Ford dealerships simply do not stock them.

  • avatar
    Jerome10

    Solution? Don’t sell the cars that don’t meet CA standards in CA.

    When sane America gets its full menu of well engineered and desirable vehicles and California starts looking like Havana, Californians will either 1) demand their state allows them to buy the good stuff or 2) leave California, driving home the same point.

    And if automakers want to sell in California, then they can hit the california targets or not sell the cars.

    Let California slit their own throats as far as I’m concerned. Or let the federal government flex its supremacy clause muscle, as it has every right to in this case.

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      Just as I saw repeatedly in decades past, US carmakers will wail and moan about how impossible the standards are to meet and meanwhile Japanese and Europeans will do exactly that for our market without bitching.
      One thing I have come to expect , witnessing what’s going on since January 2017 is incompetence, ignorance, inconsistency, and ideology from the administration of our honorable and highly esteemed President .

  • avatar
    PentastarPride

    The auto industry has the lawyers. Why don’t they use them to attrition California’s mandates?

  • avatar
    PentastarPride

    The auto industry has the lawyers. Why don’t they use them to attrition California’s mandates?

    Siding with the White House, so to speak, is a win for automakers and consumers.

  • avatar
    stingray65

    Perhaps California might do something about all that sh*t that is literally accumulating around its major cities, or look into cures for typhus, tuberculosis, and measles that are spreading through the state. Maybe they should also consider spending some money on repairing dangerous roads and building some dams to collect water for the next drought. All of these measures would save many more lives and have much more impact on quality of life than moving from 37 to 54 mpg cars, but then again they would also require good governance, which has been missing in California since 1976.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      @stingray:

      When is Montana going to solve it’s meth issues.

      https://nbcmontana.com/news/local/meth-epidemic-overwhelms-montana

      and their oilfield issues:

      http://insideenergy.org/2015/01/28/in-north-dakota-oilfield-spill-problems-worsen/

      https://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/crime-booms-in-montana-dakota-oil-fields/article_e15bd0d2-8d40-11e1-915d-0019bb2963f4.html

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        The only reason California’s meth issues aren’t newsworthy is because California has so many bigger issues. I can pick out tweekers at twenty paces. I learned that in Bakersfield, Fresno, and Ocean Beach. Never been anywhere near Montana. It’s just hard to get too bent out of shape about meth when there’s a Hepatitis C outbreak from all the human feces in the street. I guess you’re comfortable with wallowing in it.

      • 0 avatar
        stingray65

        Is Montana trying to subvert the Constitution and force the entire country to follow the dictates of their Marxist state government?

        • 0 avatar
          mcs

          California isn’t either. California isn’t trying to force other states to do anything. They just want to set their own standard for emissions. I remember when the smog was bad there. They have legitimate reasons.

          If you want to talk about states subverting the constitution, there are a few trying to do just that now, but that’s a topic that has no place on a car blog.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            Although, I don’t think California really needs the higher standard. They’re making good progress with EV adoption and they could focus on that instead.

          • 0 avatar
            stingray65

            The smog problem is solved, so there is absolutely no need for California to have separate standards which increases vehicle costs for the entire nation because automakers end up making two versions or only the more expensive California version. As with with all government agencies, solving a problem doesn’t lead to CARB termination.

        • 0 avatar
          philipwitak

          no. not that i know of. but our constitution is currently being subverted by agent orange…

        • 0 avatar
          philipwitak

          “Is Montana trying to subvert the Constitution…?”
          not that i know of – that would be agent orange

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    There are a few absolutes in this world. Death, taxes, and California being a royal pain and an absolute embarrassment to the country. Here is how you solve the problem though and you start with California.

    Tax breaks for having children go away (they’re stupid anyway). You can have two children. Your third child will cost you $5,000 in taxes. 4th child will cost you $10,000. 5th child will cost you $20,000. So having 5 kids will require you to pay an additional $35,000 in taxes yearly split 50/50 between the feds and state.

    Population will drop which is the ultimate goal and a necessity. That’s the root of all our problems…too many people (that turn into libs)

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Maybe the current Administration should let California have their own regulations and any manufacturer that wants to sell in California should decide if it is worth it to them to comply with California regulations in order to sell there. The Federal Government does have the power of withholding certain funding from states (ie highway funding) if they are not compliant with Federal rules. Withholding highway funds and some other funding would at least give California an interest in negotiating these standards.

    Denying climate change and the existence of greenhouse gasses is just as extreme as outlawing all fossil fuel and demanding all power sources from just solar and wind. These extreme positions will not solve anything nor will it lead to any solutions. The first step should be to put a hold on any deadlines–not suspending these mandates but extending the deadline. After the deadline has been extended then bring all parties to the negotiation table and include representation from the auto industries, their own engineers who can give some practical input into the process.

    One of the major issues for the auto industry is meeting different standards not only in the US but globally. This makes it harder and more expensive for the auto industry to comply and the cost is passed onto the consumer. Agreeing on global standards of efficiency, emissions, and safety among the developed country would be a win win for the industry, consumer, and for governments. Industry, Government, and environmental groups all need to be part of this process and all should set time tables for implementing agreed upon standards.

    Automobile manufacturers should be given additional options that count toward compliance. Not only purchasing credits but alternatives like allowing them to buy older ICE vehicles and destroying them and using alternate sources of energy and zero waste at their plants. Assign a value to these and have them count toward credits earned.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      Nobody is denying that the climate is changing.

      What’s being denied is the absolute hysterics around it and the blame being put on humans. Specifically humans that live in the United Stated.

      The climate has always changed and every dire climate prediction made by “scientists” for the past 50 years has been grossly wrong.

      • 0 avatar
        philipwitak

        your comment is the most moronic, disingenuously false utterance of the day.

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          Are you suggesting that the world did end in 1980, as Paul Ehrlich ‘predicted’ when he invented the 12 year apocalypse cult that has since conscripted you? Moronic is high praise coming from an AGW believer.

          • 0 avatar
            philipwitak

            todd – efflux asserted, erroroniously, that “…and EVERY dire climate prediction made by “scientists” for the past 50 years has been grossly wrong.” you have sighted a single example, of which i am certain there are others as well.

            where are ALL of the others?

            suggest everyone interested in the truth of the matter stay away from any hyperbole on either side of an exceedingly emotional argument and stick with the facts and overwhelmingly accepted scientific forecasts found here: https://www.noaa.gov/

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Well the Earth itself will survive climate change but our species might not. I think there is a happy medium between not believing humans contribute to climate change and pollution and those who believe that we should regulate climate change and pollution out of existence. There are ways of addressing climate change and pollution without taking extreme positions.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      Climate change is nothing vs pollution. Fukushima plant… “Seven years on, radioactive water at Fukushima plant still flowing into ocean…” And we’re talking tons of water. In case you missed it, Fukushima = GE, 0-tax – remember?

      There are 7 France-sized islands of plastic floating in the oceans. In US, constant use of chemicals on soil practically leaves us without CLEAN drinking water.

      • 0 avatar
        philipwitak

        “Climate change is nothing vs pollution.” nothing YET, perhaps. but refusing to modify our collective ‘bad habits’ may change even your assessment of our situation.

        ‘there is no joy in mudville’

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          Find a new lie to lay down your life for.

          https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

          I don’t know how the sheep can still fall for AGW. It’s so 1989. It’s one thing to be smart because you remember that AGW was what the apocalypse cult came up with after their ‘new ice age’ narrative couldn’t stand into the ’80s, but we’ve now had thirty years of a false crisis for even imbeciles to come to their senses. The only explanation at this point is that believers who aren’t being compensated by avaricious plutocrats are comprehensively brainwashed. #walkaway

  • avatar
    PandaBear

    I like the way things are right now: CARB states do their own things so they can have less pollution as they want, and non-CARB states can roll coal if they want.

    Are you saying you want the non-CARB states to sell CARB vehicles because they want one standard? or are you saying that you want CARB states to ban certain kind of vehicles so they don’t have enough volumes to be made, and you never get to buy them?

    Just let it be, if you have seen how bad the air can be without emission control (i.e. smog that brown up the air on spare the air day), you would want some sort of regulation too.

    One standard in the middle doesn’t do much good. I don’t care if mid-west wants to roll coal in their own backyard, and I am sure they don’t care if CARB wants to have some more expensive vehicles that they don’t force you to buy anyways.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • bd2: You do know that the Founding Fathers were liberals/progressives of their time?
  • Featherston: @ Scoutdude – Granted, they all share DNA, but the Maverick and Granada were, to my mind, more of...
  • bd2: The conditions were set by the govt. (the continual de-regulation of the financial sector led by Phil Gramm),...
  • bd2: There’s actually a factual basis for the former and not the latter.
  • bd2: Best looking BMW car in a long while, but still, could have been better (too many details are a bit off). That...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

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

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