By on July 9, 2019

On Tuesday, 23 governors signed a joint statement urging the Trump administration to reconsider the proposed rollback of Obama-era fueling regulations. Led, unsurprisingly, by California Governor Gavin Newsom, the letter suggests a “common-sense approach” to national requirements with an emphasis on rising standards.

A minor update in the gas war to be certain — and yet annoyingly framed by a large portion of the media as a victory for California when the realities are far more complicated. To be frank, we’re getting pretty tired of these lopsided takes. This whole thing is a regulatory and political quagmire… on all sides. 

“Strong vehicle standards protect our communities from unnecessary air pollution and fuel costs, and they address the largest source of carbon pollution in the United States,” states the letter. “We must unite to ensure a strong, science-based national standard, in California and across the country, that increases year over year.”

If anything, the collaborative memo further showcases the fractured nature of the issue. Last time we checked, there are 50 United States of America, not 23. But that hasn’t stopped the California Air Resources Board (CARB) from suggesting the nation is on its side or co-opting automaker claims that a split market would be bad for business.

CARB chairman Mary Nichols recently said it doesn’t make sense for the auto industry to build two sets of vehicles for Americans. “We have the largest group of states ever coming together to back our position,” she told The New York Times in an interview. “The fact that we now have over half the U.S. auto market supporting us indicates that we are going to stick with the standards.”

California wants to set its own emission rules, possibly going further than the preexisting standards that the (current) EPA claims may be economically untenable. But the board’s assertion that it cannot work with the Trump administration, or vice versa, effectively encourages the split-market outcome and nullifies any claims that it is supported by most OEMs.

Here’s what actually happened: Automakers lobbied aggressively for the rollback and were greeted by an administration that was highly interested in deregulation in 2017. A proposal was developed and California, keen to maintain its own, more-ambitious emission standards, fired back by saying it wouldn’t agree to the suggested rollback and would happily go to court. Both sides have been at odds ever since, with neither willing to make any legitimate concessions.

Since then, we’ve witnessed numerous news outlets claim that automakers are more-or-less backing California in the gas war. This is an egregious oversimplification at best. While practically all manufacturers have publicly pledged their support for a singular national standard, they’re requesting compromise — a midway point between Trump’s temporary freeze (between 2020 to 2026) and the Obama-era standards that require annual decreases of about 5 percent. They’re also asking that both sides of the debate return to the table for discussions to achieve a universal standard without litigation.

Who is in the right? Well, that’s largely a matter of opinion (isn’t it always). California believes it should have the right to self-regulate (while encouraging other states to follow its lead) and is convinced that the rollback will be disastrous for the economy and environment — emitting an estimated extra 321 million to 931 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by 2035. The Trump administration is similarly fearful that without the lessened fuel rules the economy could take a hit, leaving average U.S. consumers saddled with expensive green cars they already aren’t interested in buying and haven’t managed to improve practical, sales-weighted fuel economies much over the last four years. It’s also claiming that promoting strict emission requirements would encourage companies to build smaller, less-profitable vehicles that would be unsafe safe vs present-day automobiles (debatable).

Meanwhile, automakers just want to make money, avoid fines and please shareholders without a lot of hubbub. They’re happy to risk getting caught off guard by a sudden spike in fuel prices if it means they can keep building larger, high-margin cars in the interim. They’ll also keep working on electric vehicles either way, and likely have to in order to appease the global market.

Here’s the dumbest part, though. Everyone is losing their minds over this issue and the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration haven’t even established a final set of rules… which makes the no-compromise problem even more baffling. However, they’re rumored to have a final draft in the works and it’s expected to be sent to the White House for review in a month or so. Let’s hope everyone’s reporting can remain factually measured in the meantime.

 

[Image: CC7/Shutterstock]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

83 Comments on “Mild Misinformation About the Gas War: Governors Unite, Automakers Compromise...”


  • avatar
    highdesertcat

    Only 13% of the global pollution originates in America, yet the greenweenies demand that America carry 100% of the burden and blame.

    Naw, this was a HUGE victory for CA and the greenweenies. Anything they can do to obstruct President Trump’s agenda without regard to how much good he has done and continues to do for America and American citizens.

    • 0 avatar
      cammark

      And, according to the data on the EPA’s website 29% of US emissions are transportation related. Only about half of that is attributed to light-duty vehicles. So assuming your 13% is legit, 14.5% of that is 1.9%. Skimming info on the CARB website, they target another 20% reduction in the next 5 years.

      So if all goes the way California is planning, we should expect a .38% reduction in global carbon emissions by 2025. great.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        It’s legit; I heard it on Bloomberg this morning in a discussion during an interview. A lot of other numbers were quoted. I just remember the 13%.

        And that’s because I do not believe that America is the worst polluter on the planet and my interest in the greenweenie agenda amounts to less than zero.

    • 0 avatar
      James Charles

      HDC
      What tripe!

      Who are those blaming ‘murica alone.

      Man, you really live on another planet.

      Plus, using your figures, 13% of global pollution is US generated and the US is only 4% of the world’s population.

      • 0 avatar
        Steve Biro

        Yes, but how much of the global economy is represented by the U.S.?

        • 0 avatar
          James Charles

          20%

          But for the US to get there generated massive pollution.

          Now how can we in the West who created most of the global pollution over the past several hundred years tell others to use our standards?

          We have the means, they don’t. So, HDC is talking nonsense with little thought.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Wait, so they get to spew pollution for 100 years because they are just now getting in the game? I keep hearing that this issue is no less than “the date of the planet”. So sorry, if that’s the case then yes, you don’t get to play the “developing nation” card. It’s 2019. Nobody gets to pretend it’s 1917, especially the gross polluters like China.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Fate of the planet…not date

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Ignoring the numbers for a moment, I need to remind everyone that the US being a mere 20% of the problem isn’t exactly a good thing. The US is less than 20% of the global population, after all.

            The problem, however, IS global and the US, until our current administration, was attempting to lead the world into recovery rather than trying to point fingers and lay blame on everyone else. Even 50 years ago, Europeans realized there was a problem when their ancient edifices, especially the imposing cathedrals of France and Germany (the only ones I got to see) were practically black with soot and the granite stone (or whichever stone was used on the various cathedrals) were pockmarked like an acne-ravaged face due to acid rain. When built, those cathedrals were as close to pure white has they could find, so seeing them black made it clear something had to be done and Europe started doing it. The US had made the same conclusions about the same time. BUT…

            The problem isn’t just the industrial nations. Oh, sure, they’ve done a massive amount of damage but they’re not alone. South America isn’t exactly innocent you know–Brazil especially. Taking down those thousands of square miles of old-growth forest hasn’t exactly done any good.

            It’s up to us first-world countries to set the example and the second-world countries to learn by that example. The rest will garner the benefits of our knowledge and technologies to avoid the mistakes we have made.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            Of course Vulpine, the United States already leads all other countries in reducing carbon emissions, so we should set unrealistic goals and spend billions of dollars futilely trying to meet them while China and India continue to increase their emissions, because our shining example will surely get them to see the error of their ways and they will also handicap their own economies out of sheer embarrassment.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @285exp:

            Maybe you should look at those Chinese goals. Already their renewable energy sources alone could completely replace Canada’s energy supplies of all forms. China has the fastest-growing renewable supplies in the world–with the US coming in a distant second.

            You want to talk about making unreasonable goals? Dude, you really need to look at what’s going on everywhere BUT here! The US is going backwards–not even holding steady–because of certain politicians and non-politicians.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            “China’s CO2 emissions grew by approximately 3% last year, the largest rise since at least 2013, and all but ensuring global CO2 emissions also increased last year”

            https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/02/28/china-coal-renewable-energy-2018-data-trends/

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @285exp: About that…

            “U.S. carbon dioxide emissions rose an estimated 3.4 percent in 2018, according to new research — a jarring increase that comes as scientists say the world needs to be aggressively cutting its emissions to avoid the most devastating effects of climate change.”
            https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-spiked-in-2018–and-it-couldnt-happen-at-a-worse-time/2019/01/07/68cff792-12d6-11e9-803c-4ef28312c8b9_story.html

          • 0 avatar
            Roader

            “Even 50 years ago, Europeans realized there was a problem when their ancient edifices, especially the imposing cathedrals of France and Germany (the only ones I got to see) were practically black with soot…so seeing them black made it clear something had to be done and Europe started doing it.”

            Well, half of Europe, anyway. The capitalist countries did an admirable job cleaning up their environment in the 1970s and 1980s while the communist countries just doubled down on filth. Bitterfeld, DDR was famous for its horrendous pollution. Lake Karachay in the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was described as ‘the most polluted spot on the earth’. Personally I thought Beijing’s air was bad until I had to go to Xi’an, in the interior of the PRC. I think I saw maybe three birds there. Upon returning home I read that a day spent in Xi’an was the equivalent of smoking three packs of cigarettes.

            Fortunately the former European communist idiocracies and even the PRC are being cleaned by capitalism.

          • 0 avatar
            James Charles

            285exp,
            The US is also at the top of CO2 emitters, so are we in Australia.

          • 0 avatar
            Roader

            @ James Charles: China is the top CO2 emitter, pumping out twice as much as the US whereas Australia emits about a tenth of the US.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            If you really care about CO2 emissions, you should put a stop to migration from developing or undeveloped countries to fist-world welfare states with huge carbon footprints. Reducing trade will make a bigger difference with smaller economic harm than stripping middle class economic freedoms too. You’ll know that smart and sane people have begun to believe in CO2-related climate change when the conversation shifts to real solutions and away from the standard socialist power-grab tactics.

    • 0 avatar
      Andre Robinson

      I agree. The most of the expanding populations of India and Africa will want our modern lifestyle, which means even more pollution. Not to mention, When China re-colonizes Africa, do you think they will do it in an eco-friendly way?

  • avatar
    Lorenzo

    I have to commend the 23 governors for their effort to rally popular opinion about both emissions and fuel economy. Unfortunately for them, rallying popular opinion is about all they can do. Arguing over two sets of standards is ultimately a red herring.

    Automakers build and sell their vehicles across state lines, giving the federal government final authority to set a single national standard, via the commerce clause. The very existence of CARB is due to an exemption of federal standards for two specific areas of California, the San Francisco bay area and Los Angeles basin, which have unusual atmospheric conditions.

    The other states that have adopted California’s emissions standards have no exemption, and have succeeded due to inaction at the federal level. In the case of California, what the feds give, the feds can take away, leaving no state with the power to set state/regional emissions and fuel economy standards on an industry that engages in interstate commerce.

    The states and California’s Air Resources Board are fighting the good fight, trying to marshall public opinion to pressure members of Congress to in turn pressure the Administration, but federal power to regulate interstate commerce and set a single standard will eventually be upheld by the Supreme Court.

  • avatar
    cprescott

    First, I believe the Feds can establish a standard that states should be allowed to improve upon, but States should have no power to ignore the rules.

    Second, if California and other nut driven states want to create their own fairytale regulations, let them shoot themselves in the foot. I fully support these states ruining the lives of their citizens and driving the smart ones out of the state.

    Third, I don’t know where it is LAW that just because President Obama did something on his own through Executive Action that ONLY HIS version stands; if he implemented it through Executive Action, another President can REMOVE that Executive Action as well. Obama did many things through Executive Action because he refused to negotiate with Congress – and he even subverted laws by changing things arbitrarily without rebuke.

    That said, unless the Green Nuts can prove that the US is the cause of the Global Flat Earth Crisis they claim, then the US should not be subjected to punishment. Clearly India and China and other third rate nations are leading causes of greenhouse gas emissions and they should be required to cut back prior to demanding the US to do so.

    Of course, the ONLY reason we are being hit up is for our wealth that needs to get transferred to someplace the Green Nuts want to make today’s victims.

    • 0 avatar
      James Charles

      You sound more the flat earther.

      So, do you like sh!t’in in your home. Most of us want a clean home.

    • 0 avatar
      James Charles

      You sound more the flat earther.

      So, do you like sh!t’in in your home. Most of us want a clean home.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        @James Charles: “So, do you like sh!t’in in your home. Most of us want a clean home.”

        — What? You never heard of indoor plumbing?

        • 0 avatar
          bullnuke

          @Vulpine – things are a bit different down in Oz where BAFO (James Charles) resides. It may have something to do with Vegemite keeping the bowels down there looser than most of the world’s population…

        • 0 avatar
          James Charles

          Vulpine,
          Our plumbing for toilets is actually outside the actual building, only a single pipe comes in for the effluent :)

          Plus, my comment aimed at this guy was to highlight the fact he wouldn’t sh!t on his floor and leave it there, it’s processed.

          So, why is treating emissions pollution (not farting) considered differently by him.

          He’s hipocritical.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            I acknowledge that things are different in Australia, etc., but the homilies such as you used become effectively meaningless in other places. Besides, considering the supposed record cold you’re experiencing down there would seem to be an issue with outdoor plumbing this time of year. I never had an opportunity to visit so I admit I don’t know just HOW different it is. And certainly “Crocodile Dundee” (the character and movie) isn’t exactly an everyday Aussie person, now is he?

            He may be hypocritical but you could have used a better comeback to it. It’s not that I disagree with your intent, only that your response could have been better. Because this world is our home and unfortunately we all are part of the cause, whether we want to be or not. That also means we all need to be part of the solution, by any means possible; whether you agree there’s a problem or disagree.

  • avatar
    forward_look

    I think that California ought to ban combustion engines completely, confiscate existing ones, and issue free unicorns for everyone to ride. Then everyone could see what Utopia looks like.

    But I hope Cuomo doesn’t get the idea.

  • avatar

    I know this story is specially the states. The car companies complain about this also. What is to stop any car company from selling CARB cars in all 50 states?

    My guess is nothing. No ones says they have to roll back MPG or emissions. At worst, you have to hit the Federal #s. Have at it if you want to hit the CARB #s.

    Their fear is, someone won’t sell to the CARB #s and they will. They are scared of that. So much for their talk on the “Environment”. I live in a state that goes by the CARB #s. Big deal. If they forced my state back to a Federal standard, again Big deal.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      You may remember the hullaballoo when ethanol was mandated as a mix with 86-93 octane gasoline.

      All the naysayers and critics predicted a car-calamity.

      And they were right.

      It turned out to be a ploy by the states to get old, polluting cars off the road in an insidious move to hasten their demise by causing them to leak gasoline, catch fire, and/or wear out the valve seats prematurely when the lead was removed from the gasoline.

      Kinda like Cash-4-Clunkers, without the Cash. Just turn running cars into clunkers. The more you drove them, the quicker they died.

      This time it is no different. Get the older polluters off the road, raise the price of gasoline under the guise of a road infrastructure fund, and stimulate the BEV market in order to justify the costly wind and solar farms that are under-utilized today.

      I hope President Trump sees through this manipulation and turns the situation on its head by rolling back the standards to 1999.

      Nothing to prevent the carmakers from making cleaner vehicles or holding on to current standards, or even improving on them.

      Just not mandated nationwide.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        Um, the valves and seats were hardened after lead was removed from gasoline in the 1970s. Ethanol, a solvent, does wreck both plastic and rubber lines and seals, but it didn’t get my 1995 Nissan Altima off the road.

        I drove it until 2010 and the new owner is still driving it. Replacement hoses are cheap, and the rubber/plastic seals hold up better than expected.

        The ethanol is just a a subsidy for corn farmers, billed as a way to clean up exhaust, though it has been proven to do the opposite. With an election every two years, nobody wants to revisit the ethanol mandate.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          Ummmmmmm, many of those cars were pre-70’s. I used to tool around in a 1968 Ford Fairlane 4dr with a 289, and factory-air, by golly.

          In Jan 2016 I sold that car to an illegal alien passing through NM on his way to the meat processing plants in Nebraska.

          It did smoke but I used 20W-50 to reduce it some.

  • avatar
    ptschett

    It was nice of the EPA to have the time to pull forward the midterm review of the 2022-2025 rules by about 15 months, to make sure they had it finalized 8 days before 44 was out the door.

  • avatar
    stingray65

    California – leading exporter of the middle-class in the nation, leading importer of unskilled and uncivilized illegals in the nation. Major cities are over-run by typhus and human fecal matter, infrastructure and schools are some of the worst in the nation, and taxes and regulation are among the highest.

    And the Democrats in charge have an idea – lets make cars even more expensive by forcing them not to burn any fuel, and then lets increase the gas tax to make up the difference in lost revenues.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      I am amazed at how many Californians are cashing-out of California and permanently moving to Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Nevada.

      A number of Californians have moved South of the Border, down Ensenada, way, where we stay part of each year.

      Man, there’s a TON of American ex-pats that live there, and some of them move around like Gypsies to other countries like Belize, Brazil, Chile, and even the Philippines, where they live part-time before moving on.

      What is going on!? Has the Trump economy suddenly created millionaires?

      Sure seems that way. All these Americans abroad. Never used to be that way. Not during the last administration. And NEVER before then.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        You stay in Ensenada part of the year and you haven’t noticed how much cheaper it is to live there? All the places you mentioned are just as inexpensive, outside of tourist areas. Many of the maids, cooks and busboys in San Diego hotels and restaurants live in Tijuana, they couldn’t live on their pay in San Diego – and many of them are native-born Americans.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          “You stay in Ensenada part of the year and you haven’t noticed how much cheaper it is to live there?”

          Of course I have, as have thousands of other Americans living South of the Border.

          Why do you think we chose Ensenada? Life is better there. Gasoline is dirt cheap. Food is dirt cheap. Hired help is dirt cheap.

      • 0 avatar
        HotPotato

        Criminy, highdesertcat. Folks have retired abroad for years. You just weren’t retirement age, so you didn’t know about it. If you have not personally experienced something, that does not mean it doesn’t exist. That goes for people retiring abroad, people experiencing racism, C02 warming the planet, and lots of other things.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          “Folks have retired abroad for years.”

          Of course they have, but not at this rate and numbers. Or as young.

          I have traveled all over the world and have encountered Americans everywhere I went but the numbers have grown significantly over the years.

          Many Americans I encountered abroad 2009-2016 said they left to get away from the last administration and find a better lifestyle outside the US. My own sister-in-law and her husband live in Holland for that exact reason.

          But since President Trump got elected, many of the people I have encountered abroad said they left because they could, and thought they never would be able to live abroad.

          And with the stock market going over 27K today, things just look better and better.

          My wife can look forward to another forced payout from her annuity of at least $5K after taxes.

          The things I have experienced had an effect on me. The things I haven’t experienced (yet) I don’t worry about until we cross that bridge.

    • 0 avatar
      The_Guru

      And then, like the plague, they move out into other states and ruin those too.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Still it’s comedy watching the wealth drain out of California.

        I travel the I-40 corridor a lot and it’s amazing all the Penske, Ryder and U-Haul box vans scrambling out of CA and I’m sure not looking back. The luxury SUV/CUV they’re trailering kind of gives it away.

        On the westbound, you don’t really see those, just convoys of beater minivans, rusted out Suburbans and whatnot, with kid’s bikes, busted up BBQs and luggage strapped to the roof.

        It’s hard not to laugh…

        • 0 avatar
          The_Guru

          If youre living in CO I wouldnt be laughing. They are already ruining what used to be a great state.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            A very dear friend of mine from our USAF days retired in Grand Junction, CO. Thought he had found his nirvana.

            Until the California crowd started moving in.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          @DM: Sounds to me like you’re seeing what you want to see, not reality. But then, your imagination has gotten the better of you more than once.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            The best places to live are always going to have lots of new faces setting up a homestead, changing demographics/politics and increased traffic congestion. So why be bitter all the time?

            Embrace it the best you can, take your meds and or find a way to capitalize on it. Or not.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @DM: “The best places to live are always going to have lots of new faces setting up a homestead, changing demographics/politics and increased traffic congestion.”
            — Now that’s a herring of a different color. Fortunately, your unicorn can give you that color.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I think the reason many Californians are moving out of California is because California is way too expensive, way too many regulations, too many people in the major metropolitan areas, and money goes much further South of the Border and in Texas. In Costa Rica an Expat can get full health care for a couple of hundred dollars a month.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      A couple of guys I met told me they left CA (in part) due to the stricter gun&ammunition controls being legislated and implemented. One of them was a retired State Police Officer from Sacramento.

      The US Dollar is worth a lot more on the “black market underground economy South of the Border and in Texas” than it is on the official exchange rate.

      I bought TWO HUGE sweeeeeet seedless watermellons for ONE Dollar last time I was down there, and got bags of fresh Papayas, Passion Fruit and Pineapples, Jicama, for not much more. (I was shopping for everyone who was staying at the house there that two of my brothers and I own).

      I can understand why so many American citizens (who can) have gone on the lam South of the Border. The American Dollar is King there. Everybody takes the Dollar, pockets them, and put local currency in the till in its place.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @highdesert cat–I don’t think it is entirely a bad idea to get older vehicles off the road especially if they have not been maintained. I believe that would be easier and more cost effective than making stricter regulations in a shorter period of time. I am sure the auto manufacturers wouldn’t mind spending some of those dollars they pay in fines to buy older, less safe, and more polluting vehicles and scrap them. I don’t have anything against older vehicles if they are well maintained and not hoopties–I have a 20 year old S-10 but I am the original owner and it has been well maintained. I don’t think assessing fines is an answer nor having unrealistic standards with unrealistic deadlines. I don’t want to roll back efficiency, pollution, and safety standards back to 1999 but I do believe the standards should be frozen for a period of time maybe 5 years and then these standards should be reassessed with input from auto engineers and not just regulators and politicians.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Jeff S, I think a lot of less fortunate people were disadvantaged when their old vehicles were forced off the road because of the implementation of Ethanol-gas, forced annual emissions inspections, and tighter confiscation policies for polluting or leaking vehicles.

      Yeah, the son of my brother (who used to live in Oakland) had his car confiscated because it was belching blue smoke due to valve seat wear.

      But the same enforcement (smoking cars and/or leaking gasoline) is not done in the illegal alien communities because smoky dinosaur-old and leaky cars are often all they have to get around in. These people do not have the money to buy a newer car to replace the old one legislated off the road. That’s the diff – people with money just buy a new or newer car to replace that classic old rolling wreck.

      The Barrios of Southern California are truly something to behold, and the amount of homeless that sleep on the grass in Balboa Park, San Diego, CA. Mind boggling to see America turned into a Fourth World country. Not to mention the feces, the smell of urine and the discarded hypos on the streets.

      I was born in Huntington Beach, CA, and lived there until June 1965, within walking distance of the beach, at which time I left home to join the Air Force.

      But AFAIAC who ever wants it can have CA. I have no desire to live there.

      Unfortunately, we still have to travel to San Diego to park our vehicle at my son’s house, whenever we need to catch our Shuttle to Ensenada, when we stay there.

  • avatar
    Dan

    “… and yet annoyingly framed by a large portion of the media as a victory for California when the realities are far more complicated.”

    This has just coincidentally happened so many times that one might reasonably begin to suspect that the media are the PR wing of the governing party of California.

    Anyhow, California 2025 compliant cars are already here, have been for years, and Californians broadly choose not to buy them just as the rest of us do. Maybe seeing that what their POS government is offering is not 50 mpg versions of the cars that they have now but instead those choices taken away would wake a few of them up as to what they’re actually voting for.

  • avatar
    James Charles

    Maybe the US can find a way to harmonise its dysfunctional environmental standards across the country.

    As you can see just within the US the issues arising with economics in this CARB vs EPA tussle.

    The rest of the World pretty much work together, different countries.

    The US can become a signatory to the UNECE Vehicle Harmonisation Treaty. This treaty was designed to facilitate trade whilst maintaining a common standard.

    What countries use the metric system?

    • 0 avatar
      Jon

      “The rest of the World pretty much work together, different countries.”

      citation please?

      • 0 avatar
        James Charles

        Jon,
        Well the EU for starters use the numerical Euro system, plus other EEA member States and other nations globally, ie, Australia, NZ, Singapore, etc.

        The Euro system is gradually being adopted by UNECE Vehicle Harmonisation. This means most nations will adopt the Euro system.

        The advantage of the Euro system is its designed to operate across multiple nations, thus facilitating vehicle manufacturing.

  • avatar
    Roader

    Let me suggest a compromise. Since the New York Times and the Atlantic publications are now saying that air conditioning is evil because it’s sexist and because it increases CO2 emissions, why can’t those 23 states ban air conditioners in automobiles? The increased fuel efficiency will probably reduce CO2 emissions by about the same amount as the Obama EPA regulations would have. That way automakers can still manufacture just one design for all 50 states EXCEPT those 23 states will have the AC disabled in cars shipped to them. Take the fuse out, don’t plug the switch in, whatever, it will be a free mod.

    Win/win. Those states could make a non-functioning air conditioner part of their annual emissions test plus they could generate additional revenue by doing roadside checks for air conditioning usage, fining violators.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I don’t see the US working together with divided Government and compromise being a nasty word whether one is a conservative or liberal. There are those who want no environmental and safety standards and those who want to regulate everything to where we cannot drive, eat, express an opinion and are easily offended by everything. No room for middle ground and no room for compromise. We cannot even repair or replace obsolete roads, bridges, sewer systems, water pipes, and a number of other essential parts of our infrastructure.

  • avatar
    zerofoo

    “The fact that we now have over half the U.S. auto market supporting us indicates that we are going to stick with the standards.”

    And this is why our founders smartly created a representative republic instead of a democracy.

    Democracy is 51% of the people dictating the terms of life to the other 49%.

    California should not be permitted to impose its will on the entire nation.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      “California should not be permitted to impose its will on the entire nation.”

      They did under previous US presidents.

      Hopefully President Trump will not cave.

      But if he does, it will be offset by all the good that President Trump has done for America, its economy and American citizens.

      Great American Economy! More than 7.3 MILLION job vacancies! Lowest unemployment ever!

      What’s not to like?

      What a platform to run on for re-election!

      • 0 avatar
        HotPotato

        IIRC Obama ushered in the longest economic expansion in American history, exceeding the record previously set by Clinton. Trump’s “accomplishment” is that he hasn’t ended that expansion yet. If a professional pilot gets a jumbo jet through takeoff and flying securely at altitude, then leaves it on autopilot and hands the pilot’s seat over to a 10-year-old, we don’t celebrate the 10-year-old for being a great flier.

        If we’re being honest here though, we both know it’s dumb to give any president too much credit for business cycles out of his control.

        Anyway. Cars, anyone?

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          I didn’t vote for Trump but I sure am happy he got elected and improved MY lifestyle.

          That did not happen during the previous eight years. I was better off during Shrub’s tenure. Did make a lot of money then.

          Ultimately, the voters will decide if Trump gets re-elected for another four years.

          And Trump’s got my vote, and the reluctant vote of my Blue Democrat wife, Kitty. LOL!

    • 0 avatar

      “Democracy is 51% of the people dictating the terms of life to the other 49%.”

      I think you have the percentages wrong – more like 5% dictating to the 95%.

      • 0 avatar
        Andre Robinson

        Correct. We get our morality from the likes of New York Times, the Atlantic and Teen Vogue now. Opinions that a majority us held just 10 years ago are now unspeakable. Disagree publicly and…

  • avatar
    brn

    Arg, a couple of things that drive me crazy with these arguments.
    – There would be no “increase” in pollution. There would just be less of a decrease.
    – Automobile pollution is already a teeny fraction of what it was a few decades ago.
    – It’s not a “rollback” if we’re not reducing the requirements. We’re simply not going to further increase the requirements.

    Argue all you like about what we should do, but let’s frame things properly.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      This is the Government…remember giving an agency a smaller budget increase than they got in previous years is a cut in their minds so this is not shocking

  • avatar

    I know why it will never happen, but why don’t the automakers just ignore CA and build what they want to – and can – sell to the rest of the nation? If CA wants vehicles it’s take it or leave it. Like I said, I know the “why”. I really dislike the hypocrisy embedded in the entire political process and the bias embedded in all media.

  • avatar
    285exp

    If these states are serious about reducing fuel use, promoting the adoption of more fuel efficient and BEV vehicles, and getting the old high polluting and low fuel economy vehicles off the road, nothing is stopping them from following the example of Norway, where 60% of the new vehicles purchased last month were BEVs: raise the price of fuel to about double what it is now and levy a punitive registration fee on new vehicles based on their fuel economy.

    If you want to reduce the use of something, raise the price. Higher fuel prices will not only encourage the purchase of more efficient new vehicles but will force people to drive less, use more public transportation, and drive more efficiently, and this will start immediately instead of waiting for the manufacturers to meet standards that they probably won’t be able to anyway. The Obama standards would require them to nearly double the current fleet average in 6 years, and unless they can find where they buried those 100 mpg carbs back in the 70s, they’re going to have to massively downsize the vehicles, sell a lot of BEVs, or pay Tesla a bunch of money to buy indulgences in the form of carbon credits.

    They also need to jack up the electric rates to discourage the wasteful use of air conditioning and increase the price of jet fuel to discourage wasteful private aircraft use.

    But they don’t want to pay the political price to do these things, things that would really make an impact on carbon emissions, they want to force the other states to help shoulder the increased costs associated with these new cars that they want the automakers to build.

  • avatar
    tylanner

    From what everyone says I gather that California is really just representative of the future of America …..a future that doesn’t tolerate those content with ignorance…

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    The CARB will be dismantled. They’re asking for way too much, I don’t care who set the standard first.

    The CARB is a corrupt bureaucracy, The Feds know it and the EPA is distancing itself from The CARB for a very good reason. They know they’re about to be scrapped, and have nothing to lose at this point. So might as well shoot for the Moon.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Should have been dismantled ten years ago, but when’s the last time a bureaucracy was shut down? Ever?

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      @DM: “The CARB will be dismantled.”

      Keep believing in your unicorns, my friend. The odds are higher that CARB will end up overriding the current EPA, considering almost half the states and nearly ¾ of the US population are behind CARB and not the EPA’s rollback.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        It just smells of corruption, the Feds know it and sure don’t want any competition.

        The whole charade is simply a means to extort Billions of Dollars a year from automakers, legally, by way of fines.

        So what cars and trucks would be sold under CARB’s rule? Probably close to what’s sold now, plus a couple extra devil cars from FCA. Do you see Ford concerned? GM? Heck, even Toyota should be in full panic. Do they know something we don’t?

        The fines are totally livable and I’m positive FCA laughs over the 77 million they paid last year in fines. Barely a drop in the bucket, but real money, FREE money for the agency collecting.

        It’s a shakedown, is all it is. Do you actually think any of this is for the sake of the environment?

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          @DM:
          “The fines are totally livable and I’m positive FCA laughs over the 77 million they paid last year in fines. Barely a drop in the bucket, but real money, FREE money for the agency collecting.”
          — Then why is FCA expecting to pay Tesla $2B for carbon credits over the next year and even GM planning to pay Tesla for credits? Could it be that those fines are more expensive than paying Tesla for credits?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            “…Then why is FCA expecting to pay…”

            Because it’s totally worth it. A few hundred dollars in fines on every gas guzzling Hot Rod selling for $68K? Who wouldn’t?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @DM: You clearly missed the point. They’re paying Tesla to AVOID paying the fines.

  • avatar
    The_Guru

    People from Cali should be forced to stay and live with the mess they’ve made instead of fleeing and infecting other states.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      My sibs and I sold our parental home in Palos Verde for more than $1.2MILLION dollars, in a neighborhood that has since turned into a Barrio (because it borders on one.)

      My brother sold his house in Oakland, CA on Clemens Rd, for much more than that.

      And people moving out of CA tell of even wilder financial handjobs, while writing a check for the full amount on their new house in another state.

      Wherever CA diaspora pop up, a lot money changes hands, without regret, all smiles, and tall tales of financial wizardry.

  • avatar
    kosmo

    Great article, Matt!


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Andre Robinson: One problem is bureaucrats need to create redundant jobs for friends and relatives.
  • Andre Robinson: Correct. We get our morality from the likes of New York Times, the Atlantic and Teen Vogue now....
  • Hummer: This comment isn’t against anyone here clearly but, I don’t remember ever being asked my sexuality when...
  • tylanner: “um… who doesn’t defend themselves in court?” You are not making a point with that...
  • tylanner: This should be a red flag for anyone looking to buy a car…..not only will Ford not issue a legit recall for...

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