By on September 20, 2019

On Friday, California and 23 other states filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration over efforts to reverse state-driven emissions standards. Earlier this week, the president confirmed speculation that the federal government would be taking steps to revoke California’s fuel waiver — making the suit about as predictable as the setting sun.

We’ve told the story countless times. The Golden State wants to maintain stringent emission laws for automobiles, the Trump administration wants a fuel rollback, and automakers want a universal national standard. After months of nonproductive talks and all sides attempting to make their case to the public, it looks at though the Supreme Court will have the final say. 

Considering there really was no way to keep both sides happy without throwing a colossal wrench into the automotive industry, this outcome always felt like an inevitability. During a Thursday press conference, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao said that the abolishment of California’s rigid rules on tailpipe emissions “meets President Trump’s commitment to establish uniform fuel economy standards for vehicles across the United States, ensuring that no state has the authority to impose its policies on everybody else in our whole country.”

The DOT and EPA will jointly revoke the legal waiver, granted to California by the Obama administration under the authority of the 1970 Clean Air Act, that permits the state to set tighter state standards for greenhouse gas emissions stemming from automobiles. 

According to The New York Times, California’s attorney general, Xavier Becerra, has filed 60 lawsuits against the Trump administration. While their success rate has been mixed, they’ve shown the White House that California does not intend to allow the Executive Branch to dictate what it contends are state matters. However, the Trump administration has recently accused California of being a region gone awry. While much of that deals with the state’s growing homeliness problem and immigration rules, the president has also accused California’s of trying to hold the rest of the nation hostage via its environmental policies.

“The administration insists on attacking the authority of California and other states to tackle air pollution and protect public health,” said Becerra on Friday. “President Trump should have at least read the instruction manual he inherited when he assumed the presidency, in particular the chapter on respecting the rule of law.”

From The New York Times:

The lawsuit represents the starting gun in a sweeping legal battle over states’ rights and climate change that is likely be resolved only once it reaches the Supreme Court. The decision could ultimately have wide-ranging repercussions affecting states’ control over their own environmental laws, the volume of pollution produced by the United States, and the future of the nation’s auto industry.

All the state attorneys general signing on to the suit are Democrats, but they represent several states that Mr. Trump won in 2016. States joining the lawsuit include Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Carolina, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

“This is the fight of a lifetime for us,” said Mary Nichols, California’s top climate change official. “I believe we will win.”

 

[Image: Nithid Memanee/Shutterstock]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

91 Comments on “Gas War: California Sues Over State-based Emission Standards...”


  • avatar
    DenverMike

    The CARB can be safely killed off now. It’s too irrelevant and redundant to the Ca EPA, US EPA and various other federal, state, county and city offices dedicated to air quality.

    The CARB is just suing for their jobs/pensions at this point. The fines that would be collected from automakers could fund the CARB boondoggle for hundreds of years after ICE vehicles are gone.

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      When California Lifeguards can retire at age 50 with six figure pensions I can only imagine what the pensions for truly “important” CARB bureaucrats must be.

    • 0 avatar
      probert

      People will die as a result of this ruling – pollution kills people especially when it’s concentrated do to inversion. Your cavalier and banal analysis of a “policy” that will result in the early deaths of some of your fellow citizens is truly a clarion call of freedom and how great america has become. I thank you and VW execs seeking an appeal thank you.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        People are going to die because of how high current CAFE and CARB standards are. Without them, we wouldn’t have new vehicles that are gross polluters of particulates. You should learn something about the issue before you shoot off your mouth and try to spread your ignorance. The world would be a better place, and isn’t that what we all say we want?

  • avatar
    Oberkanone

    Illinois Air Resources Board, Indiana Air Resources Board, Idaho Air Resources Board….. you get the ideal. How many standards could we end up with if each state has the right to set emissions standards?

    Emissions standards are a Federal power.

    • 0 avatar
      ect

      Unlike most of the posters on this board, I am actually a lawyer. Also unlike most of the posters on this board, I do not claim to be an expert on constitutional law.

      “Emissions standards are a Federal power” Really? Where exactly is this found in the Constitution?

      My limited understanding of constitutional law includes the principle that, in areas of divided jurisdiction (such as the environment), states may not derogate from federal standards, but are free to impose more stringent standards. Which, it seems to me, is what California has done (as have a number of other states). Again, I do not pretend to be an expert in constitutional law, so I stand to be corrected if I am mistaken.

      With all due respect (which Punch magazine once defined as a “hint by a barrister that he is about to be disrespectful”) Matt’s articles are often laden with obvious grammatical errors, and this one is no exception.

      “a fuel rollback”? What is this?

      “abolishment”? One might look up “abolition”.

      “the state’s growing homeliness problem”. Reaŀly? Are people living in California becoming ever uglier?

      • 0 avatar
        stingray65

        Obama was supposedly a lawyer and Constitutional Law Professor and lost more cases on Constitutional grounds in the Supreme Court than any recent president. The Ninth Circuit court is comprised of lawyers, and they they get overturned on Constitutional grounds by the Supreme Court than any other District court in the US. It seems that law school as with much of the rest of the University system has become Leftist indoctrination centers rather than teaching useful/productive subjects. In other words, just because you went to law school doesn’t mean you know anything about law.

        • 0 avatar
          Arthur Dailey

          Actually becoming a ‘licensed’ lawyer requires passing a ‘Bar’ examination. So yes, lawyers do know about the law.

          Lawyers lose cases every day. Because we have an adversarial system, so every time one loses another one wins.

          And there is no ‘supposedly’ about Obama’s legal education. Questioning it is wandering into the realm of ‘fake news’.

        • 0 avatar
          jkross22

          “In other words, just because you went to law school doesn’t mean you know anything about law.”

          did you reflexively type this, or was there thought put into it? never mind, it’s self evident.

        • 0 avatar
          ect

          OK, so I acknowledge that I am a lawyer, but not an expert in constitutional law. Which is true.

          You are not a lawyer, but you pass yourself off as a constitutional law expert.

          Yeah, sure you are. Not.

          As a suggestion, you might consider that extreme ideological bias does not constitute expertise. Quite the opposite, in fact.

      • 0 avatar
        Snooder

        Thing is, at this stage it’s not even a States Rights issue.

        Its a Statutory Construction issue, and possible a question about the discretion available to Executive Branch officials. If you look past the terrible reporting and actually read the text of the Clean Air Act, it has a provision for mandatory approval of waivers. That’s what this will be fought over. Whether the EPA has the authority to deny a waiver that the law says he has to grant.

        Maybe, maybe, if they lose that fight then California might go down the States Rights tack to argue that the Clean Air Act was unconstitutional. But at this point, there isn’t a reason to go there yet.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        YES California has a homeliness problem! I’ve lived in Cali for decades, and 50-60 years ago, there were hot chicks and handsome dudes on every corner. It all started with those unwashed hippies in Haight-Ashbury, and they propagated. Then in the 1980s and ’90s, a bunch of Walmartish people moved in. The specter of homeliness is now everywhere! The tourists don’t notice because, well, they’re homely too.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      That’s why they worked out this compromise, where there’s the California standard and the national standard.

      Most of the big blue States have signed on to the California standard, so it’s far bigger than just California. (California’s auto market is about the size of Canada’s.)

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        @Luke42 not just “blue states,” red and purple ones too (VA, NV, and PA are purple, and FL and NC are red). A few of the 23 states that are suing don’t recognize CARB but are standing up for their Constitutional rights under the 10th Amendment.

        This site no longer offers the thoughtful insight it provided a decade ago. Matt and Steph are very good at blowing the dog whistle to get the same few MAGA B&B to argue among themselves and grab some SEO clicks. I don’t fully blame them, they have to play the game. The bigger issue is the vehicle reviews read as if they were written by authors that don’t care about the vehicles they are testing and only offer cliche feedback. The steering is a bit numb and there is too much hard plastic. Other stories just come across as a soft rewrite of content that came over the wire service or stolen from LLN.

        I find myself spending more time on Jalopnik again after abandoning the site for years.

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          I live in Virginia. We’ve got a racist Governor and a rapist Lieutenant Governor and they’re both untouchable. It doesn’t get any Bluer than that.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          Florida is not a part of this lawsuit.

          oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases
          /California%20v.%20Chao%20complaint
          %20%2800000002%29.pdf

          “Becerra’s suit is supported by the cities of Los Angeles and New York as well as Democratic state attorneys general who serve Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.”

        • 0 avatar
          tonycd

          APa, I couldn’t agree more with every part of your post. I miss TTAC. But I also know that under VerticalScope’s ownership, it’s very likely not coming back.

    • 0 avatar
      probert

      I love how “states rights” republicans devolve so quickly to “federal power” at the drop of a hat. Wheni t comes to taking away health care or clean air and water it’s “states rights”, the power of a free economy”, but the real thread is either corporate protections or pure centralized authority. Ah – the smell of freedom…

      • 0 avatar
        SaulTigh

        In case you hadn’t noticed, it’s a two way street. California hates states rights until it is to their advantage to love it.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        The constitution actually spells out what the domain of the federal government is. You should pick up a copy so you don’t look like an ignorant fool.

        • 0 avatar
          ect

          And where in the constitution is the environment designated as part of the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government?

          (hint – the answer is, “nowhere”)

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Goods manufactured in one state and sold in another constitute the letter and the spirit of interstate commerce. Lie to yourself. Argue with yourself. Nobody else is addled enough to buy your BS.

      • 0 avatar
        jkross22

        probert, EXACTLY! The heavy smell of horses!! being shoveled at this issue is pretty clear. This is what happens when people put their ideology in front of science, intellectual honesty or other facts.

        It’s gross that people are this easily manipulated. The foolishness astounds.

      • 0 avatar
        Rich Fitzwell

        Your political theory ship sailed a long time ago, you are missing the elephant in the room-corrupt, thieving, out of control, unaccountable, government.

        Trump to California FU.

        You are for the oligarchy, the status quo that has been screwing all Americans for forty years plus.

        Things are no longer red state, blue state.

      • 0 avatar
        tonycd

        probert, you left out the last three words of, “When it comes to taking away health care or clean air and water or civil rights,” …

  • avatar
    CombiCoupe99

    Screw California. How about they spend more time figuring out how to manage their huge underclass / homeless populations. I don’t want to purchase a car that meets California standards.

    • 0 avatar
      RHD

      The “homeless” come to California because of the climate. It’s hard to be a junkie sleeping in a cardboard box when it’s well below freezing outside.
      The only cure for this is to warm up the rest of the states. That will happen eventually, but not before Fox and Friends stop playing with this political football.

      Trump is an idiot if he thinks a state with 20 percent of the country’s population can be jerked around. (And also without that condition.)
      Since when is MORE pollution a good thing?

      Meanwhile, if this means we can import JDM cars and register them in California, this myopic bullying might get just a little bit of support.

      • 0 avatar
        CombiCoupe99

        Examine your sources, friend. Studies show that the “migrating homeless” myth isn’t supported by data. California exports about as much as it takes. They send some of their chronic homeless to other states, and it comes close to the numbers that immigrate from other states.

        No idea why you are so angry.

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          The reality is that the people who are doing well in California are often the new arrivals and the people living on the street grew up in the warm embrace of California’s awful schools and available drugs.

    • 0 avatar
      SD 328I

      I was in California for business these last 3 months, up and down the coast, it’s a huge state, practically like it’s own country.

      But I didn’t see this huge homeless population walking the streets people try to make it out to be. I’ve seen just as much if not more homeless here in Texas.

      I was surprised at all the beauty there was there, not just the coast but the hills and mountains. It’s freaking expensive however, crappy condo that would cost $100K in Dallas are $400,000 there.

      As for your car and future cars, you will have no choice, CARB makes up 50% of all new car revenue, auto makers will build to their standard, especially considering this lawsuit will probably last longer than this administration even if it gets a 2nd term.

      • 0 avatar
        SaulTigh

        I was in LA for the first time earlier this month and saw quite a few homeless camping under overpasses and near highways. Saw a few be-bopping down the streets of Hollywood too. The tents and camping business is what’s different from the homeless in my neck of the woods, who mostly seem to be always “on the move.”

        Homelessness (the shuffling zombie or camper kind) is not a housing problem nearly as much as it’s a mental health and drug problem, and until you bring back institutionalization as an option, and give the police power to involuntary commit people for evaluation (for a set time period, typically 96 hours), you’re going to have shuffling crazies running about.

        There IS a housing problem in California, but it’s mainly for the lower working class. These are the ones that convert vans in parking lots and such. This is a problem California created for itself with nimbyism and over regulation. I saw plenty of shitty buildings in otherwise decent seeming areas that could be razed for apartments. You don’t even need a huge bureaucracy to run it as low income housing…just decrease regulation and taxes so that developers can make money building affordable housing rather than luxury housing. As more supply comes online, prices will drop. Happens in my neck of the woods all the time.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        As an observer of the world around you, you’re coming up short. The US Interagency Council on Homelessness says there are more than five times as many homeless people in California than there are in Texas. The last two times I was in California, they were well accounted for everywhere that they weren’t being actively removed by the police. Don’t quit your day job and start trying to describe the world outside of your rectum.

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      How many homeless from your state were given bus tickets to come to CA?

  • avatar
    thejohnnycanuck

    “I hope you don’t buy it because every time I sell one it costs me $14,000,”

    “I will sell the (minimum) of what I need to sell and not one more,”

    “If we just build those vehicles, we’ll be back asking … in Washington for a second bailout because we’ll be bankrupt,”

    We all know who said those words and maybe California needs to hear them again. It simply isn’t and cannot be all about them.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      The CARB is only looking out for itself. CARB put tens of thousands trucking/construction/etc companies out of business or in danger of, when they required brand trucks, and or non DEF diesels banned and off the road.

      Did it matter if the trucks were grandfathered? Or just a couple years old (pre emissions)? Not to the CARB. Initially they only required a diesel emissions “retrofit” on subpar trucks, while CARB assumed the aftermarket would scramble to provide such “kits” and affordably. Neither of which happened, but of course the CARB plowed right ahead, no sweat off its brow.

    • 0 avatar
      SD 328I

      Well, to be fair, they aren’t forcing their standards an anyone else, isn’t the GOP about state’s rights?

      Of course when CARB makes up half of all new car revenue for auto makers, what they do is felt throughout the nation.

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        It’s funny how the GOP is all about States Rights when it comes to f*cking with minorities access to voting, but not when it comes to clean air and water.

        It’s kinda like how they’re all about fiscal responsibility when a Democrat is in power, but they cut taxes and increase spending when they’re in power. The economic statistics from the last couple of decades show that the Tax & Spend Democrat actually balance the budget better, because the Republicans don’t tax and do spend — and then they scream about fiscal responsibility while the Democrats try to balance the books.

        [Full explanation of what’s wrong with the GOP deleted; wrong blog. They’d be a better party if they followed their stated principles.]

        • 0 avatar
          SaulTigh

          I want to know why minorities have such a hard time obtaining valid photo ID, and get so bent out of shape about showing it to vote. Not much you can do these days without showing ID. Seems so strange to me that people believe voting shouldn’t require it.

        • 0 avatar
          iNeon

          Wait wait wait a fapping minute.

          [Full explanation of what’s wrong with the GOP deleted; wrong blog. They’d be a better party if they followed their stated principles.]

          TTAC are censoring and offering ‘corrected republicanism’ tips from liberal points-of-view, now?

          Jesus Christ. TF is going on here? Is this even real?!

          The Editor that did this— I want his head on a pike. Public resignation.

      • 0 avatar
        stingray65

        SD – California is forcing their standards on everyone because tougher fuel economy standards make cars more expensive one way or another. If the automakers make special CARB versions then they lose some economies of scale by having to make multiple versions which means less profits to shareholders and more expensive non-CARB versions for non-CARB states. If the automakers decide to make a single version it must be the more expensive CARB version in order to be sold in all 50 states, which means non-CARB states pay more. Higher priced new cars also means fewer people can afford to buy and therefore leads to keeping older, dirtier, less safe cars on the road longer, which again effects everyone.

        As for state’s rights. The FEDERAL EPA means that emission/fuel economy standards are legally a federal issue (California was simply granted a temporary right to set their own standards), although I would be happy to have California take the Feds to court over the Constitutionality of the EPA. On the other hand, California doesn’t believe in anything except Leftism (aka Banana Republic rule of law), because majorities of California voters approved propositions to ban same-sex marriage, stop all welfare to illegals, and make common-sense changes to bankrupt inducing public pensions, and all were overturned by Leftist California judges. I suspect that a vote to shut down CARB would win easily in California, but I’m sure the Leftist courts would never approve that either.

        • 0 avatar
          iNeon

          Thank you for the explanation.

          I’m sorry for breaking by the arguing. It wasn’t my place. There’s no reason for this bloodbath inside my logic system. I am okay to have the realization that I may not be strong enough emotionally or mentally to be a member of the TTAC readership—

          I flail so much because of abuse-borne PTSD, and struggle with enmeshment, even rage by the forms my abuses took— my error, in this case, was blurring lines and speaking in the tone of the exchange— holding all in equal parts accountability and contempt.

          Y’all see, inside my head— TTAC are a family— a family within a community. A family with shared values and goals cannot thrive if they are divided against themselves.

          I’m going to spend today writing-up a proposal that might help engage us all in a positive and inclusive way— we need to work together in a more humanizing way. Pot-shots and division are taking this community down.

          We can do better, but it’s going to take hard work and apologies. Do I have any allies amongst us?

  • avatar
    Robbie

    I think there is an objective, nonpartisan case to be made for Southern California needing stricter emissions standards. This is simply about geography.
    Can’t we all figure out a way to do this? This doesn’t have to be about pro-pollution evil Trump types fighting vegan communist treehuggers.

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      This isn’t about air quality, its about saving the world for global warming. Air quality in major California cities is better today than its been since the 1940s. I remember biking across LA in the mid-80s and having my lungs burn from the dirty air, but more recent exercise sessions when visiting have not led to any painful breathing. Of course California could disappear tomorrow from earthquake and global warming trends wouldn’t change a bit because of the miniscule effect even a large state such as CA has on global greenhouse gas emissions when China and India with are building new coal plants everyday. So California’s fight with the feds is purely virtue signaling and protecting pensions of CARB bureaucrats – funny how they have money for long courts battles over a few MPG (and illegal sanctuaries), but they don’t seem to have any money for decent schools, roads, or keeping the streets clear of human poop.

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        And now Trump is trying to roll back the regulations that made California’s air quite pleasant the last times I was in LA and The Bay Area.

        Yeah, global warming is a problem too. The local naturalists where I live have been seeing the effects of warming firsthand here in the American Midwest. (And, yes, the local naturalists try to keep national politics out of it, because they have a wide variety of backgrounds.) I understand those changes are more pronounced in California.

        But, if you really want to hate on California (and Elaine Chao’s tone of voice during her press.xonference suggested that’s what this is about), the truth about environmental issues don’t really matter. It’s really just about sticking it to people who annoy you. Some Californians do have a smug problem,.combined with limited knowledge about the rest of the country — and that’s annoying. But that can be fixed through education, not by trying to re-create the smog problem while exacerbating climate change.

        • 0 avatar
          stingray65

          What annoys me are people like you who don’t know anything. Trump is not talking about rolling back standards, only slowing down or stopping further toughening of fuel economy standards because they are not cost effective. And there is no proof that global warming is doing anything in the Midwest or California (or anywhere else). Severe weather, droughts, floods, cold winters, hot summers, etc. are either no worse than the long-term historical averages or actually less frequent (i.e. almost all high temperature records are from the 1930s, and hurricane activity is at its lowest level in recorded human history). If you need further proof, just look at climate savior Obama and his recent $15M purchase of a huge mansion within a few feet of the Atlantic coast, and I wonder what Gavin Newsom’s carbon footprint looks like?

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            @stingray65,

            Something like 97% scientific community disagrees with you, and the other 3% are likely to be persuaded by the data if they look at it in any detail.

            (Look up Richard Mueller’s story.)

          • 0 avatar
            asapuntz

            I thought one goal of the fuel economy standards was to reduce the need for auto industry bailouts when the price of oil shoots up, cutting sales and increasing auto loan defaults. Even if the high prices are “short-lived” anomalies that don’t reflect actual supply and demand, the industry and its customer base don’t seem capable of weathering the storm.

      • 0 avatar
        jkross22

        stingray,

        https://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/sota/city-rankings/states/california/los-angeles.html

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Let California have its own standards and get onto more important issues like infrastructure and negotiating a trade agreement. If other states want to join California then let them do so.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      It was a sensible compromise, until Trump wrecked it.

    • 0 avatar
      SD 328I

      That’s the problem, it’s that CARB and the 13 other states that follow it make up 40% of new car sales and 50% of all revenue for manufacturers.

      If this was any other state, the Federal government wouldn’t care. But because of all this leverage that CARB has, all auto manufacturers will simply build to their standard and force their requirements to the rest of the country.

      That is why the Fed is trying to strip their ability to do so, because auto manufacturers cannot afford not to build to CARB standards.

      That being said, the Fed is going to lose this one. The 24 states suing them will keep this in court for years, in the meantime auto makers cannot afford not to sell to them.

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        That’s capitalism at work.

        We all get improved emissions now for the same reason we all get power windows now — because making a special low-volume / low-spec car for the people who really want a worse car is less profitable than just putting the good stuff in every car.

        That’s one of the few things that will save environmental standards for automobiles. The US isn’t the world market, so we’ll get some the benefits of some of the R&D required to sell cars in the actual 1st world countries. We’ll just get the ECU firmware intended for countries without standards.

        Economies of scale rule this industry. Sometimes it hinders, sometimes it helps — but it’s always an important factor.

        • 0 avatar
          stingray65

          Luke – I don’t recall any government mandates requiring power windows in all cars, so your capitalism example is bunk. Capitalism is about profitably satisfying market wants, but very few citizens would ever purchase high technology (i.e. expensive) small cars that get 50+ mpg if they weren’t forced to by regulation and taxation policies. And automakers make negative or tiny profits on CAFE friendly vehicles because the market doesn’t want them unless they are bribed, so they would never make a Prius or Leaf or Volt if not for government regulations and tax policies. So CARB regulations are required to force the market to behave in a way the treehuggers want, which is not capitalism but is more like communism.

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            Californians want less polluting cars, as per the results of their democratic (small d) political process.

            Given what I’ve heard about their air quality just a couple of decades ago, that’s a pretty sensible decision.

            Still legitimate.

            P.S. I was once a Libertarian, but I learned a few things and grew out of it. I appreciate where you’re coming from, but you’re only looking at part of the human-behavior picture.

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            If we as a society feel that efficiency is a worthy goal, then we are going about it ass-backwards. Tax the everloving crap out of the fuel, and let the automakers build whatever people then want to buy. That way we not only incentivize people to buy more efficient vehicles, we incentivize them to use them more efficiently as well, and incentivize them to look at alternatives to using their vehicles at all.

            The way we currently do this is madness.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            California’s leftist politics have already given them the largest percentage of structurally unemployed and hopeless homeless people in the country. Jacking up energy costs to stop the remaining working class tax-hosts from commuting in their ten year old cars should be met with boiling tar and feathers.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            @ToddAtlasF1; So it’s leftest policies and nothing to do with the weather? Yeah right.

            Sure as hell beats out the right-wing hell-holes like Mississipi when it comes to poverty rates, infant mortality, and education.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            The power window thing is capitalism at work, a large enough percentage of buyers want the power windows so tooling up for manual window regulators and door panels is an added expense that isn’t worth it. The same goes for current emissions equipment. Back in the day there were CA and “49 state” spec cars. Then more and more states opted in to CA regulations and now just about all cars come in one emissions spec that meets the current CA standards.

      • 0 avatar
        mtunofun

        Oh well. The nation’s schools have to use texbooks written for Texas’ standards because they’re the largest market. The market is the market, go after the manufacturers not CA.

  • avatar
    notanotherteslafanboi

    I like how the title makes it sound like California is alone in this lawsuit. Seems like biased reporting to me.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    “From The New York Times”

    “This is the fight of a lifetime for us,” said Mary Nichols, California’s top climate change official. “I believe we will win.”

    Chair Nichols is the Chairwoman of CARB, she is NOT the “top climate official of California” because as far as I can tell there isn’t one. I realize you’re simply quoting another source, but it is curiously wrong. Why, it’s not as if this information wasn’t known to NYT its almost if there are key phrases and words simply being embedded as a narrative in media. Nah, couldn’t be, that would imply some kind of common goal or collusion. Unpossible, “news” is never ever biased or could possible be fake. /s

    https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/about/leadership/mary-d-nichols

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_D._Nichols

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    “Economies of scale rule this industry. Sometimes it hinders, sometimes it helps — but it’s always an important factor.”

    You hit the nail on the head. It is not so much the auto manufacturers are opposing Trump it is they want uniform standards that they can spread over most of their production thus lowering their cost. If California plus the other 23 states want the same standards then the manufacturers will probably make those standards part of the products for all states. Most of these manufactures are going to have to comply with stricter European standards. What manufacturers would prefer would be standardized global safety, emission, and efficiency standards for all the larger and developed countries.

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    Yesterday was a great day – to see all those young people across the globe taking a stand. Outside my office it was a sea of people. Block after block packed solid. I didn’t think it was possible anymore. Standing tall to counter the outdated, mindset of people typified by Stingray65 and his ilk. I see an new generation(s) who will alter the path of the future. I also saw what real patriotism is. Not wrapping your fat butt in a flag, singing “patriotic” music, and slapping a “support our troops” sticker on their vehicle. Those things only mean something if there is real action behind them. 99.44% of the time there is nothing behind them. Real patriots were on display – using their time and effort to make a statement to their government that no, business as usual is not ok. And nobody decided to use their car to run over and kill people in the process. This is truly what makes America great. And not just America. That young Swede Greta Thunberg is a true inspiration. We need more people like her. And to see action even in countries where being outspoken is often a death sentence – it was truly an amazing worldwide event.

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      The crowds were impressive. I can only imagine how difficult it was for teachers to get their students to skip a day of school, but do you really think it is ok for children to miss a day of their Leftist indoctrination? Consider the damage that might be caused if they would miss their daily lesson on how America is a uniquely racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic country that has only gotten rich by raping and pillaging the rest of the world. Certainly the effects might be long lasting if they would also miss their lesson on how guns are dangerous and should be banned so that only racist cops and baby killing soldiers led by “Hitler” Trump will have them. On the other hand, since they are out protesting the wealth and health generated by fossil fuels over the past 200 years as the behest of a 16 year old white foreigner with a learning disability I guess we can count the protest as a “science” lesson, but what is the point of such learning when the world is going to end before they can go into massive college debt for their gender studies degree?

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        “Leftist” indoctrination? You are quite predictable. The message itself, while vitally important to their future, is not the reason why this is a beautiful American moment, and would make our founding fathers smile. Would you feel the same way if the message was about gun rights? Or the right to assemble for a white nationalist rally (I also very much support their right to rally BTW even though the message is reprehensible). While there were certainly many positive benefits from the industrial revolution, there were many an opportunity to reap the benefits without the negatives. A good car-related example: When the need came to improve octane of gasoline back in the early days, alcohol could have easily been the choice to do so. But that could not be monetized, so GM came up with tetraethyl lead so they could make gobs of cash. How brilliant – spread one of the most toxic materials known at the time across the globe so a few can live like kings. To make your blanket statement about spreading the wealth and health is laughable. Today’s wealth is as skewed to the fat cats as it was back then.

        It was nice to see such vast crowds and frankly, I have not yet heard of any violence, though if there was I’m sure Fox will make it THE headline. Interesting to note that they did not have anything on the marches on their website mid afternoonish other than “5 Inconvenient Truths” about the movement. Yet a story about our “heroes in Blue” coming under attack was front and center.

        Children were not denied lessons yesterday. In fact they learned a massive lesson in civics; it just took place in the world’s biggest classroom.

        • 0 avatar
          stingray65

          Dirty capitalists – of course greedy GM put lead in gasoline knowing full well its negative health consequences just because they couldn’t make money on alcohol – its all about making a buck for those damn pension funds, greedy little old ladies, parents saving for college, etc who expect a return from the GM shares they own. Its just too bad we could not follow the environmental policies of the USSR, Maoist China, Cuba, or Venezuela so that we could enjoy the same pristine socialist paradise.

          In fact, I would hope the schools will go an extra step in reinforcing the lesson they learned from the world’s biggest classroom. How about going the rest of the school year without electricity – disconnect the school from the grid. And Internet servers take more energy than air travel, so have the students turn in all their electronic devices for the rest of the year (which are the products of evil capitalists anyway). Furthermore, why are they getting rides to school when they could walk? And instead of pointless outdoor protests, why not put them to work in the fields growing organic vegetables to enjoy in their vegan diets (which they can start as soon as they finish eating their pet dog, cat, or rabbit)? If they are advocating carbon-free living they (and their teachers) really should be learning what it actually means.

          • 0 avatar
            stingray65

            Here is some eye opening documentation of the global warming fraud.

          • 0 avatar
            stingray65

            Sorry – link wasn’t allowed, but do a search on youtube for: “My gift to climate alarmists”

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            I looked at the video. As one can do with statistics, this guy does exactly what he claims the “alarmists” do. Bottom line is 97% of the world’s climatologists disagree with what this video says. Getting that level of consensus does not come easily nor can you do that with fakery. You could not fool that many people who are experts in this area. Especially when the money is firmly on the denial side.

            Last time the globe saw below average temps was 1976. It has moved upward in near-lockstep with atmospheric CO2 increases. Do you live in the same local that you did since being a kid? I do. As a kid the fall cleanup fell to us. In the 70s and 80s the trees were basically empty of leaves by Halloween. Today, the the trees are mostly bare after Thanksgiving. That change took place in earnest in the late 80s. Same with an earlier spring – the reality is the growing season is longer.

            Believe what you want. Both of us will be here to see more changes. I think that it is a forgone conclusion that it is happening. What should be the discussion is what it really will mean for the future. That is certainly not know with the precision that some say.

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        @stingray65,

        If education is “leftist indoctrination”, then reality has a liberal bias.

        Professors get fired for lying about the science, even with tenure.

        Secondary school teachers are just looking out for their kids as best they can.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      Genuine curiosity and zero snark or disrespect intended, but I have extreme doubts that Ms. Thunberg and majority of the people involved with the climate protest yesterday would approve of your ownership of a C7 Corvette, even if it isn’t your primary driver. How do you align your garage with your politics?

      I personally have a difficult time joining in with people when their plans contain such a strong opposition to vehicles, which have been a pretty big part of my life since I could walk. They aren’t going to be ok with me buying a Supra in two years (and some of them wouldn’t be okay with me buying a 330e or Leaf either). I’m not opposed to some sort of compromise (carbon tax, etc.), but I’ll never support a personal use FF ban.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        The C7 sees about 3000 miles a year. Half of that is road trips where the car routinely returns 30 MPG. I’d post the photos of the display but we can’t do that here. (Unrelated but the TTAC platform is extremely limited – no photos?). I commuted with a hybrid for years; now I am taking the train. Our total household driving is about 5000 miles a year. So I think my total gas consumption aligns pretty well with my politics. So does my house where I cut my natural gas consumption in half by energy efficiency improvements. Could our household do better? Yes, but all of my energy bills come with a running average compared to the other customers in the service area. We are consistently in the 10% bracket of least use.

        I have no interest in telling people what to buy. Nor do I oppose those who want a big vehicle. And I certainly enjoy car ownership, hence a sportscar and belonging to various car sites. But I do think we need to work toward reducing the amount of GHGs we emit as a country. And that is not just vehicles. Look at a typical city skyline and all those office buildings with damn near every light on at 10 PM – all of that is pure waste. There are gobs of areas to improve without reducing choice.

        • 0 avatar
          Luke42

          I’m a green-car hippie.

          I did the math, and the distance of your commute makes a much bigger difference than what you drive.

          If you drive a Prius 20k miles per year, you’ll enjoy more carbon than if you drive a Corvette 3k miles per year.

          You need to look at the whole duty cycle in order to optimize it. For instance, a Suburban is actually reasonably efficient in terms of person-miles-per-gallon IFF you drive it with all of the seats filled — but using a vehicle that big to haul air is pretty wasteful. The details matter.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Yeah the air is much clean and we owe CARB a big standing ovation and a monument to remember them by. But their job is done. The CARB is only wanting to pump automakers for extorted revenue.

    Except much of CA air quality gains came from a crackdown on diesels/buses, banning use of wood burning stoves/fireplaces, and the cruise ship/maritime industries banned from idling at ports. And commercial trucks have shutdown devices preventing idling more than 5 minutes. That’s just off the top of my head.

    Any actual “air quality” gains to come from light vehicles would be extremely minimal and only a side benefit of CARB corruption. The fines are small enough for automakers to easily pay without blinking an eye, but still add up to billions annually.

    • 0 avatar
      SaulTigh

      It’s like anything else. Create a large organization to solve a problem, solve it, then start scrambling to keep the infrastructure in place to save everyone’s jobs. I remember when every car reeked of gasoline and many of them smoked out the tail pipe too. It’s rare these days that you smell gas in traffic and I very rarely see a car that smokes, even some totally thrashed rides that probably should. Thanks’ CARB, you did your job, now time to move on.

      Most people willfully won’t remember this, but we pretty much had racism licked there for about a decade, then the people that made their living calling it out realized they would be obsolete and had to start looking for it under every rock.

  • avatar
    Daniel J

    Just reduce HP by 50 percent for every car sold to Cali.

    While I think CA does have a case for states rights I believe many in CA and it’s politicians would love to force the rest of the states to follow Cali on all social, environmental, and economic issues. I’ve read on Reddit and blogs where Californians would love to force EVs on everyone regardless of needs or infrastructure.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      It’s just funny that Republicans are all about States Rights when it comes to disenfranchising voters, but they’re suddenly against States Rights when it comes f*cking over the environment.

      Kinda makes you think Republican’s stated principles are meaningless.

      P.S. I was once a Republican, back when they called themselves the small business party. I haven’t been able to get behind them since they rebranded themselves as the fear party(post-9/11), anti-Obama party, or (more recently) the stupid party.

  • avatar
    Charliej

    Here is what is likely to happen. If Trump gets his way and standards are relaxed, manufacturers will continue to make cars to the California standards. The federal standards are a minimum. There is no rule that says manufacturers can not make cars that exceed the minimum standard. World standards will continue to tighten and any manufacturer that wants to sell cars anywhere but the US has to meet those standards. Trump can’t force manufacturers to go back to the way things used to be.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      ICE is a dead technology walking. It’s on it’s way out.

      Daimler and VW are dumping it:

      https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/tech-zukunft/daimler-stoppt-verbrennungsmotoren-entwicklung-2019/

      Here’s a list of the bans:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Besides reducing horsepower the manufacturers could regulate the top speed of vehicles to where they could not go beyond a set speed like 70 mph to meet California regulations (California specific). Driving faster uses more gas so just put regulators on how fast the vehicle can go that would add at least a couple of mpgs.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    I don’t see how emotional arguments coming from either paranoia of a mythical CA takeover of federal law or CARB overreach should have any sway here. Go look at the evidence. Even though AQ has improved, the Los Angeles area still scores an F from the American Lung Association.

    https://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/sota/city-rankings/states/california/los-angeles.html

    CARB sucks, but crappy AQ sucks more for about 10 million people in LA alone. When it comes to public safety, I’d rather have a local government that acts this way as opposed to a Flint, MI style approach. Or New Jersey.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      If CARB’s strict standards don’t work in the Los Angeles basin, where they were intended to work, what good are those standards? Maybe the LA basin is an unique combination of warm temperatures, proximity to the ocean, prevailing winds, and topography that has no human cause and no possible human solution.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    Let’s not pretend this issue is about air quality. It’s about CO2 emissions and California forcing the rest of the country to go along with its climate alarmist policies.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • dal20402: I’ve had plenty of Pentastar cars before that didn’t have this particular issue, but it is...
  • dal20402: Kind of the opposite. She doesn’t like to draw attention and a big loud red shouty car with scoops...
  • akear: From what I have been reading the strike may save those cars. The truth is GM cars are much better than their...
  • danio3834: I’ve had ’13, ’15 and ’17 R/Ts. Good, practical, fun cars for the money. No issues...
  • SaulTigh: I was in middle school when these came out, and several teachers immediately signed on the dotted line. I...

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