By on September 13, 2019

It’s not as if we anticipated any other outcome, but the White House is moving forward with a plan to revoke California’s authority to set its own vehicle emission standards. According to Reuters, President Donald Trump met with senior officials in Washington on Thursday to discuss the administration’s proposal to roll back Obama-era standards through 2025 and potentially revoke California’s waiver under the Clean Air Act to set state requirements for vehicles.

Anonymous sources claimed Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, National Economic Council director Larry Kudlow, Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and acting Office and Management and Budget director Russell Vought were in attendance. 

Wheeler recently stated that no official decisions had been made about California’s ability to self-regulate, while also suggesting that the final draft of the rollback could be less extreme than the original proposal. Thursday’s meeting must have been pretty productive.

From Reuters:

On Tuesday, Wheeler told reporters the administration had not made a final decision to divide the rule into two parts.

Following the meeting, sources said the administration plans to move ahead in coming weeks to divide the final regulation and finalize first the portion dealing with preempting states before issuing the new yearly standards.

The EPA in August 2018 proposed revoking a waiver granted to California in 2013 under the Clean Air Act as part of the Trump administration’s plan to roll back Obama-era fuel economy standards.

Under Trump, federal regulators backed freezing emissions requirements for new cars and trucks at 2020 levels through 2026. Administration officials say its final regulation will include a modest boost in annual efficiency requirements but far less than what the Obama administration set in 2012.

In the interim, the U.S. Justice Department will continue investigating whether Ford, Volkswagen, BMW, and Honda violated antitrust law by voluntarily agreeing to adopt California’s emission standards. Expect plenty of litigation to come from all of this, as California is unlikely to back down, plus a prolonged gas war.

[Image: Nithid Memanee/Shutterstock]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

102 Comments on “Gas War: White House Preparing to Strip California of Regulatory Privileges, Report Claims...”


  • avatar
    ajla

    I expect the WH will revoke the waiver and the decision on if they can actually do that will be decided by the Supreme Court.

    If the WH wins and Trump is re-elected then that likely means CAFE standard freezes or rollbackd. If the WH loses or if Trump loses then the deal worked out between Carb and the automakers will probably happen.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      California, and all other states that were on board should sue and tie this up in the courts for as long as possible. Trump is so hostile toward protecting the very planet that supports us that he needs to be stopped at any cost. Frankly, if he was shot dead I would donate money to the killer’s defense. After I had a party of course. Like the cigars that were shared when Koch Brothers became Koch brother. And even the Koch brothers kept this weasel at a distance.

      If he wanted to have a serious discussion on the standards and actually look at real data and open a dialogue that would be one thing. I’m not saying that there is not room for discussion, even it that means a minor rollback. But he is not driven by technological reasons or a concern for the consumer. It is pure spite and his desire to roll back anything that Obama did. Witness the lighting standards he killed. He is not 5% the man Obama was. At this point I would vote for rapist before I would vote for that piece of crap that presently is polluting the White House.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        Now I remember why I prefer to avoid TTAC’s more political posts.

      • 0 avatar
        whynotaztec

        May want to tone it down G2H, it sounds like you are advocating for the assassination of a sitting president.

      • 0 avatar

        golden2husky You need help, seriously. Toughen up – there are another four years to endure capitalist pigs.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          Nothing wrong with capitalism. Just Trump – and yeah I was not in a good frame of mind when I was writing that. Russia got a lot for their effort. Most lefties I know went further left and most conservative I know have moved even further right. So the plan to divide the country worked remarkably well. Hell, even his tax cut helped me. But I’d pay double if that would restore sensibility to our government.

      • 0 avatar
        SharkDiver

        No worries, President Trump only has another 5 1/2 years in office. After that you’ll have to complain about President Donald Trump Jr. for 8 years. MAGA brother!

        • 0 avatar
          snakebit

          You very funny person. SD. As silly as your assertion that Dumbo Jr might replace Agent Orange, it could be worse. We have the Vacuous Viper aka Ivanka who follows Agent Orange to summits sort of on the idea ‘Take your daughter to work’day visits or like a warm puppy looking for a treat, completely out of her element or expertise, i.e. a female Zelig.No, now that Agent Orange is getting set to issue Lion-hunting permits, who do you think will be first in line. Why, Dumbo Jr who by his own admission(see NYT article from a couple of years ago), does his best thinking(best being a relative term for him)in a hunting blind. No Trump electorial dynasty here, friend. Icanhardlywait for November 2020.

        • 0 avatar

          Jerry Brown was in office 16 years.

      • 0 avatar
        EliMorgan

        How can someone live life in a self made delusion? You are there brother.

  • avatar
    stingray65

    Time to play hardball with the People’s Republic of California, and while the Trump administration is at it they might also put a stop to all that sanctuary city/state nonsense and start deporting illegals (which will have the added benefit of taking away a few Congressional seats to be allocated to States with actual citizens and legal immigrants). Some more follow-through on shutting down all the Left-wing censorship at Google, Facebook, etc. by breaking them up is also called for. No reason for Republicans to show any mercy to a State that continues to move to the Left of North Korea.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      show us on the doll where California touched you, sweetheart.

    • 0 avatar
      Whatnext

      Who needs a car when you can hop aboard the crazytrain?

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      So you’re not a state’s rights kinda guy. You prefer central authorities with little to no accountability deciding how each state should go about it’s business.

      This is just the latest example of how states absolutely do need to go about their business with minimal guff from the feds.

      Let me pose this to you – do you believe that the issues that South Dakota, California and Idaho have anything to do with one another?

      • 0 avatar
        bullnuke

        Absolutely a states-rights issue. I say let California control their own environment as they have for years – let ’em go back to 110hp Corvettes and other “CARB Compliance” vehicles as they did 40-odd years ago. These folks choose to live in a location where air pollutants tend to gather due to the mountain range inland. This choice is similar to those who choose to live below sea level in New Orleans and are fairly regularly flooded (my taxes somehow are needed to support the choice of the location for their home by cleaning up afterwards) – choose your state, choose your fate. I don’t live in either of these locations and chose not to. Where are my “states rights” to a vehicle unencumbered by rules and regulations unnecessary in my state and the majority of the other states in the union? I say cut ’em loose from the federal CARB exemption and let the folks in California buy vehicles and then, as a mandatory option, aftermarket the pollution control/efficiency mods necessary to comply with their own “states rights” regulations and laws. Alternately California could simply follow the lead of some areas of Europe and outlaw ICE vehicles and forbid sales of them – force everyone out there into EV’s of some sort – problem solved. That would be a pretty good “states rights” win for them.

        • 0 avatar
          Hydromatic

          First time I’ve ever seen the whole “states rights” digs aimed at a liberal state like California.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            Foxtards are all about “states rights” until California tries to assert its rights. Then they go full Big Brother.

            Hypocrites are always blind to their own flaws.

          • 0 avatar
            N8iveVA

            JimZ- “Foxtards are all about “states rights” until California tries to assert its rights. Then they go full Big Brother.”

            What I was thinking. Talking about something like gay marriage they were all “LET STATES DECIDE”, then as soon as CA tries to do something like this they’re screaming about it being a Commie state and they shouldn’t be allowed to decide for themselves.

    • 0 avatar
      MiataReallyIsTheAnswer

      Stingray65 – PREACH!

  • avatar
    Drew8MR

    CARB has done a lot of good,but I still hate them for their ridiculous stance on older vehicles, which comprise but a tiny fraction of miles driven.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    I mean, regulatory capture of an agency (or an entire government) by business is one thing.

    But when you go farther than even business wants purely because you think it will own the libs, that’s a whole new level of dumb.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      we are being governed by a bunch of 70 year old children. I’m depressed at the petulant, bratty behavior more befitting a spoiled three year old.

      can’t the boomers just go the hell away already?

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        “boomers just go the hell away already”

        Both boomers and early millennials seem to share the same political mindset, it will be enjoyable when younger millennials and Gen Z gets into government, that will be a huge shift to the right.

        So I agree, I can’t wait til this old generation gets out and we can finally have real change. Though I am glad a few good people are around in these older generations to hold over until we get us some young blood in.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          …younger millennials and Gen Z gets into government, that will be a huge shift to the right…

          Uh, not a chance. More than 50% of Millenniala have a negative view on capitalism because they feel the got nothing from it, only debt and poor salaries despite having advanced degrees. So unless that generation starts getting more out of the sytem we have today, they are going to be more and more toward the progressive side and beyond.

          • 0 avatar
            Daniel J

            We don’t have a free market. We don’t have true capitalism. If we did we wouldn’t have lobbys. As it is now much of our problems are due to overregulation to the point that only one or two companies compete.

            I’m a millennial and I found a good. I however got a degree in STEM which allows an easier time getting a job.

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            …We don’t have a free market. We don’t have true capitalism. If we did we wouldn’t have lobbys. As it is now much of our problems are due to overregulation to the point that only one or two companies compete…

            We don’t have a free market. That is correct. We live in a mixed capitalistic society. True capitalism was here once – during the industrial revolution. Yes, it brought innovation and progress, but at extreme human and environmental cost. Both sides of that issue can be seen in the mini series “The Men who built America”. A great program – it simply lays it out without preaching. True socialism – the real kind, not what Hannity inaccurately calls socialism, is also a failure. The reality is that we count on our government to set the pointer somewhere in between. The big question is where between do we go…I’m of the mindset that business, left to its own devices, does what is best for itself without regard for anything else. Government is supposed to do what is best for the country overall. And that means regulation. Sometimes it may hurt a given segment but that is no different than the marketplace doing so. A coal miner is out of work regardless if that is because of a greenhouse gas regulation or from economically superior natural gas. But those lost jobs do translate into new jobs in the now more appropriate sector.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          I don’t know what data you’ve been reading, but Gen Z is the most liberal generation since polling started.

          https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/425818-generation-z-may-be-most-liberal-demographic-yet

          40 years from now, we’ll be aligned politically like any European country, with social democrats on the left and neoliberals on the right.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Soviet style collapse and subsequent balkanization is baked in to pie and likely planned for decades. Golitsyn warned, few listened. Bezmenov warned, a bit more but not enough listened. Igor Panarin made an interesting prediction, he was obviously off but I don’t think he is necessarily wrong:

            “In the summer of 1998,[18] based on classified data about the state of the U.S. economy and society[19] supplied to him by fellow analysts at FAPSI,[2] Panarin forecast the probable disintegration of the US into six parts in 2010 (at the end of June – start of July 2010, as he specified on 10 December 2008),[citation needed] following a civil war triggered by mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation. He forecast financial and demographic changes provoking a political crisis in which wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government, effectively seceding from the Union, leading to social unrest, civil war, national division, and intervention of foreign powers.[2] Panarin sees the task of the world elite as not letting the USA follow the Yugoslavian model of disintegration; it is desirable that it follows the Czechoslovakian model of disintegration so that everything goes calmly and peacefully.[citation needed]

            Explaining his theory in an interview with Izvestia, Panarin stated that “The U.S. dollar isn’t secured by anything. The country’s foreign debt has grown like an avalanche; this is a pyramid, which has to collapse. … Dissatisfaction is growing, and it is only being held back at the moment by the elections, and the hope [that President-elect Barack Obama] can work miracles. But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Panarin

            68,541 children in 2014 all of whom will be voting -and- fighting age by 2024, none of whom have any loyalty or ties to the United States.

            “Between 2013 and 2014, the number of unaccompanied children apprehended at the border increased nearly 80%, from 38,759 in fiscal year 2013 to 68,541 in fiscal year 2014”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_American_immigration_crisis

            At least 10.8 million illegals, real figures probably close to triple. Even 10% of the reported figure is 1 million. Sounds like a fifth column in the event of crisis.

            “The undocumented population was 10.8 million in 2016, the lowest level since 2003”

            https://cmsny.org/publications/warren-undocumented-2016/

            Incidentally on another topic, Matt Simmons in “Twilight in the Desert” made a prediction based on information from the 70s to 81 that the Saudis (specifically Ghawar) would peak by 2005. The Saudis stopped releasing official figures and technical papers in 1981 per Simmons, so what’s really happening is anyone’s guess. However, I believe Simmons may be right but in 2000 when he wrote his book he did not count on the fracking miracle which came online after 2007. I believe fracking simply bought time and given current projections we may see a global peak in the coming years. If a true peak were to occur around the time of 2024/25 along with the current level of societal division, I think you would agree is a powder keg waiting to go off.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “Soviet style collapse and subsequent balkanization is baked in to pie and likely planned for decades. ”

            let me guess, you spend a lot of time on reddit getting sewage pumped into your skull.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            If you have the capacity for mental comprehension, peruse some of the cited material and make up your own mind or better yet challenge the argument. Your l!btard Reddit friends do not posses the acumen or expertise to even fathom the long term strategy being employed, nor has one ever studied Sovietology or foreign policy of the past forty years.

            https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2019/09/gas-war-white-house-preparing-to-strip-california-of-regulatory-privileges-report-claims/#comment-9803094

        • 0 avatar
          bunkie

          Not this boomer. Or most of his boomer friends. Nor are all millennial (fill in whatever adjective you want here).

          While it is true that the specific challenges faced by each generation vary, any argument that labels all members thereof with a particular mindset is childish in the extreme.

  • avatar
    ToddAtlasF1

    If Trump can pull them off, he will be the greatest world leader in history and perhaps even create an America where young people start caring about their futures again instead of being instruments of their own destruction.

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      I’m right of center and am often the first to harshly criticize the idiocy of CA gov’t, but air quality got better post CARB. Results before politics. Doesn’t mean CARB is perfect, but it does mean things got pushed the right direction. Can’t recall a time when I’ve heard warnings about AQ being bad and to stay indoors. And there’s more people here today than 15 years ago.

      The issue of AQ in large cities will continue to be enormously important until a larger percentage of us drive EV’s. Until then, it makes sense to stick with what is working and tweak for improvements.

      Todd, Dying on a political hill because you’re enamored with a political leader is precisely what you rightly criticized Obama’s glassy eyed supporters for. Why behave the same way?

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        “Until then, it makes sense to stick with what is working and tweak for improvements.”

        That’s not what’s happening, we found a happy medium and tighter measures are still being ratcheted down. Your comment is contradictory to itself.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        “Why behave the same way?”

        Government by “owning” the Libs! (Or haven’t you heard?)

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          It’s nothing about “owning libs” it’s about keeping auto prices in check, the sudden $10k jump in price on full-size SUVs 8 years ago is the perfect example of why something needs to be done. There’s no reason that we need to be chasing infinitesimally small improvements when they are not cost effective.

          It’s ridiculous for one state to cause harm to all 49 other states just for a gotcha to everyone else.

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            Depends on where you live. Auto emissions in Las Cruces aren’t as critical as Los Angeles.

            According to the American Lung Association, LA is still failing….

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

            … and yet if you compare to the peak in around 2005, the air has fewer particulates from cars.

            Loosening AQ standards doesn’t pass any common sense test for cities like this with significant health risks. This isn’t political… it’s science.

            And economics, if you want to talk about externalities.

          • 0 avatar
            mtunofun

            Cars aren’t expensive because of emissions. They are expensive because consumers want apple carplay, advanced driver safety systems, automatic air conditioning, more sound deadening, 18+ inch wheels, led/xenon headlamps, heated/ventilated seats.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “Cars aren’t expensive because of emissions.”

            I’d like to see some numbers on this.

            “apple carplay, advanced driver safety systems, automatic air conditioning, more sound deadening, 18+ inch wheels, led/xenon headlamps, heated/ventilated seats.”

            Most of those things are incredibly cheap at volume, the only thing which may not be would be the advanced xenon systems which I know for fact are expensive to replace. I also think the “safety systems” of the 2008-10 period were the high water mark for ROI. Look at the nonsense “safety” being added now, all cheap sensor systems *not* platform updates or different/stronger materials for the most part.

            Incidentally Volvo ran the circa 1998 P2 platform until 2015 and it continued to get five stars, the “advanced” safety technology has existed for quite awhile. People may have clamored for this in 1990 or 2000, but not today.

          • 0 avatar
            HotPotato

            Dude, that is the whole point: California sets standards for itself. Other states can follow its standards if they like, but they don’t have to, and the majority don’t. This authority is grandfathered in: California set emissions standards before the federal government did, largely because geography made it a murderously severe problem in the Los Angeles basin.

        • 0 avatar
          jkross22

          Yeah, it’s governing via bullhorn.

          Problem is we’re all going deaf.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        Air quality is now getting worse because of the regulations that CARB is sticking to. Read up on what DI engines made common by this tightening emissions regiment are doing to air quality and health. That being said, the ends justify the means isn’t something good people are supposed to say.

        Pre-Obama, the cars allowed by the EPA were clean enough to not be meaningful sources of pollution. CARB’s waiver from the commerce clause was obsolete and liberty should have been restored.

        Is there anyone who held their nose and voted for Obama only to be pleasantly surprised by his agenda in action? I voted against Hillary, but Trump has been the most positive governmental surprise of my lifetime.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          It’s seems like Hyundai and Kia have mastered rolling coal with their DI crossovers, I rarely go a day without seeing one belching dark smoke.

        • 0 avatar
          jkross22

          Todd, That’s my point. Fix CARB where it’s either outdated, wrong or made assumptions that they screwed up. Either that or have the EPA step up.

          Just kidding on that last point…. I prefer local control.

          Sounds like your beef is really with the carmakers since they won’t sell non-compliant cars in your state. Tell ’em you want the real smokey ones.

          I hear VW has some clean diesels they want to unload.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I started to post something more of substance but stopped because something else came up an hour ago, however I do recall from memory reading some CARB data where they reduced certain kinds of emissions by something ridiculous like 94% in twenty five years. I seriously congratulate them assuming my memory is accurate because 94% is some real progress to be proud of, but like all entities who have outlived their usefulness, it refuses to die.

            The ROI from say 2000 to now on whatever is left of the original 6% is going to be incredibly bad vs ROI on the first 94%. In short, the 6% remaining is simply too expensive and isn’t worth chasing, the correct move is to shrink CARB and simply monitor to ensure that 94% figure keeps. But that requires thinking things though. I’m surprised the White House hasn’t researched these facts and put together a quick memorandum explaining how well they have done and how the cost of pursuit is simply prohibitive in a state which literally has a homeless crisis on its doorstep involving actual citizens as opposed to illegals. The Bolshevik response would be typical nonsensical and inane, but that’s their go to stance in nearly every situation. Make it about dollars and sense folks, I have yet to see such arguments.

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            “but like all entities who have outlived their usefulness, it refuses to die.”

            Agree 110%, and if that’s the case for CARB, they need to be sh**canned. This is a case where it’s a matter of which do you trust less – A president who tends to not think, then speak, then reflexively defend whatever gibberish he just uttered no matter how fact free it might be, or with CARB an organization that has had success but to your point, one whose usefulness may have already passed or whose goals need to be changed to remain useful to those paying the tab.

            The fact that the Lung Assoc still gives all of Los Angeles an F for air quality, I’m open to hearing a new strategy. Trump just wants to throw everyone’s towel in the pool.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            what kind of addle-pated ninny thinks “the regulations worked, so get rid of the regulations?” do you think the people/corporations responsible for the pollution leading to the regulations will just continue spending money staying clean out of the goodness of their hearts?

            oh, aren’t you little sweeties precious.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        AFAIK, the Trump admin is not planning to revoke any of CA’s “air quality” or smog-related waivers.

        This seems to only be related to CA’s GHG waiver that was first granted in 2009 (it was denied previously by the Bush admin).

        • 0 avatar
          chuckrs

          @ajla – gold star for reading comprehension

          CA can just locally tax the bleep out of gas to reduce consumption, which appears to be their strategy in any event. If GHG is such a big concern, CA should ban the manufacture and use of concrete (actually cement) in state.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “f Trump can pull them off, he will be the greatest world leader in history”

      man, you have low standards. History didn’t start the day you turned 18, dumbass.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    State’s rights be damned. CARB isn’t limited to 1 state, 15 states and the District of Columbia have adopted CARB standards and another 4 states are considering ratification.

    That is 143.3 million citizens with states adopted (or deploying) CARB, and coming tipping point of 50%+ of the nation aligned to the standard.

    Bill of Rights? Tenth Amendment?

    Oh, and major auto companies are aligning with CARB because an economy of scale is achieved through global production standards, and Europe and parts of Asia have tougher standards than US EPA that automakers align to anyway?

    Bueller? Bueller?

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US constitution specifically reserves the power to regulate interstate commerce for the US Congress. California had to be granted a waiver. The purpose of the waiver is obsolete, as the US Congress has taken up the purpose of regulating emissions. Revoking the waiver is restoring the American people’s protection from state governments denying them their economic liberty by regulating interstate commerce. Your invoking the various amendments in an effort to harness liberal ignorance to obviate the constitution is the act of a charlatan.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        When January 20th, 2021 rolls around, a more extreme version of the California rules will be written for all of the states. You know it’s coming. In the meantime, California has plenty of other tools to enforce emissions indirectly. Emissions taxes that can be charged according to the number of miles driven and by vehicle. Just increase the per-mile charge to a point no one buys a non-conforming vehicle.

      • 0 avatar
        ect

        Todd, unlike you, I am actually a lawyer. Also unlike you, I don’t pretend to be an expert in constitutional law.

        I do know, however, that there is a general principle of constitutional law that in areas of shared jurisdiction, states may not pass laws that seek to reduce or eliminate requirements set by federal legislation. They may, however, adopt more stringent requirements within their state than those set by federal law.

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          I was an excellent student of constitutional law. Actually, I excelled in all of my law classes in earning my political science degree with a minor in economics. I didn’t pursue a law degree because law professors are enemies of the American people who create ghouls that spend their lives looking for ways to roll back the protections of the constitution and to destroy the populace’s faith in the rule of law.

          I was amazed the first time I talked to someone preparing to take the bar exam in Massachusetts who didn’t know about Marbury v. Madison. I was only amazed the first time though. That you’re asserting being a lawyer makes your approval of judicial abuse authoritative doesn’t move me a bit.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            Your entire post is bulls**t. “Oh, I was an excellent law student in everything I studied, but I decided not to be a lawyer because I’m a liar.”

            On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.

    • 0 avatar
      volvo

      Yes but to keep the facts straight Europe and parts of Asia you mentioned do not have tougher standards than CARB.

      I am not sure that automakers produce or import only CARB compliant vehicles but I do know that there are any number of replacement parts that need to be CARB compliant and modifying an older vehicle needs a specific CARB waiver. If the vehicle is of an era where the engine and transmission talk to the ECU or were part of CARB compliance then swapping one of those out also requires a CARB waiver which is not easy to get.

      And regardless of where you are on the political spectrum the courts have pretty much decided that interstate commerce is not a area where states rights prevail which is why California needed a waiver for their stricter standards.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        This won’t have anything to do with state’s rights, the 10th amendment, or interstate commerce. There are three broad-ish criteria in the CAA that go over denying/revoking CA’s waivers. If the courts agree that the WH’s justification falls under those criteria then the GHG waiver is gone, if they don’t then it stays.

    • 0 avatar
      chuckrs

      ” Europe and parts of Asia have tougher standards than US EPA”

      The manufacturers also have more creative approaches to hornswoggling the regulators.

  • avatar
    MiataReallyIsTheAnswer

    Kalifornia can abide by the same rules as all the other states, or they can go be a separate nation, the idiots.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    A tennis friend of mine who’s active in local GOP politics here in CA asked me recently, “what should I tell Trump?” as he was planning to attend some event with the President.

    I said, “tell him to stop letting states set their own emission standards.”

  • avatar
    hpycamper

    Telling California that they cannot effectively address their issues of air quality is like telling Atlantic coast states they cannot address hurricane issues. No special building codes, flood control, etc. Yes, liberty for all.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Why not just issue a state fuel tax of $3.00 a gallon and essentially get the same end result without controlling businesses and screwing over the rest of the country?

      The building code in Duck, NC need not apply to Albuquerque, NM yet that’s essentially what’s happening due to California regulations.

      These are changes We the People have been asking for for years, it’s good to finally see at least someone looking into it even if nothing comes of it. Everyone likes to throw up their hands over what results in essentially no noticeable change to the negative and a huge net positive.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      Hey, stop with the intelligent logic. Trump know better. He knows a lot of wonderful things.

      • 0 avatar
        jkross22

        … and his IQ is one of the highest. Ask him, he’ll tell you.

        “Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure,it’s not your fault”

        – DJT, 2013, Twitter, natch

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      Why shouldn’t Florida set the hurricane rules for Illinois?

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      The day hurricanes become items of interstate commerce, the feds can regulate them.

  • avatar
    hpycamper

    Hummer. The rest of the country does not have to go along with CARB. For decades, CA has gone its own way and payed the extra costs for CARB compliant vehicles. Now it’s some big deal. This is solely about spanking CA.
    So how about we nationalize building codes too?

  • avatar
    carguy

    Anyone cheering for California to lose this fight is also cheering for a liberal president to force liberal social policies on conservative states.

    The crazy political tribalism that infests our country and the increasing partisan weaponization of political power are making us weaker much faster than any foreign power even could.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      I’d be interested in hearing about what exemptions from national standards are being carved out for conservative states.

      Automotive production and travel are an interstate commerce issue. That’s the purview of the federal government, per the US Constitution. California was given a very specific exemption from the rules to deal with one local problem. There’s no right to that exemption, it and can be taken away.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    DO IT… just so I can see their heads explode.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    I’m surprised that so many conservative commenters have a problem with state’s rights suddenly. I thought you guys were all about letting the states do what was in their own best interests, except for a few things the feds are responsible for doing.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      PRK takes everything to an extreme level, it is dangerous for the Union as a whole when one of the member states continually defies Federal authority (I seem to recall a war about something to this effect, hmmmmm). See the thing about Federalism is the Feds sit at the head of the table. If we want to do away with this, sure thing I’d prefer a confederation. But we both know that’s not going to happen, so what will happen is the lunatics in Sacramento will keep pushing until the Soviet style collapse occurs which I prognosticate in this post:

      https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2019/09/gas-war-white-house-preparing-to-strip-california-of-regulatory-privileges-report-claims/#comment-9802980

      They are the useful idiots Bezmenov warned about.

      • 0 avatar
        MBella

        You’re absolutely right 28. I think watching Bezmenov should be mandatory for everyone in this country. What I wonder is if China took over those programs from the KGB after the Soviet Union collapsed.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          If you subscribe to the Golitsyn Thesis the central tenets are as follows:

          After the death of Stalin in 1954, the inner circle of the CPSU including the KGB decided there could be no more leader such as Stalin to create chaos for the world communist revolution. Their ultimate goal was to force the concept of East-West convergence, meaning the West would either morph into Marxist-Leninist society through long term deception and subversion or they would somehow have an successful opportunity to destroy us in a first strike, the latter of which obviously never occurred.

          Starting around 1958 the KGB directorates were reorganized into an “inner” and “outer” ring where Golitsyn was part of the alleged “inner” ring who was directing the long term strategy which Bezmenov alludes to in his 1984 interview whereas the “outer” ring was not given this information as they were believed more at risk to defect. In 1961 Golitsyn himself defected near the Swedish-Finnish border and was subsequently interviewed by the CIA in Stockholm. He alleged all of the above but was not believed, he did however give them information which identified several moles.

          In 1984 Golitsyn published “New Lies for Old”, which is a heavy read, but in it he makes a number of predictions including: severe economic liberalization in the Soviet Bloc including a rapprochement with the West, a new younger leader would lead these reforms, he empathizes a Soviet Bloc member would break away and attempt to join the West (Poland), and a number of other things including the fall of the Berlin Wall. While his claims of a Soviet Bloc member being used as a Trojan Horse turned out false, many of his other predictions were true by 1990.

          In 1995 he wrote a second book named “The Perestroika Deception” in which among other things he alleges the 1966 Sino-Soviet split was a deception play on the part of the Soviets and PRC designed to allow the West to believe Mao’s government was open to more friendly relations to the West and could be trusted as at least a neutral party if not ally. He believed both the CPSU and CPC were in fact united as “one clenched fist” who would eventually strike the West together.

          Given events since 1990 both in Russia and China, I find it difficult to believe some element of this thesis is not in play. The Uruguay Round of GATT -whose long negotiations took place before, during, and after the fall of the Soviet Union- was an economic and industrial giveaway to the Third World which most notably benefited the People’s Republic of China and made a very small percentage of Americans rich. Perot warned us as did Sir James Goldsmith, no one listened. So today the industrial base of the world is concentrated in the East and the United States most likely does not have the industrial capacity to fight a serious war against global opponents short of going nuclear. Sure we can beat up on the Third World, sort of, but most likely we do not have the industrial resources to actually build weapons of war for a serious conflict with the Eastern Bloc.

          Just look at how the 2011 Fukushima Tsunami hit automakers so hard because of certain paints and parts only being manufactured in Fukushima, Japan. Now imagine a Chinese embargo similar to the one imposed on Japan in 1941. How will the things that get assembled here be built without access to the PRC suppliers? None of this is by accident, globalization was and is a threat to national security by design. We were betrayed by our leaders, Lenin said “the Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them” and this is precisely what has occurred.

          All of the economic and social subversion which has occurred in the United States since 1990 is about the ultimate fulfillment of East-West convergence and possibly the predecessor to some sort of world order. One ideology be it capitalism and communism cannot rule if the other is still in a power status. So they took down the Soviet empire, then they will take down the West which is happening before our eyes. The Roman Empire could not survive the debasement of currency nor shall the West. The social, political, and economic subversion which began so long ago is coming to a melting point, and I believe the end game will be the controlled collapse of the United States in the coming years probably followed by “UN” troops who in fact will be occupiers. All of the language coming from the media -all of which are shades of the same message which admits collusion- is very anti-American and advocates existing citizens simply accept the cultural suicide being enacted. It is crystal clear our own systems, education, justice, media, are being used against us just as Bezmenov alluded. This California business over emissions is a symptom of the same larger problem.

          I’m not sure if the current President is aware of any of this or may be playing on the team behind it, but I do know he is -on paper- attempting to do something about the economic situation. Whether anything changes or not I cannot say. There was a theory that he was backed by a faction who wanted to preserve what’s left of industrial capacity of the United States from a national defense standpoint. Maybe that’s true, I don’t know. What I do know is nothing short of a Presidential order of martial law followed by a sealing of the borders and immediate apprehension of all enemies of the Republic will have any effect on what’s coming. Even in such a situation, the population has been so subverted they will revolt in many places which can only lead to bloodshed. I fear at this point, nothing is going to stop this freight train to hell.

          “New Lies for Old
          In 1984, Golitsyn published the book New Lies For Old,[16] wherein he warned about a long-term deception strategy of seeming retreat from hard-line Communism designed to lull the West into a false sense of security, and finally economically cripple and diplomatically isolate the United States. ”

          “In his book Wedge – The Secret War between the FBI and CIA (Knopf, 1994), Mark Riebling stated that of 194 predictions made in New Lies For Old, 139 had been fulfilled by 1993, 9 seemed ‘clearly wrong’, and the other 46 were ‘not soon falsifiable”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoliy_Golitsyn

          “Behind the impressive smokescreen of pseudo-democracy, pseudo-capitalism
          and pseudo-reform, this Russian-Chinese ‘cooperation-blackmail’ strategy is irrecon-
          cilably hostile to the West. Again, this is no mere presumption. It was explicitly con-
          firmed in May 1994 to Clark Bowers, a member of an official US Republican delegation to
          Peking, by Mr Mo Xiusong, Vice Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party, who is
          believed to be the highest-ranking Chinese Communist official ever to have answered
          questions put to him by a knowledgeable Western expert on Communism:

          Bowers: Is the long-term aim of the Chinese Communist Party

          still world Communism?

          Mo Xiusong: Yes, of course. That is the reason we exist. ”

          “Communist China was one of the principal architects of the Communists’
          long-range strategy. The Sino-Soviet ‘split’ was a common strategic disinformation
          operation to secure the successful preparation of their common strategy of ‘restruc-
          turing’. The Soviet and Chinese leaders have continued their secret strategic coordi-
          nation through a division of labour.

          Gorbachev’s ‘perestroika’ and Deng’s ‘Four Modernisations’ (a Chinese eu-
          phemism for ‘restructuring’, or ‘perestroika’) are two similar elements in the final
          phase of the common strategy. ”

          https://archive.org/stream/AnatoliyGolitsyn/Golitsyn-ThePerestroikaDeception-TheWorldsSlideTowardsTheSecondOctoberRevolution1995_djvu.txt

          https://archive.org/stream/GolitsynAnatoleTheNewLiesForOldOnes/Golitsyn-NewLiesForOld-TheCommunistStrategyOfDeceptionAndDisinformation1984_djvu.txt

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay_Round

          • 0 avatar
            HotPotato

            Who exactly do you believe is pushing for one-world communism? Who exactly? Obviously not Russia, it’s a kleptocracy that believes in nothing. Obviously not China, it’s a state-capitalist autocracy that believes in making money; the “communist party” there is now about as communist as Jack Welch was. Literally nobody, other than maybe some idiots in a London coffee shop, believes in communism…let alone is steering a 50-year secret plot for its eventual triumph.

            Seriously, log off Reddit and engage with the real world.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Ok so let’s say I hand the equivalent of Nixon’s enemies list of the who’s who of this multi-generational plan to you, what then? Does it matter? You gonna go Lee Harvey Oswald and save us all? WHO does not matter it is the WHAT and perhaps the HOW which are important. You can stand in front of the steamroller, or see it coming to move out of the way. The choice is yours.

            “let alone is steering a 50-year secret plot for its eventual triumph.”

            Do you pay attention to what’s going on around you or just keep your head in the sand? I dare you to say America is not depreciating by the decade economically, socially, morally, and spiritually.

  • avatar

    This thread demonstrates how Socialism brings out the very worst in people. It is disgusting.

  • avatar
    JD-Shifty

    It’s too bad you Rayndian old obese folks don’t have any respect for clean air and water.

  • avatar
    ptschett

    I dunno, I think a distinction can be made between:
    -specific hazards that are demonstrably almost-immediately and locally harmful (NOx -> ground level ozone, particulate matter, unburnt hydrocarbons, etc.) which may need stricter local regulation for CA due to CA’s unique geological considerations, and
    -global theoretical hazards (e.g. CO2) where the regulated chemical has always been with us, and regulation is effectively the imposition of a new fuel economy standard for CA and the CA-aligned states

    One can want CARB to be able to effectively deal with the smog considerations unique to the Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay regions, (and other states that follow CARB regulations that have similar problems) and also *not* want it to be able to set an alternate fuel economy regime up for half of the United States.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    I don’t live there. I’m never going to live there…Why do I care. Seems like a local issue for the people of California to solve. If they see this as important enough to pay more for a car (I travel to LA and frankly if I lived there, I would) then let em’ have their tougher standards.

    Maybe some automakers will decide to sell cars built to those standards to all 50 states. But I bet someone will decide they can make some extra cash selling more powerful “non-california” versions to the 40 or 60 (cant remember which) percent of the market that isnt under CARB. My locale’s topography doesn’t need as strict of a standard as the LA Basin. The Free Market and States Rights work well in these situations when all of the numbskulls keep their hands off of it.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @Art Vandelay–Well said, completely agree. Some of this is Trump looking for a fight which is how he operates. Let California and the states that follow California’s standards do whatever they want. If a manufacturer decides to make vehicles that are compliant with all 50 states then that is their choice and if they don’t care to sell in California then they do not have to comply with California regulations. Living in Kentucky I don’t want to pay for California regulations unless the manufacturer makes vehicles compliant with California regulations for all 50 states that is still affordable. I am not going to lose any sleep over this especially since I do not live in California.

  • avatar
    Sceptic

    This discussion is full of vile racist hate against Trump. Majority of people can feel this kind of hate coming from the current Democratic party. Hate against Trump is hate against the choice of an average American voter. This is why Trump will win his second term.

    • 0 avatar
      N8iveVA

      So much wrong in what you just said. What racist hate are you talking about? Plus there’s a whole lot of Trump love in a lot of these comments. I’m sure you were fine with 8 years of hatred spewed from the right against Obama?

      “Hate against Trump is hate against the choice of an average American voter.” How is that so when more people voted for Hillary?

    • 0 avatar
      HotPotato

      The only people to mention race in here at all are the Trump fans banging the drum about a “fifth column” of “illegals.” Christ, you are too much. Can we please keep the nutty politics off the car blog?

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Arthur Dailey: “a tiny electric MPV which could hold seven people.” That caught my attention. Googled and...
  • Ryoku75: The basic shape of this thing makes me think of the PT Cruiser, heck, just dig up the old blueprints, give...
  • bunkie: I guess there aren’t lots of three-minute-long stoplights where you live. In such an environment,...
  • 28-Cars-Later: I can’t speak for Ford but at least for GM prior to 2018 the onboarding process at the plants...
  • bunkie: Winter tires do work better on ice, but probably not enough to override your desire to stay home.

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