By on November 24, 2020

General Motors has changed its mind on backing the Trump administration’s effort to supplant Obama-era emission regulations with something more manageable and prohibit California from setting its own emissions rules. Of course, the coastal rules aren’t really just for California — it desperately wants to export them to the rest of the country and has made rather incredible headway for not being the federal government. The coastal region has already convinced over 20 states to follow in its footsteps and even amassed support from auto manufacturers like BMW, Ford, Honda, and Volkswagen Group.

Other automakers, including General Motors, felt the Trump plan would give them more flexibility and undoubtedly make them less subject to government fines. However, with a Biden presidency assured without Trump and Co. having an extremely powerful voter fraud case, GM has become a turncoat. On Monday, CEO Mary Barra issued a letter to environmental groups stating that her company is “immediately withdrawing from the preemption litigation and inviting other automakers to join us.”

GM now wants to work with Joe Biden — probably because the company understands his administration is going to be regulating the snot out of the nation.

While famously unwilling to commit on several key issues, Biden has said he wanted to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement, phase out hydraulic fracturing (aka fracking), and is assumed to put the kibosh on Trump’s fuel rollbacks. That likely means ending the United States’ brief stint of energy independence, increased gas/electricity prices, and encouraging automakers to build small-engine cars that will eventually be supplanted by electric vehicles.

President Trump has repeatedly warned that such moves would give an advantage to China, which doesn’t have to make any changes under the Paris Agreement until 2030. He did so again at this week’s G-20 summit, stating that the U.S. was already making the most headway toward becoming carbon neutral of any nation. “[The Paris Climate Agreement is] not designed to save the environment,” he said. “It was designed to kill the American economy.”

Either way, Biden is taking an incredibly different approach and has seen corporate interests line up behind him in a manner Trump could only have dreamed of. Last week, GM even increased spending on EVs and autonomous vehicles by 35 percent from its previously announced plans. We’re guessing that had something to do with the media reporting that the Biden-Harris ticket would be cashed in for 2021.

According to Reuters, Barra said she believes “the ambitious electrification goals of the president-elect, California, and General Motors are aligned, to address climate change by drastically reducing automobile emissions.”

From Reuters:

Toyota said in a statement Monday that the company has “long supported year-over-year improvements in fuel economy standards” that provide climate and national energy security benefits but it had backed the Trump administration plan “knowing there was a preponderance of other automakers” aligned.

“Given the changing circumstances, we are assessing the situation, but remain committed to our goal of a consistent, unitary set of fuel economy standards applicable in all 50 states,” the company said.

While other automakers backing the Trump plan have remained silent so far, Democrat leadership and environmental activists had been howling that the United States must modernize to remain competitive. They claim the Trump rollbacks have no place in an America that’s striving to become more like its neighbors.

The Trump administration finalized a rollback of fuel efficiency standards in March, adding a concession increasing annual efficiency rates by 1.5 percent through 2026. But it’s far below the 5 percent yearly jumps the Obama administration rules mandated, even if experts have suggested such increases would be untenable. While we cannot say what’s to become of Trump’s fuel rules under a Biden presidency, we don’t foresee them lasting.

[Image: Marc Bruxelle/Shutterstock]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

143 Comments on “GM Switches Sides in the Gas War, Joins California/Biden...”


  • avatar

    Direct the political snark/commentary and your belittling language (snot, howl) elsewhere. The author should know better.

    Fossil fuels are contributing to significant climate change, and as much as I love my ICE vehicles (and loathe anything EV), we have to make drastic changes to minimize the already catastrophic effects that climate change is causing around the globe.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      So what “drastic changes” do you support?

      • 0 avatar
        Oberkanone

        Depopulate California. Population density in California is disastrous to environment. Over 91 million metric tons of CO2 from fires just this year.

        • 0 avatar
          zerofoo

          Eh – human population CO2 emissions pale in comparison to volcanic emissions:

          https://www.academia.edu/40573989/Discovery_of_Massive_Volcanic_CO2_Emissions_Rebuts_human_caused_Global_Warming_Theory_geological_heat_flow_is_possibly_the_root_cause_of_changes_to_our_oceans?auto=download

          Geologic activities emit far more CO2 than all of human activities.

          Maybe we need laws regulating volcanic emissions?

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Ah, so because we can’t do anything about geologic emissions, we shouldn’t do anything about pollution emissions.

            Now, you were saying something about “flawed logic” as I recall…

        • 0 avatar
          Luke42

          @Oberkanone
          “Population density in California is disastrous to environment. Over 91 million metric tons of CO2 from fires just this year.”

          Dense cities have lower emissions per capita than dispersed populations.

          Suburbia may be the worst of both worlds, but a dense big-city downtown is surprisingly efficient per person.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          California has a better way. They’re frantically replacing residents that lived in big homes and drove big trucks for residents that prefer living outdoors and walk everywhere! Naturists if you will.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @DenverMike:

            You joke, but I think that may be the only sustainable way forward for them. There are too many people living in too little space. Transit and walking are gonna have to happen there, or things are going to become unlivable.

            Back in the day, places like New York and London faced the same problem, just without cars. They made it work with transit. But folks in L.A. aren’t going to go for that, and you could probably put a city of 10,000 people on Mars for what it’d cost to build a New York-style transit system in San Fran.

            I think that this, coupled with the whole work-at-home revolution brought on by COVID, is going to bode well for the Midwest and Rust Belt – folks are just going to get sick of the congestion and expense, and those who can afford to move elsewhere will do just that. Hell, I’m seriously thinking about abandoning Denver, and it’s nowhere near as expensive here as it is in California.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            California isn’t laughing. So how can they retain million/billionaires?

            Especially with a proposed wealth tax/surcharge of 0.4% annual for (the crime of?) exceeding 30 million income/assets?

            Yep CA has proposed the “Exit Tax” for those wishing to escape this law/code. It sounds outrageous but CA says the tax would follow them for 10 years after they move out of state, gradually phasing out (10% less a year).

            Regardless, the more CA taxes everyone to hell, throws massive paperwork and fees at anyone trying to start a business, get licensed, expand an existing one, or otherwise get ahead, while pretty much preferring CA residents be poor, unemployed, on food stamps, Medicaid, meth, homeless, jail, etc, the more they’re forced to tax everyone else to high hell.

            It’s already having a cascading effect, mass exodus.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            youtube.com/watch?v=gSBny6EzX14

          • 0 avatar
            RHD

            High real estate costs are driving residents from California.
            Meanwhile, the fantastic climate, varied geography and usually strong economy attract more residents.
            No one has to de-ice their door locks or scrape their windshields in California, except the few residents of Donner Pass once or twice a year.

      • 0 avatar
        thegamper

        I think eliminating 2 stroke engines and greatly curtailing diesel would be a good start. Diesel in and of itself is not horrible provided it has the proper emissions equipment, but we all know that is not happening as often as it should, emissions control tampering is rampant, older equipment is grandfathered in, etc.

        I know a lot of little things add up to something big and they will have disproportionate effects on different people. But, the sooner these issues are addressed the more good they can do (for all of us).

        • 0 avatar
          Luke42

          @thegamper:
          “I think eliminating 2 stroke engines and greatly curtailing diesel would be a good start.”

          That will certainly improve the pollution picture a great deal.

          I’ve banned 2-strokes from my personal tool shed for that reason. Also, because my then-pregnant wife threw up because of the exhaust fumes when I doing yard work near an open window.

          I’m a big fan of electric lawn equipment, at least for people with the quarter-acre sized yard I have.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      “catastrophic effects that climate change is causing”

      Probably made up stuff. Obama and John Kerry just invested $15,000,000 each on the shore front properties in Martha’s Vineyard. Do you think these climate activists would do these if they really thought that effects are so bad?

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        I see. So…if these guys think global warming is real they should refuse to buy shoreline properties. Got it.

        By the same token, anyone who thinks tornadoes are real should not buy property in Oklahoma. Correct?

        (There is this new thing called “property insurance,” you know…)

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Absolutely! If they bought inland and on the hill, I could tell – these guys see its coming. But they don’t and we shouldn’t.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Now, you do know this stuff isn’t forecast to happen in their lifetimes, right?

            But don’t let that stand in the way of a good, solid piece of illogic! Rant on!

            (This is the level of critical thought we’re dealing with, folks…ever seen “Idiocracy”? It’s happening before our very eyes. Next up: cure the world’s ills with Brawndo!)

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            “Absolutely! If they bought inland and on the hill, I could tell – these guys see its coming. But they don’t and we shouldn’t.”

            How do you know they didn’t. I know of plenty of waterfront properties in New England that are well above the level of the ocean.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            “Absolutely! If they bought inland and on the hill, I could tell ”

            Parts of marthas vineyard are over 300′ above sea level.

        • 0 avatar
          mcs

          “I see. So…if these guys think global warming is real they should refuse to buy shoreline properties. Got it.”

          When you buy shoreline property, you just have to be careful. Come around during one of the higher tides and see which areas are starting to experience “blue-sky”/non-storm flooding over roads. Find something a few feet higher. We’re already seeing the effects of rising sea levels. I’ve seen roads flooded where I don’t remember seeing flooding in the past other than a storm.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            You make too much sense.

            Clearly something is happening in regards to climate. The only questions are a) what the exact effects are, b) how severe they will be, and c) the exact timeframe they will occur.

            And some folks take this to mean “do nothing.” That’s like telling your doctor to go take a hike when he says you need to lose some weight, stop smoking, and eat better but can’t give you an exact list of what’s going to go wrong with you and when if you keep living the way you do. Fair to say that person is a fool.

            I don’t do these “discussions” with the deniers to change their minds – they’re beyond hope. That, or their entire 401k is made up of fossil fuel stocks. Take your pick. But maybe someone who is on the fence will listen and see how unbelievably silly their reasoning is.

            If nothing else, alt energy will work better, cheaper, and cleaner, and there will be more of it. That’s a better mousetrap. And some country is going to be smart enough to invent it. Why can’t it be us?

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            mcs,

            good that you said that. I remember, when I was a kid and went to school, the geography class included subject of tectonic plate movement. And as result of that movement, some areas of the world were raising and others sinking. We’re all floating on the hot lava. Also, there is erosion. Sandy banks eventually washed into the ocean. You can see this on the Pacific coast.

          • 0 avatar
            JRED

            “blue sky flooding” is happening quite a bit at the beaches I frequent. It’s because of natural shoreline changes, due to erosion. A highway built 50 years ago may have been hundreds of yards from the shoreline, and now due to erosion it’s much closer. I watched the slow death of a couple beach houses due to the same thing. Coastal habitats are incredibly dynamic due to the natural forces present there, does not necessarily indicate rising sea levels.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            @JRED: What I’m seeing is not erosion. I was referring to flooding due to levels in salt marshes. The level in the marshes is coming up higher than what I’ve seen in the past. and coming over roads. The salt marshes run inland and are at sea level. We’ve also had flooding on Atlantic avenue in Boston from high levels in the harbor. I had my office on Altantic Ave in Boston for years and never saw that kind of flooding.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          “Clearly something is happening in regards to climate”

          Something ALWAYS happened to the climate. Always. Your existence is result of a major climate shift. When dinosaurs died out, it opened road for the small animals and it evolved into you. So thanks to major climate events you exist today. May be if climate changes drastically, it will open the way for better people than us.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Ah, so because a meteorite hit the planet 65 million years ago and caused a climate change that killed off the dinosaurs, we should just sit back and watch pollution change our climate today.
            Got it.

            You’re on a roll…

          • 0 avatar
            Old_WRX

            slavuta,

            Careful there might be a creationist in the house tonight.

        • 0 avatar
          zerofoo

          Ah yes – the good old national flood insurance program. Nothing like a government program to socialize the risk of rich guys building on the coast.

          You want to build on the coast? Fine – get your own flood insurance and don’t ask the taxpayers for a backstop.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            Or, remember this one – “the fire will burn your neighborhood because of Trump policy”
            Well. Siberian fires would burn many neighborhoods throughout history, if the neighborhoods were cut into the forest.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Gosh, you’re right…I forgot, when Katrina hit New Orleans, the floods specifically skipped the poor folks and went right to the rich guys’ houses. Ditto for Sandy, and all the other storms that have hit the coasts. All those floods definitely skipped the average folks. Thanks for the reminder.

            And thanks for reminding me that floods only happen on the coasts.

            I appreciate your insight!

        • 0 avatar
          Old_WRX

          FreedMike,

          “Do you think these climate activists would do these if they really thought that effects are so bad?”

          Not the same thing at all. It is not at all certain that any given area in Okla will get hit by a tornado. But, these pols have been telling the public that it is a certainty that global warming is happening and that it will have terrible consequences. And, then they buy right in the path of the juggernaut they are sure is coming. Right…

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            “Careful there might be a creationist in the house tonight.”

            No problem. God had created everything, including process of evolution.

      • 0 avatar
        Old_WRX

        slavuta,

        “Do you think these climate activists would do these if they really thought that effects are so bad?”

        Er, uh, no. I guess that is like CA governor Newsom having dinner in some fancy restaurant with a bunch of friends. Not a mask was in sight. Does anyone think they wouldn’t take precautions if they thought there really was a danger to their precious selves? Not a chance.

        I suspect there is a chance that GM felt it was safer to hedge their bets in re the possibility of a usurpation by the dems presidential ticket. Much safer to side with the left — the right would welcome them back if Trump manages to claim his rightful place as the elected president. But, if GM stayed with the right and the dems manage to keep all that fraud from overturning the media announced choice for pres, the left would punish GM.

      • 0 avatar

        Climate change is invented by Elite to enslave us deplorables and suppress competition to further enrich oligarchs like Bill Gates and Bezos and destroy middle class and small businesses.

        Disclosure: I type it on my laptop that runs Windows 10 and I am Amazon Prime member.

    • 0 avatar
      zerofoo

      The academic dishonesty surrounding climate science is appalling.

      Read “Confessions of a Climate Scientist” by Mototaka Nakamura:
      https://c-c-netzwerk.ch/images/ccn-blog_articles/717/Confessions-Nakamura.pdf

      A.W. Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion” is also enlightening:
      https://smile.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Illusion-W-Montford/dp/0957313527

      There are 7.8 billion of us on this planet. It is impossible for humans to not change the planet. This change is part of our existence and there is little we can do about it.

      The climate is changing, and humans do contribute to some of that change, but the hysteria that has gone on for my entire life is entirely unwarranted.

    • 0 avatar
      JRED

      “Catastrophic effects that climate change is causing around the globe”.

      What would those be?

      I’ve got my virtue signal glasses on so you can really let it shine if you need to.

      • 0 avatar
        Old_WRX

        JRED,

        “What would those be?”

        Now, I know you can’t deny that one ugly outcome from all this is the amount of annoying rhetoric from the sky-is-falling/global warmingist crowd. And, It has been used for a lot of political leverage. While we’re at it we might as well include that it no doubt has removed money from the average taxpayers pocket and moved it to some entrepreneur types pocket. So, you can’t say it isn’t having bad effects.

      • 0 avatar
        johnnyz

        It’s your fault. Quit using straws, plant trees instead.

    • 0 avatar
      punkairwaves

      Shoreline erosion on the waters of Green Bay was a big problem in the 1980s and I attended meetings where experts explained to local government officials and property owners why the high water levels on the Great Lakes would be permanent. They were not permanent. I’ve worked in science and keep an open mind, but I also have experiences like this under my belt. Spare me the hyperbole about catastrophes.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      I suppose if any change, whatsoever, from whatever the weather happened to be like in the Summer of ’69, is, a priori, out of the blue because, like, you now, huh?? do something!!, just “deemed” “catastrophic”; even a degree or less respite for some poor sap stuck in Fairbanks in the winter, can be “deemed” “catastrophic” as well.

      As for the rest of the biosphere, it’s pretty adaptable. Wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t. Big enough meteor, or comet, strikes; do seem able to start approaching something resembling meaningful catastrophicness. But aside from that one, it’s just another day in the life of just another planet. Full of just another bunch of nobodies, with way to high an opinion of their own importance to it all.

    • 0 avatar
      Yankee

      Agreed W. Posky sounds like a butthurt supporter of the disastrous moron whose reign is finally coming to an end, and he just can’t accept the fact that many of those who took a chance on Trump rather than the other repellant choice we had in 2016 have come to see him for the self-promoting sham that he is and voted differently this time around. I come here for car news other outlets don’t cover, not the political views of a dime-a-dozen “auto journalist.” I think between all the ranting, good writers who have jumped ship, and the advertisements offered as product reviews, the writing is on the wall for this site. Any ideas where we could find a car site that realizes that increased fuel economy and decreased emissions targets aren’t only necessary, but that they are not mutually exclusive to having fun and interesting vehicles?

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        “I come here for car news other outlets don’t cover, not the political views of a dime-a-dozen ‘auto journalist.’ ”

        “Any ideas where we could find a car site that realizes that increased fuel economy and decreased (sic) emissions targets aren’t only necessary, but that they are not mutually exclusive to having fun and interesting vehicles?”

        It sounds like you aren’t against political talk in your car news, you’re just looking for things that align a certain way. Anyway, I think you would be happiest at Jalopnik.

    • 0 avatar
      2manycars

      That’s a bunch of hooey. (So stated Reid Bryson, the scientist who was the father of modern climate science.)

      Climate change is a natural process. The contribution of fossil fuels to it is nil. There is no “climate crisis” and there is nothing we can do to change the earth’s climate.

      I refuse to make any “drastic changes”. I will not buy an electric car. I will not even buy a hybrid. I will continue to use fossil fuels for my energy needs. There is no way that your ilk will be able to rid the world of them in my lifetime.

      In other words, screw you and the horse you rode in on.

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        @2manycars:
        “In other words, screw you and the horse you rode in on.”

        My horse is much more efficient than yours.

        All of that fuel you’re burning costs you money. It costs the rest of us, too, but you’re burning money directly.

        Even if you’re in denial about climate change, you can benefit from the solution.

    • 0 avatar
      6250Claimer

      “Significant climate change”. For 50 years we’ve been led down this path of doom and gloom by the “scientists”. So many dire predictions turning out completely wrong. Over and over and over. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1109923374568890368.html

  • avatar
    Old_WRX

    W.,

    “Fossil fuels are contributing to significant climate change,”

    It is unfortunate for the climate change-ists that these changes have failed to manifest in the real world. But, I’m sure that won’t stop them for a moment in pushing their agenda. When has reality ever slowed down anybody with a slick political agenda? When has anybody with a slick political agenda cared about anything other than power, greed, and ego? Never.

    Fortunately for them the “news” media in this country knows which side their bread is buttered on.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Put differently:

      Scientists are saying that higher global temperatures (which ARE happening, by the way) will cause catastrophic effects, but they can’t be 100% certain what the effects will be, or when they will happen, so screw ’em. Drill, baby, drill!

      By this logic:

      Sam eats McDonald’s for breakfast, lunch and dinner every day. His doctor tells him to stop doing that or he’s going to keel over of a heart attack. However, the doctor isn’t 100% certain when the heart attack will hit, so screw the doctor. Super size it, baby!

      Oh, yeah, and…the media keeps telling us McDonalds is bad for us to eat all the time, so they’re to blame too.

      This is the line of reasoning you’re asking us to buy into? Sorry, I’ll pass.

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        Here is how I put it. You can screw over this all day long. But China, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Brazil, Mexico and Russia will not bend over. So, these scientists can talk and fly back and forth for more talks, burn more fossil fuels in the jet engines.

        Why did the ice melted over NY City thousands of years before human industrial activity?

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Our latest gems of logic:

          1) Other countries aren’t following the rules, so we shouldn’t either.

          2) We should do nothing because at one point New York was covered in ice.

          How ’bout THIS instead:

          1) Other countries are still burning the hell out of fossil fuels, so let’s find a better solution and SELL it to them for scads of money. Whoever figures out how to replace fossil fuels is going to be rich beyond the dreams of avarice. Why can’t that be US?

          2) Let’s not let New York – or any other city – get covered in water, ice, or anything else if we can help it.

          But that means – GASP – we actually listen to the scientists. Can’t do that. Right?

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            OMG… “listen to the science”. hahahaha.
            You seriously mixing science with activism.

            Why don’t you start here

            .forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/?sh=76ca0fa12d6a

          • 0 avatar
            thegamper

            I always love this fight. People who use science in every facet of their life from the time they wake up to the time they go to sleep (phones, computers, cars, internet, microwaves, etc, etc.) will come out in droves and denounce science as just fake news if it is convenient or doesn’t support their lifestyle. It is really a sign of the times we live in unfortunately.

            I would have a lot more respect for anyone who just comes out and says, “I just don’t like it and won’t go along with it” than the people who have no problem doubling down on outright lies and absolute garbage arguments.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “ Our latest gems of logic:

            1) Other countries aren’t following the rules, so we shouldn’t either.

            2) We should do nothing because at one point New York was covered in ice.

            How ’bout THIS instead:

            1) Other countries are still burning the hell out of fossil fuels, so let’s find a better solution and SELL it to them for scads of money. Whoever figures out how to replace fossil fuels is going to be rich beyond the dreams of avarice. Why can’t that be US?

            2) Let’s not let New York – or any other city – get covered in water, ice, or anything else if we can help it.

            But that means – GASP – we actually listen to the scientists. Can’t do that. Right?”

            Wow. I remember when I couldn’t think for myself either. I’m glad I matured out of that phase.

            You drank the koolaid and are not smart enough to see it that it’s a bunch of BS. Good on you. Please get rid of all of your electronics, automobiles, HVAC systems, any natural gas appliances. Clearly those items must be very uncomfortable for you to own and operate.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            More science for you. Quote:

            “Two Norwegian researchers ran simulations of the global climate between 1850 and 2500, looking at how different levels of greenhouse gas emissions affected temperatures and sea level rises.

            Under the most likely optimistic scenario – emissions peaking in the 2030s before gradually declining to zero by 2100, by 2500 the seas would be 3m higher and temperatures on average 3C warmer than in 1850. 1850 is when the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere began to skyrocket, thanks to industrialisation.

            Even if we stopped emissions today, “global temperatures will still be around 3C warmer and sea levels will rise by around 2.5 metres by 2500”, the modelling showed.

            “We have identified a point-of-no-return in our climate model ESCIMO – and that it is already behind us,” climate scientists Jorgen Randers and Ulrich Goluke wrote in journal Scientific Reports.”

          • 0 avatar
            johnnyz

            Lead by example. Rid yourself of cars, elec service, running water and electronics. Maybe a cardboard box would suit you better than that carbon waste of a home.

            If you really care, commit suicide. Humans are a scrouge to the earth and you should do something!

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        I have two counterpoints:

        1. The United States has not been “eating McDonald’s for every meal”. We’ve achieved some of the best per capita CO2 decreases in the world over the past 20 years and our total CO2 levels are equivalent to what they were in 1990. I believe we are slightly below average taking emissions per $GDP. A lot of what we are doing is working.

        2. What is the “doctor” specifically telling us to do? I’ve seen things that range from reasonable to idealistic to authoritarian to outright crazy. People just vaugeposting about “drastic changes” raises red flags to me.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          1) I’d say this is a good argument for keeping the good work up, and doing more, versus taking the opposite “stop doing it” approach.

          2) Agreed, “drastic changes” isn’t going to cut it – we need specific steps. Personally, I’d be all in favor of doing a 21st century Manhattan Project for fusion power. That would go further towards fixing this than anything else we can do. But I use medicine as an example because it, like climate, is not an exact science. And some doctors are more “radical” than others. But their goal is the same.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            I’m not a “stop doing it” advocate. But, I’m not a “drastic changes” advocate either. I’m generally for incentivizing and researching alternatives but against bans or mandates.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            I agree with you, ajla…mandates create resentment, and that’s what’s behind all this anti-science garbage.

      • 0 avatar
        zerofoo

        The higher temperatures argument is a joke. The level of resolution claimed in these measurements simply isn’t possible with the past proxy data we have and our current limited measurements of global temperature.

        For the last 30 years automated temperature stations have, over time, moved closer to “civilization” for ease of data collection. These stations almost always need a data connection – and as a result are closer to heat islands.

        There is so much wrong with current climate science – and many books have been written about it. Go ahead and read a few.

        • 0 avatar
          JRED

          This is a point many people miss.

          We’re concerned about temperature changes in the ballpark of 1°C or so. Even looking past the issue of temperature collection locations relative to asphalt creep over time, can we really trust measurements from instruments 70,80,90 or more years ago? Of course to account for this, researchers plug in math. Nothing can go wrong there right?

      • 0 avatar
        JRED

        Alternatively:
        “Scientists are saying that higher global temperatures (which ARE happening, by the way) will cause catastrophic effects, but they can’t be 100% certain what the effects will be, or when they will happen, so let’s not be so hasty to enact drastic changes that will have major negative effects on the global economy.”

        The McDonalds comparison is just silly.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          I think it’s actually pretty apt, if you think about it – overconsumption of fast food isn’t good for you, and neither is overconsumption of fossil fuels.

          At a bare minimum, leaving the climate change argument aside, the pollution from the use and production of fossil fuels is harmful – smog, ozone issues, water table pollution, oil spills, waste from coal mining, acid rain, and on and on. No one debates whether any of that stuff is happening or not.

          And as industrialization continues around the world, all these problems are just going to accelerate. Look at what’s happening in China and India – there are cities where the air is so bad it’s a public health menace. This just doesn’t get any better from here.

          To me, even if you set the climate debate aside, replacing these fuels as much as possible just makes sense.

          • 0 avatar
            JRED

            At a very basic level at works. It’s just that earth doesn’t have the equivalent of a doctor with very clear, evidence-based knowledge that we are at death’s doorstep due to our overconsumption of something bad. We have models that indicate there could be an issue, but look at how often their forecasts get revised.

            Not a great comparison.

            I don’t think anyone will disagree your second point, that fossil fuels lead to pollution, and that’s bad. For that matter, I doubt you’ll get any disagreement that eventually fossil fuels need to be replaced. The disagreement stems from the sense of urgency that so many proclaim, that if we don’t do everything we can to ‘go green’ immediately we’re screwed. Same crowd that cries “See, I told you” when we get a bad hurricane or flood or forest fire. Complete crap.

            Regarding India and China, it can and will get better. Look what happened with California’s air quality since the 1970s. When it becomes a health issue, people take action. China and India don’t have time or space for people that can’t work for bad air quality.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @Jred:

            You’re right, India and China will try, but keep in mind that their smoggiest cities are unbelievably large. To wit: when L.A. was at its’ smoggiest, it had about 8 million people; New Delhi, where the air is often literally not breathable, has around 30 million. Will current technology really solve that? I don’t think so – even L.A. still has a fairly severe pollution problem despite their best efforts, so I don’t think a city twice that size will fare much better with what’s on the shelf now.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    you know what interesting. An article with this header
    “US military consumes more hydrocarbons than most countries”

    Wiki:
    “The Department of Defense uses 4,600,000,000 US gallons of fuel annually, an average of 12,600,000 US gallons of fuel per day.”

    Anybody cares?

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      They probably would if you weren’t just engaging in misdirection.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Energy consumption and it pollution should be divided by a nation’s productivity (per-capita GDP) or similar metric.

      There is a lot of wailing about how much energy the US consumes, but the US out-produces everybody else in GDP. If productivity counts for nothing, then industrialized nations will eventually be compared to South Sudan.

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    For better or worse, the car business in the US has become a political football during the last 50 years. I’m sure that the executives of all of the car manufacturers with a significant presence in the US are capable of directing their companies to make and sell “what the market wants.” But their institutional memory is strong and it is that “you’d better accommodate the regulators’ wishes, too.”

    The mew Biden administration will bring the administrative state and its regulations back with a vengeance.

    It also doesn’t hurt that for obvious reasons (i.e. a lack of indigenous petroleum) the Chinese government is pushing for non-petroleum powered vehicles; and China is seen as the biggest growth market in the world.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      I disagree – China can buy all the oil it wants, particularly these days. Anyone can. It’s not such a hard sell anymore, you know?

      It’s pushing for electrification and alt energy because people can’t breathe the air in its’ cities, and it’s causing major health problems. Remember the 2008 Beijing olympics? They had to shut down traffic in the city and industry around it because the air was borderline unbreathable. It happens all the time there. Same for India.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Peak Oil.

      • 0 avatar
        DC Bruce

        You’re not a military thinker and, apparently, ignorant of fairly recent history in the Far East. Imperial Japan could buy all the oil it wanted . . . until it couldn’t. The Yamato — the greatest and most powerful battleship ever built — could barely afford to leave port because of all the fuel it used.

        Chinese fuel imports all come through the straits of malacca . . . which easily could be interdicted by even a minor naval power should that power choose to do so.

        The Chinese government — like any responsible government — wants energy independence, or something close to it. Thus, the massive hydropower construction and coal burning power plant construction . . . and the push for electric vehicles.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          You’re not a student of history, I see.

          Why did people stop selling oil to Imperial Japan? Simple: it began invading other countries. China isn’t invading anyone, last I checked…probably because it doesn’t want to see Shanghai vaporized. And you, being a military thinker, know this wasn’t possible in 1941. In fact, if it were possible, Imperial Japan wouldn’t have been very imperial at all.

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    Yeah the Chinese aren’t pushing electric cars because of emissions or warming, they don’t have much petrol at home but a whole lotta coal. Hundreds more coal fired generating stations in the pipeline right now. And those emissions aren’t gonna “stay home” any more than the coronavirus did.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      And here is interesting thing. These forces, whoever they are, lets call them globalists… they are, on one hand say, “Trump denies science, climate change, Paris agreement, bla bla”. And they go in bed with China where they like to use slave labor at the factories that uses dirtiest electricity and other dirty technology. A similar factory in US would require significant ecological safeguards. This is why China is salivating on Biden’s return. Technology, investments, all going to go to them again. They will be training engineers, etc. Didn’t Steve Jobs tell Obama that US does not have qualified workers?

      “…Apple’s executives believe the vast scale of overseas factories as well as the flexibility, diligence and industrial skills of foreign workers have so outpaced their U.S. counterparts that “Made in the USA” is no longer a viable option for most Apple products.”

      So, yea. Lets train China to take over the US. Thanks Biden.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Yeah, I’m sure Biden wants to run for re-election under the “I let China take over the U.S.” platform.

        (You really should read over what you write before you hit the “post” button…)

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Biden quotes

          -“China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man”
          -“Don’t tell me China’s going to own America. It’s not possible.”
          -“Would you call for tariffs to protect American consumers from unsafe products from China? Are you willing to go there? I’m not. No, I’m not willing to go there.”
          -“A rising China is a positive ­development not only for China, but for America.”

          Selling America in China and Ukraine is Biden’s game all along with personally profiting in this.

        • 0 avatar
          Old_WRX

          FreedMike,

          “Yeah, I’m sure Biden wants to run for re-election under the “I let China take over the U.S.” platform.”

          You mean instead of the “I’m not telling” platform he ran under this time.

  • avatar

    General Motors under Mary Barra is insignificant.

  • avatar
    rpn453

    “The only people stupider than the people who think climate change isn’t real, are the people who think we can do anything about it.”
    – Christian Deville.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      Exactly!
      What we can do is lessen the pollution. But no, nobody wants to work on achievable goal because there is no way to move funds electronically, so they disappear in the cloud. And there is no job for endless funds, foundations, speakers, book writers…

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        LOL, the guy you’re agreeing with is a fictional character on TV show.

        Next up: the wit and wisdom of Sponge Bob.

        • 0 avatar
          rpn453

          Sometimes it takes a fictional character to deliver the truth! That’s the best line of the season so far.

          The whole thing is a joke. If this situation is serious, the only reasonable response is to live simple, inexpensive lives and stop consuming so much. Instead, they’re brainstorming policies to justify vehicular gluttony, as though improving the fuel economy of a large truck or SUV by 5 or 10% and making subcompact cars more complex and expensive is going to improve anything.

  • avatar
    FalconRTV

    I thought America was the land of the free. Doesn’t sound too free to me.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      Welcome to the USSR. I know how it is, and it is here.

      • 0 avatar
        Old_WRX

        slavuta,

        “Welcome to the USSR. I know how it is, and it is here.”

        Maybe all the conspiracy doubters would think differently if they were to read and think about the implications of the vaunted “Great Reset” as presented on this conspiracy theory web site: the World Economic Forum.

        https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/now-is-the-time-for-a-great-reset/

        Yup, this is what they are planning… Read ’em and weap.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Old_WRX

          I know. The funny part is, this is same tune as Pope in Rome singing

          http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html

          • 0 avatar
            Old_WRX

            slavuta,

            “as Pope in Rome singing”

            So, now the pope is a communist.

            On another note, do you think people realize that the (not so)Great Reset says you won’t own anything by the year 2030? Do they understand that that means the plan is to rob them of everything they own over the next ten years? Do they notice anything? That will include any motor vehicles, their house, etc.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Old_WRX

          I know. End of private property… Even in USSR that wasn’t the case. People did owned apartments, houses, and dachas, and cars. Also there were other ways, when you did not own the apartment, which was most of the cases. But you could not own means of production. The good news – I am sure this going to end well in America. I want to see gun collection starting. There will be blood. Without guns gone first, they can’t do it. Hopefully, these actions will finally make our leftism overt, people will smarten up and never again vote lefty into the office.

          “So, now the pope is a communist.”

          Well, yea. He is Argentine. In South America communist ideas running deep and well. You can even tell by names they give to their children. For example, current president on Ecuador is Lenin Moreno.

          • 0 avatar
            Old_WRX

            slavuta,

            “End of private property… ”

            So does that mean that when I get up in the morning to go my assigned drudgery, that the undershorts I will put on are communal property and there is no way of knowing whose skid marks that didn’t quite wash out…

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    My $0.02:

    I would:
    * Support energy independence, which should be given a “Manhattan Project” kind of effort. This would allow our defense policy to decouple from our energy policy.

    * Support 50-state uniform emissions rules, but not as ridiculous as California’s. Mfrs should be able to work to a single domestic standard.

    * Eliminate pump taxes. Road repairs should be paid for according to: Tax = GVWR x miles/year. The need to repair our crumbling infrastructure is at odds with declining pump tax revenue and rising CAFE standards.

    * Let the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 sunset according to the original plan. No further subsidies are needed for EV adoption.

    * Eliminate the carbon credit scam.

    My views don’t fit neatly into a party platform, unfortunately.

    • 0 avatar
      Matt Posky

      I would have paid the full dollar for your two cents. This seems workable and not insane.

      • 0 avatar
        turbo_awd

        The problem with 50-state emission rules is that some states have a higher population density than others.

        I’m sure there are unincorporated areas in the US where one is allowed to light off almost any kind of firework imaginable. People went pretty nuts on Virginia Beach the year I was there for Independence Day. Doing the same in the middle of a dry forest, or downtown NYC should probably be illegal.

        Now, I’d be the first to say CARB is a bit overboard, but we should NOT go back to 70s/80s style emissions like the days of smog in L.A. when people couldn’t see the hills. Yet some states still have basically “anything goes” laws when it comes to inspections, fine with rolling coal, etc.. And they will fight anything stricter. I am in favor of ever increasing restrictions because of my health and the health of my children.

    • 0 avatar
      chuckrs

      SCE

      To your first point, thanks to fracking, we are at or near energy independence. The past four years have shown we can (at least partially) uncouple defense and energy. As a bonus, we can economically hurt Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, as it suits our national interests.
      As for the “Manhattan Project”, there is a pilot hot dry geothermal heat project in Utah, FORGE, that looks interesting. Funded by US DOE. (Hot wet geothermal has been tried with the conclusion that if you heat brine hot enough it will quickly corrode stainless steel – Sandia late 80s). FORGE is drilling in hard tight granite and will be a closed loop system.
      To your third point, in terms of road damage, a fair formula for the tax should be: Tax = (# of vehicle axles) x (Weight per axle, cubed) x (a constant). An 18 wheeler’s tax rate would several hundred times that of a two ton car/light truck. That would be a difficult sell. I don’t think there is any magic cure for road damage as a function of weight, but as a start we could sure try building better quality roads.

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        chuckrs,

        dream on hurting Russia. In fact, we’re buying more from Russia. The situation is weird. But Russia is delivering millions of tonnes of oil to US refineries. And Russian CNG keeps on coming to Boston harbor. We’re also buying Russian oil, the one we sell in Europe. Here is why. Oil brands. Our refineries that used to process Venezuelan oil, can’t process Canadian or domestic oil. So they have to buy Russian oil, which is similar. In 2014 US sanctioned Russia. That year Russia delivered 330 bpd. In 2019 – 515.

        • 0 avatar
          el scotto

          @slavuta, they’re oil companies, not brands. They are set up to make money. All and I repeat all of the oil companies can easily easily process US and Canadian oil. That’s what all of the refineries where originally built for. In fact US and Canadian oil is quantitatively easy to process than Venezuelan oil. Their sulfur contents are much lower. I’m just a lowly geophysicist and not a chemical engineer but even I know that. No, Russian oil is not shipped to the US and then sent back to Europe. Pipelines are wonderful things. We might be buying Russian oil because it is cheap, crude oil is fungible, not because “we have to”.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            el scotto,

            no you’re wrong. This is brand. Like Urals. “Urals oil is a reference oil brand…” And this brand is processed by refineries on the Gulf coast.

            I did not say that oil comes to the US and then back to Europe. I only said that we buy in Russia and sell in Europe. Just like reverse gas to Ukraine. Ukraine pumps Russian gas into Europe, then receives same Russian gas from Europe at higher price.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            @slavuta:”And Russian CNG keeps on coming to Boston harbor. ”

            Absolutely true. It’s ridiculous. It’s a problem caused by NY banning new natural gas pipelines. It’s particularly annoying to me since one of my businesses is natural gas production. Our best way around the problem will probably be offshore wind power combined with grid storage.

            https://www.oilandgas360.com/man-made-natural-gas-disaster-for-new-england/

        • 0 avatar
          chuckrs

          @slavuta

          Petrochemicals are fungible. We export some, we import some. States like NY that block fracking, pipelines and the like will eventually pay a price. But overall, we consume ‘X’ amount of petrochemicals and produce roughly ‘X’. Local lack of availability is a function of individual US state-level stupidity,not product scarcity. I agree that our refineries need to be overhauled to refine other grades of petroleum and that also is a problem of individual US state-level stupidity.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    Talk about selling your soul to the devil GM.

    You realize the clowns that were fraudulently elected don’t want you in business right? They hate cars. Everything about them. And you just signed onboard with their disgusting agenda.

    Maybe you shouldn’t have been bailed out.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Right, I’m sure if Biden succeeds in putting GM out of business and taking away everyone’s cars, he’s a shoo-in for 2024.

      (Clearly this guy’s a deep political thinker…)

    • 0 avatar
      turbo_awd

      Care to point to some realistic evidence (other than hearsay) about election fraud?

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        Definitely. In fact, thousands of ballots officially were moved from dem accounts to reps because they were stolen and redirected. In fact, victories were taken from specific people and given to others. This fake election will leave a lasting impression on the world about so called “democracy” in America. In every country eyebrows are raised.
        Regime changing technologies that were designed to apply around the world have been applied in the US. Don’t make mistake about this.

        Actually reminds me of something. Outspoken Kirov was arousing huge crowds but quiet Stalin wins the vote. “Comrades, this is not important how vote is cast, but it is very important how it is counted.”

        • 0 avatar
          el scotto

          @ slavuta; Uh no, just no. I said this a couple weeks ago and I’ll try a shorter version this time. In almost every state your ballot is property of that state’s Secretary of State. These ballots are electronically counted or a paper ballot will have a serial number on it. Three people watch scanned ballots get counted and ensure the paper ballots match what the scanners say. Again, three people; a Democrat, a Republican, and an Independent. Many of the Secretaries of States also bought webcams to live stream the vote counting. Regular paper ballot counts are observed by the same three people. Trump’s stunning election monitoring victory? The three people watching the ballot counting could mover closer. Not three Republicans, the same three; a Democrat, a Republican, and an Independent. All three of them had a long and very boring day. Between the three before mentioned observers and the bought for the ballot counting web cams, election fraud is nearly impossible. But, but what if the other two observers took a potty break and only the Democratic observer was left? No, the Democrat couldn’t come back from the parking lot with 100,000 Democratic ballots. The ballots have serial numbers on them and have been accounted for. The kicker? Any of the three have the opportunity to challenge any action at anytime. Those challenges have to be answered not immediately but very quickly. Due to the thousands of unpaid or underpaid poll workers having a very long and boring day election fraud is almost non-existent in the United States. For those who are still riled up and/or grumbling about the election; please volunteer as poll worker for the next election. Both parties will welcome you with open arms. Bad coffee and uncomfortable chair await those who do volunteer. Yeah, I’ve worked elections before.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            “election fraud is almost non-existent in the United States”

            are you living in outer space? Do you know how many people served time in jail for election fraud in Philadelphia alone?

            ooops: “Former Philly congressman convicted in Abscam sting now charged with election fraud” – this is this year.

            Rod Blagoevich was selling Obama’s seat.

            Elections in US were always fraudulent. Only it was on steroids this year and exposed to the whole world to see.

        • 0 avatar
          turbo_awd

          That’s not evidence. That’s 100% hearsay. Names, locations, photos, videos, etc.

          Not “everyone knows”. I don’t know. Most people “don’t know”. You seem to imply you know – have you seen it personally? Otherwise, you’re LESS reliable than a reporter on CNN. You’re just some bot on the internet.

      • 0 avatar
        ultramatic

        No he doesn’t, we live in an era where lying (and repeating lies) bears no consequences. Except (I hope) in the court of law.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      The people claiming election fraud never explain how the conspiracy actually works.

      To be effective with the fraud scheme, you must:
      1. Identify every district where fraud can actually make a difference, ahead of time. This means that you have better information than groups who study such things for a living.

      2. Find thousands of people willing to risk prosecution who will join the conspiracy, and will act at just the right moment.

      3. Convince the fraudsters to never speak about the coordinated effort they were a part of.

      4. Do a substantially better job of fraud than the other side is doing. Otherwise, you simply cancel each other out.

      Gimme a break from the fraud crap. It’s really, really hard to pull off election fraud. Frankly, if anyone was motivated to commit widespread, coordinated fraud in this election, it would be the Republicans.

      Truly, all Trump needed to do to win reelection would be to show some sincere empathy about Covid. But he is incapable of that. He turned his back on the country, and the country turned its back on him. It’s a pretty simple outcome, no conspiracy is needed to explain it.

  • avatar
    Whatnext

    Sad to see the MAGAts infesting this site, just as MAGAtry is on the wane. Better be careful that your advertisers might not be so keen to be associated with it.

    • 0 avatar
      SoCalMikester

      F their feelings. Dotard lost bigly, and now has to worry about all those little laws he decided not to follow the past 4 years. like prosecutors just forget stuff? start with the stormy daniels hush payment and take it from there

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        Senate will start with Hunter Biden.

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        More science

        According to the ‘Media Research Center‘ on Tuesday, 82 percent of Biden voters were unaware of at least one scandal surrounding the former vice president. 45 percent of Biden voters were also unaware of Hunter Biden’s corruption schemes in Ukraine.

        Additionally, 35 percent of voters did not know Joe Biden was accused of sexual misconduct. A total of 17 percent of Biden voters said they would’ve voted for President Trump if they had known of these things.

        • 0 avatar
          el scotto

          @slavuta, The Media Research Center (MRC) is an American politically conservative content analysis group based in Reston, Virginia. Exactly what kind of, and here’s the detail that makes it true, non-biased science do they produce? For science to truly be science it has to be non-biased. Double blind tests and crazy stuff like that.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            @el scotto
            possible. But I am super familiar with people being totally unaware of Biden’s dealing in Ukraine. In Ukraine however, nearly all people know about this.

          • 0 avatar
            Old_WRX

            el scotto,

            “Double blind tests and crazy stuff like that.”

            And, it helps a lot if science is kept a long, long, long way away from politics.

            The idea that there aren’t any scientists who would be willing to sell their “scientific opinion” to the highest paying pol is ludicrous.

            And, I am tired of people using the phrase “scientists say” like primitive tribes might say “the gods say.” With an aura of incontestable and incorruptible truth.

        • 0 avatar
          ToolGuy

          @slavuta, ixnay on the “misconduct” talk. Joe Biden is a friendly guy – if this creeps some people out, that’s on them, right?

          https://preview.tinyurl.com/y2umqkxk

          “I’m not sorry for anything I’ve ever done.” This is just one of the many differences between Biden and many human beings.

    • 0 avatar
      JRED

      Man, you suck.

      If you’re not comfortable mingling with people who’s political ideas differ from yours, you might stick to Reddit.

      I see comments like yours at a few sites I frequent. It’s always condescending, sniveling leftists, ashamed to share anything with conservatives,never the other way around. Imagine that.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    What good is it? GM is set to pay the silly little fines and sell whatever customers desire. All will be on the hook for something, even Honda.

    I’m not saying it’s all for nothing, I’m sure the fines, which will still add up to billions annually, collectively, will go to a good place..

    Mainstream US consumers will adopt fuel sipping, efficient vehicles and electrics when they’re damn well ready, all the stars line up, etc.

    • 0 avatar
      JRED

      Here’s hoping it doesn’t lead to more of the reliability issues that have affected many manufacturers in their attempts to meet rigorous emissions standards.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        It was just different. Those pesky emissions took years to figure out. And the CAFE really meant something. Adding $1,000+ in fines to a $2,800 “midsize” sedan, coupe or wagon?

        Automakers had to scramble. The Torino based T-Bird went Fox body, the New Yorker went FWD, same as the Bonneville and others. Overdrive and fuel injection together made a drastic change.

        The “returns” have been diminishing for decades now, but the CAFE fines haven’t been truly adjusted for inflation, so they don’t really have any teeth. Clearly law makers want to keep it that way, less concerned with actual MPG/emissions/smog and global climate change like they claim.

        Automakers definitely want to keep in that way. It’s starting to look like Trump saw through the horse sh!t.

  • avatar

    The Climate Change is the Devil.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    Oh Lord. I read some of the commenters and think: this is what happens when your dork won’t rise to the occasion but you still have to get up four times a night to urinate. Yeah, making cranky comments on a car blog will be the highlight of my day!!!!

  • avatar
    el scotto

    To VerticleScope or whoever owns this joint. Please sell TTAC to the Baruth brothers. There are probably five post-it notes sitting on Jack’s desk that are funnier and more informative than a month’s worth of my writing. Mark is the guy who’ll do the heavy work and crank out some fine prose worthy of slick paper magazines. Think of the rise in income from the sale. A true win-win!!!!!!

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    For GM this is less a political statement and more of a business statement since GM is converting some of their plants to all electric vehicles. California’s size alone makes it a major market for GM EVs.

  • avatar
    sstreky

    Volkswagen uses dual port and direct injection In the European market to comply with their greater participant requirements. I realize Toyota also incorporates this in their US models but more manufactures probably would do this if arson requirements for tighter. Makes for a cleaner engine as well as more power output.

  • avatar
    HotPotato

    Speaking of howling and snot…Posky, if you want to get hysterical about politics, write for a political blog.

    Or maybe Tim could set and enforce some quality standards. Bueller–I mean, Healy? Healy?

    Every time I come back here lately, I’m reminded why it’s been longer and longer since the visit before.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Inside Looking Out: I am sorry but it does not look like a luxury vehicle at all. Honda has to learn few things from...
  • ajla: This is what Edmunds has doing a 65 mph empty test loop in the desert. edmunds.com/car-news/electr...
  • dal20402: The EPA test cycle. EVs typically are more efficient in city and mixed driving than pure highway, and the...
  • APaGttH: How far has Acura fallen? Appears they decided to use the Kia Stinger as a benchmark. Ooof.
  • Kendahl: What’s the source for these range predictions? I’ve watched a number of YouTube videos in which...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber