Automakers Tell Trump His Pollution Rules Could Mean ‘Untenable’ Instability and Lower Profits (1 Viewer)

[Ahlevah]

Re: Automakers Tell Trump His Pollution Rules Could Mean ‘Untenable’ Instability and Lower Profi

They do, but that was not my point.

So liberals have issues with the Gig Economy AND not just anybody, but poor people owning cars they can afford? They get the bus or what?

 

[ocean515]

Re: Automakers Tell Trump His Pollution Rules Could Mean ‘Untenable’ Instability and Lower Profi

How are they suffering?

The struggles of having cleaner air, the horror

Also California is not the only state to have special rules regarding car emissions, I believe 14 others do as well

Those other states can't establish their own rules on their own like California does. They can match them, which some do, but they can't go beyond what California establishes.

How do others suffer? It's mandates in California that effect the cost and type of cars sold.

California has a minimum sales mandate for Electric Cars. It's a sliding scale that reaches 22% of cars sold must be Zero Emission Vehicles. The cost to build them and support this forced sales level is born by every consumer across the Nation, whether these vehicles actually reduce emissions or not.


California must be stripped of this power. I'm not holding my breath on that.

 

[Fletch]

Automakers Tell Trump His Pollution Rules Could Mean ‘Untenable’ Instability and Lower Profits

---

The knee-jerk response to slash regulation on the presumption that it is "pro business" is a fallacy. Here we have the automakers themselves telling the government that they shouldn't cut back on the pollution regulations.

Arent these auto makers free to keep the old standards in place?

 

[ocean515]

Arent these auto makers free to keep the old standards in place?

Yes. That's the point some people are failing to grasp.

And that is why they fail to see what the automakers are actually asking for.

The automakers want the crushing unilateral power of California to be ended, so a unified national standard can be established.

 

[MTAtech]

Arent these auto makers free to keep the old standards in place?

I agree. There is nothing wrong with all the automakers sitting at a table and all agreeing to follow voluntary guidelines.

What has been an impediment historically, is automakers reluctant to go alone for fear that their competition wouldn't do the same, and they would have costs that their competitors would not. Thus, automakers wanted regulations on safety, so that all the producers would need to comply.

 

[Fletch]

I agree. There is nothing wrong with all the automakers sitting at a table and all agreeing to follow voluntary guidelines.

What has been an impediment historically, is automakers reluctant to go alone for fear that their competition wouldn't do the same, and they would have costs that their competitors would not. Thus, automakers wanted regulations on safety, so that all the producers would need to comply.

But isnt the point of this thread that ALL automakers agree they want the tougher standards? But yes, generally speaking, big businesses dont mind regulations that limit competition and make new start ups virtually impossible. Big business has not been the base of capitalist support for generations, if ever.

 

[j-mac]

Making cars cheaper to build, therefore cheaper sticker prices, therefore easier for folks to afford, will hurt profitability? Um...:lamo

I am wondering if there are some kind of subsidies that past President's like Obama put in place for ever tightening emissions standards, that the auto makers think they can no longer live without?

 

[MTAtech]

But isnt the point of this thread that ALL automakers agree they want the tougher standards? But yes, generally speaking, big businesses dont mind regulations that limit competition and make new start ups virtually impossible. Big business has not been the base of capitalist support for generations, if ever.

In this instance, the automakers want the regulations because they want two things: 1) one standard, as it's been for years; and, 2) they all want an even playing field.

The idea that the auto companies want regulations to stop a mom and pop new startup auto company from competing with them is fantasy territory.

 

[Fletch]

In this instance, the automakers want the regulations because they want two things: 1) one standard, as it's been for years; and, 2) they all want an even playing field.

The idea that the auto companies want regulations to stop a mom and pop new startup auto company from competing with them is fantasy territory.

According to your article, Trump is 'weakening' the standards not eliminating them. Since all auto makers are in agreement with the current standard, there is nothing stopping them from keeping the standards where they are or improving them on their own. Unless your argument is that these auto makers are all just lying.

 

[j-mac]

In this instance, the automakers want the regulations because they want two things: 1) one standard, as it's been for years; and, 2) they all want an even playing field.

The idea that the auto companies want regulations to stop a mom and pop new startup auto company from competing with them is fantasy territory.

Oh, they absolutely don't want competition....Ever see the movie 'Tucker'? Auto makers absolutely crush any start ups that threaten to bite into their markets....I frankly am surprised that Tesla is still going....

 

[MTAtech]

Oh, they absolutely don't want competition....Ever see the movie 'Tucker'? Auto makers absolutely crush any start ups that threaten to bite into their markets....I frankly am surprised that Tesla is still going....

Not by having the govt regulate. Remember, these regulations already exist and they are good for the health of Americans. Trump is trying to make them less stringent, which means it's bad for people.

We should be celebrating that industry and America's best interests are aligned.

 

[MTAtech]

According to your article, Trump is 'weakening' the standards not eliminating them. Since all auto makers are in agreement with the current standard, there is nothing stopping them from keeping the standards where they are or improving them on their own. Unless your argument is that these auto makers are all just lying.

I agree and I mentioned that in this thread.

Other industries are moving forward with green ideas, whether or not the federal government is on-board or not.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Of course it is a business decision

The automakers if they were to develop a vehicle with two different emission standards would have to increase R&D budgets. That would increase prices than it otherwise would, now depending on the costs to meet the higher standards, a lower cost version could be made by not putting specific parts on the vehicle. Like DEF systems on diesels for instance, but if the need to meet the emission standards includes aspects that are "built into the vehicle" like chassis changes (light weight like carbon fiber parts), then developing a low cost version would be more difficult

Wouldn't it be possible for the automobile manufacturers to simply use the plans that they already have for vehicles that they no longer build in order to produce a "new" vehicle that produces more pollution than the existing ones? At $20.00 per hour, the R&D costs of doing that should come to something like $7.36 - wouldn't it?

PS - I'm completely disregarding the "cosmetics" of the vehicles because there is absolutely no reason why the same chassis and body envelope couldn't be used for both versions. All that would have to be changed would be the engine and power/exhaust systems.

PS - Several years back a friend of mine was restoring a WWII "Universal Carrier". All was done except for the transmission and, when he opened the transmission case he found that the existing transmission was nothing but a bit rust ball. Do you know how he solved the restoration problem for that transmission? (Of course you don't, so I'll tell you. He bought a brand new and complete replacement transmission "off the shelf" because the company that had made the original transmission was still making them and still using them in vehicles that it was manufacturing today.) The R&D cost of that transmission would have to be divided by 79 to get an appropriate figure to apply to current sales (which would bring it down to less than $1,000) and then further divided by the number of units manufactured annually (which would bring it down to less than $1.00 per unit).

 

[j-mac]

Not by having the govt regulate. Remember, these regulations already exist and they are good for the health of Americans. Trump is trying to make them less stringent, which means it's bad for people.

We should be celebrating that industry and America's best interests are aligned.

Like I said, what are the subsidies they will lose with the loosening of these regulations, and there you'll have your real answer as to why they are saying no to it....

 

[j-mac]

I agree and I mentioned that in this thread.

Other industries are moving forward with green ideas, whether or not the federal government is on-board or not.

Great! That is how America works, right? Coming up with better ideas regardless of government subsidy?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Let's encourage all those mom and pop auto companies out there by cutting pollution control regulations for cars. While we're at it, let's cut those pesky and onerous safety regulations, like safety-glass windshields, air bags and padded dash boards.

With a properly designed and fully automated factory, the purchaser should be able to "custom design" their own vehicle (essentially) "from the ground up". They would be able to specify everything from vehicle frame strength (after all, they know whether or not they are good drivers and good drivers never get into accidents and a car that never gets into an accident doesn't need any so-called "crash resistant" framing and could have a frame built out of balsa wood) to type of paint (after all, they know whether or not they are going to chew on their vehicle's paint and if you are not going to chew on your vehicle's paint you don't have to worry about whether or not that paint contains lead).

Isn't it time that "The Constitution" was amended to enshrine everyone's right to go to hell in their own handbasket? Isn't that what **F*R*E*E*D*O*M** is all about? Isn't **F*R*E*E*D*O*M** what 'The ***A*M*E*R*I*C*A*N*** Way' is all about?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Re: Automakers Tell Trump His Pollution Rules Could Mean ‘Untenable’ Instability and Lower Profi

Those other states can't establish their own rules on their own like California does. They can match them, which some do, but they can't go beyond what California establishes.

How do others suffer? It's mandates in California that effect the cost and type of cars sold.

California has a minimum sales mandate for Electric Cars. It's a sliding scale that reaches 22% of cars sold must be Zero Emission Vehicles. The cost to build them and support this forced sales level is born by every consumer across the Nation, whether these vehicles actually reduce emissions or not.


California must be stripped of this power. I'm not holding my breath on that.

I am sure they could go beyond but they woukd not have enough sales to ensure automakers would build to that spec.

You do realize that the automakers do not have to build to California spec if they do not want to sell in California. They could very weĺl not sell there and not take on that extra cost

 

[j-mac]

With a properly designed and fully automated factory, the purchaser should be able to "custom design" their own vehicle (essentially) "from the ground up". They would be able to specify everything from vehicle frame strength (after all, they know whether or not they are good drivers and good drivers never get into accidents and a car that never gets into an accident doesn't need any so-called "crash resistant" framing and could have a frame built out of balsa wood) to type of paint (after all, they know whether or not they are going to chew on their vehicle's paint and if you are not going to chew on your vehicle's paint you don't have to worry about whether or not that paint contains lead).

Isn't it time that "The Constitution" was amended to enshrine everyone's right to go to hell in their own handbasket? Isn't that what **F*R*E*E*D*O*M** is all about? Isn't **F*R*E*E*D*O*M** what 'The ***A*M*E*R*I*C*A*N*** Way' is all about?

How absurd....But, yes freedom from government control IS what America is all about, and if it weren't for individuals like yourself that don't think they can live with big daddy government telling them what to do in every facet of their lives, we would have it...Now, maybe not you personally, because you are Canadian, and don't have a say here in America, but scores of progressive liberals just like you here.

If you really think that more government control is the way to prosperity, and freedom then rail for more in your own country, American's will take care of America thank you.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Which is a shame, really. I want my next car to be just like my civic, but diesel. I always figured wed transition from gas to diesel, bio diesel, then electric as we got better at solar.

You might want to consider the fact that "internal combustion" engines are inherently less efficient and more pollution prone than are "external combustion" engines.

Until and unless battery technology improves to the point where an electrically powered vehicle is able to be driven for 750km (just a bit under 475 miles) in one day, and do so day after day after day, it might make sense to look at a "Steam/Electric Hybrid" rather than a "Gas/Electric Hybrid" or a "Diesel/Electric Hybrid" as the way to go.

As for "heavy haulers", as I understand it (real, actual, certified, engineers please feel free to contradict with actual data), the "torque curve" is practically identical for diesel and for steam.

PS - One of the biggest drawbacks in using steam to power vehicles is the fact that you have to build up a head of steam (which takes time) before moving the vehicle. Combining steam with electric pretty much eliminates that problem.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Wouldn't it be possible for the automobile manufacturers to simply use the plans that they already have for vehicles that they no longer build in order to produce a "new" vehicle that produces more pollution than the existing ones? At $20.00 per hour, the R&D costs of doing that should come to something like $7.36 - wouldn't it?

PS - I'm completely disregarding the "cosmetics" of the vehicles because there is absolutely no reason why the same chassis and body envelope couldn't be used for both versions. All that would have to be changed would be the engine and power/exhaust systems.

PS - Several years back a friend of mine was restoring a WWII "Universal Carrier". All was done except for the transmission and, when he opened the transmission case he found that the existing transmission was nothing but a bit rust ball. Do you know how he solved the restoration problem for that transmission? (Of course you don't, so I'll tell you. He bought a brand new and complete replacement transmission "off the shelf" because the company that had made the original transmission was still making them and still using them in vehicles that it was manufacturing today.) The R&D cost of that transmission would have to be divided by 79 to get an appropriate figure to apply to current sales (which would bring it down to less than $1,000) and then further divided by the number of units manufactured annually (which would bring it down to less than $1.00 per unit).

Lots of other regulations and consumer demands have made trying to sell those old car designs nearly impossible.

 

[j-mac]

You might want to consider the fact that "internal combustion" engines are inherently less efficient and more pollution prone than are "external combustion" engines.

Until and unless battery technology improves to the point where an electrically powered vehicle is able to be driven for 750km (just a bit under 475 miles) in one day, and do so day after day after day, it might make sense to look at a "Steam/Electric Hybrid" rather than a "Gas/Electric Hybrid" or a "Diesel/Electric Hybrid" as the way to go.

As for "heavy haulers", as I understand it (real, actual, certified, engineers please feel free to contradict with actual data), the "torque curve" is practically identical for diesel and for steam.

PS - One of the biggest drawbacks in using steam to power vehicles is the fact that you have to build up a head of steam (which takes time) before moving the vehicle. Combining steam with electric pretty much eliminates that problem.

Are you really arguing to go back to steam powered modes of transportation? Isn't that "regressive"?

 

[j-mac]

Lots of other regulations and consumer demands have made trying to sell those old car designs nearly impossible.

Clearly why the push for "retro" designs of the older muscle car lines are such a failure, right?

 

[ocean515]

Re: Automakers Tell Trump His Pollution Rules Could Mean ‘Untenable’ Instability and Lower Profi

I am sure they could go beyond but they woukd not have enough sales to ensure automakers would build to that spec.

You do realize that the automakers do not have to build to California spec if they do not want to sell in California. They could very weĺl not sell there and not take on that extra cost

The only state that can set it's own clean air standards is California. No other state can do that, and they can't go beyond what California does, as that would be against Federal Law.

If automakers in the US chose to stop selling in California it would cost thousands of jobs, and potentially put them out of business. That is not an alternative.

What they can do is just continue to build every car to the more stringent California standards and let buyers in the other 49 states pay for increased costs of doing so.

They don't have to adopt the new standards the Trump Administration is planning to implement.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Re: Automakers Tell Trump His Pollution Rules Could Mean ‘Untenable’ Instability and Lower Profi

Those other states can't establish their own rules on their own like California does. They can match them, which some do, but they can't go beyond what California establishes.

PIFFLE!!!!

Of course they can. ANY state can establish ANY pollution standards it feels like establishing. Of course there are always trade-offs that you have to accept and if a state (for example) were to legislate that all vehicles sold (or operated) inside its boundaries had to produce a NEGATIVE amount of pollution (i.e. had to absorb more H[SUB]2[/SUB]S than they emitted) the "trade off" would be that no vehicles could be sold (or operated) inside its boundaries until such time as someone designed and built vehicles which complied with the "State Pollution Standard".

How do others suffer? It's mandates in California that effect the cost and type of cars sold.

Using the 2009 figures (mainly because I found them easily and am too lazy to do any more research about a silly point) there were around 6,000,000 new passenger vehicles sold in the US annually. Assuming that the average price for those vehicles was $30,000 (which isn't all that unlikely) then that means that - even if 100% of the cost of the vehicle were to come SOLELY from R&D and also assuming that the profit margin of EVERY level of the vehicle manufacturing/sale chain was ZERO - the total R&D cost per vehicle would be in the neighbourhood of $10.00

California has a minimum sales mandate for Electric Cars. It's a sliding scale that reaches 22% of cars sold must be Zero Emission Vehicles. The cost to build them and support this forced sales level is born by every consumer across the Nation, whether these vehicles actually reduce emissions or not.

Assuming that you are correct,

1. would you like to tell everyone exactly (well, OK, to within the nearest $100) how much extra that is costing each of the 6,000,000 vehicle purchasers who don't live in California, and
2. once you have done that, would you like to tell everyone how much the amount that California remits to the federal government that is in excess of the amount of funds that California receives from the federal government works out to if you divide it by the number of vehicle purchases that take place outside of California?, and
3. once you have done that, would you like to tell everyone whether the number in Point 1 above is higher (or lower) than the number in Point 2 above?

California must be stripped of this power. I'm not holding my breath on that.

There are a few ways that you could accomplish that, those being:

• amend the Constitution of the United States of America to make "setting pollution levels" an EXCLUSIVELY federal power;
• legislating that no state can have a population that is greater than any other state and making it a felony not to move to a state with a lower population when directed to do so by the "Population Optimizal Levelling Internal Commission Enforcement - Standard Territorial Assignment Tribunal Executive" (generally known by its acronym "POLICE - STATE"); or
• convincing the vehicle manufacturers that they really are NOT in business to make as much money as possible but rather are in business to sell everyone vehicles with exactly the pollution level that the vehicle purchaser wants their vehicle to have;

and, of course, there could well be others (like asking Santa to bring you the reality you want rather than the reality you have).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I am wondering if there are some kind of subsidies that past President's like Obama put in place for ever tightening emissions standards, that the auto makers think they can no longer live without?

Good question.

Do you want someone to do all the work of researching the answer and then to spoon feed you the answer, or are you going to get off your butt and actually do the work of researching the answer for yourself?

On the other hand, possibly you really don't care about the answer since the wording of your question almost positively identifies it as merely a "slam" against Mr. Obama rather than a question that was asked with any seriousness.