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

[Media_Truth]

Not neccesarily. AND most reductions in emissions of pollutants come not from higher MPG but instead from cleaner burning fuel, cleaner burning engines and catalytic converters and similiar on diesel engines.

All else being equal (cleaner fuel, catalytic converter, etc); more MPG will always result in less pollutants. ALWAYS.

 

[Media_Truth]

It would make a LOT of sense to look to trucks and busses for reductions. Not only do they emit many times the amount of emissions as a passenger car, they also tend to drive many more miles. I'm sure emission control systems for these are more expensive.... but there are fewer. You could get a lot more bang for the buck by controlling emissions here.

Agree...

 

[Media_Truth]

It dictates everything to the country, and the Progressives running the state know it. It' the largest market in the United States. That's why the automakers are collectively addressing that fact to the President.


Do you believe you know more about the subject than the US Automakers?


BTW, the reason I mention age of the registered vehicles is because California has the oldest "fleet" of registered cars in the Nation. The older they are, the more they pollute. I guess that doesn't matter to some, because it's the visuals, not reality that is important.

If other states follow the lead of California, there is a good reason for it. If you look at my earlier link from the American Lung Association, almost every major city is out-of-compliance for EPA air quality. California has the most cities, but that doesn't make the situation any better for others. I understand that Trump and Republicans want to do NOTHING to address these issues, but it is the responsibility of local and state governments. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT FACT???

 

[ocean515]

If other states follow the lead of California, there is a good reason for it. If you look at my earlier link from the American Lung Association, almost every major city is out-of-compliance for EPA air quality. California has the most cities, but that doesn't make the situation any better for others. I understand that Trump and Republicans want to do NOTHING to address these issues, but it is the responsibility of local and state governments. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT FACT???

Yes. It's pretty clear there is much you don't understand.

For example:

Air pollution in Asia is wafting into the USA, increasing smog in West

The reason for the change is to reduce cost for motor vehicle so a cleaner fleet of cars and trucks will be on the road.

As it is, California's unilateral decisions cause every citizen in every state to carry the cost burden.

I DON"T EXPECT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT...………………..:lamo

 

[sangha]

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

Right.

Vehicle Emissions California Waivers and Authorizations | State and Local Transportation Resources | US EPA

It proved that I was right and you are wrong

 

[Moderate Right]

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.

This really doesn't make any sense. Anything Trump could do would only apply to the US and if automakers don't want to roll back standards, they don't have to. There would be no law forcing car companies to manufacture cars with less standards. They could even increase standards if they wanted to.

 

[Moderate Right]

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

The left have gone full blown nuts.

 

[ecofarm]

The left have gone full blown nuts.

Yes, sure, half the country is insane. Now tell us about how you're the poor victim of political BS. Tell us about the terrible broad brushes you suffer at the hands of political opponents.

 

[ocean515]

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

It proved that I was right and you are wrong

Dream on. Walk away from this one Sangha, it's going to leave a mark.


Your choice.

 

[sangha]

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

Dream on. Walk away from this one Sangha, it's going to leave a mark.


Your choice.

Thanks for sharing

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Ok. So? Do you know anything about the automobiles in use in California? Do you know the average age? Age relates to degree of pollution control and mpg.

Further, why does is the air in California more important than the air elsewhere?

Should California dictate the cost and type of car and trucks citizens in other states get to own and operate?

The air in California is important to people in California. They want air they can breathe or at least most of them. If people in Texas want to breathe toxic fumes let them but let Californians breathe clean ait

 

[Media_Truth]

Yes. It's pretty clear there is much you don't understand.

For example:

Air pollution in Asia is wafting into the USA, increasing smog in West

The reason for the change is to reduce cost for motor vehicle so a cleaner fleet of cars and trucks will be on the road.

As it is, California's unilateral decisions cause every citizen in every state to carry the cost burden.

I DON"T EXPECT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT...………………..:lamo

Reaching for any argument, regardless of how ridiculous, does little for your case.

 

[dcsports]

If other states follow the lead of California, there is a good reason for it. If you look at my earlier link from the American Lung Association, almost every major city is out-of-compliance for EPA air quality. California has the most cities, but that doesn't make the situation any better for others. I understand that Trump and Republicans want to do NOTHING to address these issues, but it is the responsibility of local and state governments. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT FACT???

Who said they wanted to 'do nothing'?

The fact is, the future standard is not realistic. When you 'do something' the something has to be realistic and helpful. Trying to 'do something' unrealistic, expensive, etc. is not helpful.

 

[dixon01767]

All else being equal (cleaner fuel, catalytic converter, etc); more MPG will always result in less pollutants. ALWAYS.

Nonsense. My neighbor drives a hybrid. Mostly short trips back and forth to work. rarely uses the gasoline engine and fully charges every night on an electric grid that burns lignite coal to generate electricity. More pollutants than a basic small compact car with a gasoline engine.

 

[ocean515]

The air in California is important to people in California. They want air they can breathe or at least most of them. If people in Texas want to breathe toxic fumes let them but let Californians breathe clean ait

Well gee, since I live in Southern California, I also think air is important.

But you didn't address the question, so I'll leave my response to just that.

 

[ocean515]

Reaching for any argument, regardless of how ridiculous, does little for your case.

As your post here proves....

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The air in California is important to people in California. They want air they can breathe or at least most of them. If people in Texas want to breathe toxic fumes let them but let Californians breathe clean ait

You appear to have missed the point, and that point is that more Americans DO NOT live in California than DO live in California and it is unjust that the minority dictate to the majority.

If the majority want to breath polluted air, then the minority just has to shut up and put up with it.

That's why America is a **R*E*P*U*B*L*I*C** and NOT a "Democracy".

Right?

 

[dcsports]

You appear to have missed the point, and that point is that more Americans DO NOT live in California than DO live in California and it is unjust that the minority dictate to the majority.

If the majority want to breath polluted air, then the minority just has to shut up and put up with it.

That's why America is a **R*E*P*U*B*L*I*C** and NOT a "Democracy".

Right?

However, the inverse is also true - California doesn't have the right to dictate standards (and prices) to the rest of the US. A dual standard would absolutely impact people in the rest of the country. There is a clear interstate commerce issue here, and a clear justification for a national standard.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

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.

Then the car makers can voluntarily build cars to the old emissions standards and thus not have a problem.

problem solved, amazing when Government doesn't have to be involved!

 

[Ikari]

Wait - what? He wants to weaken pollution standards for cars? Why in the Hell is that?

He's been gutting the crap out of the EPA for some time now. It's all for the Corporations.

 

[Ikari]

amazing when Government doesn't have to be involved!

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Well gee, since I live in Southern California, I also think air is important.

But you didn't address the question, so I'll leave my response to just that.

California can only dictate what is sold in California, it is up to the manufacturers if they want to build to one higher standard, or a higher standard and a lower standard.

I would say you do not care about the air in California, give it is already among the worst in the US, and you want to make it even worse

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Nonsense. My neighbor drives a hybrid. Mostly short trips back and forth to work. rarely uses the gasoline engine and fully charges every night on an electric grid that burns lignite coal to generate electricity. More pollutants than a basic small compact car with a gasoline engine.

That depends on the coal plant

A modern coal plant with scrubbers, and other emission control systems can produce very clean energy. Add in a co-generation plant and it is I believe approaching 50% thermal efficiency. The best car is about 44% right now

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

However, the inverse is also true - California doesn't have the right to dictate standards (and prices) to the rest of the US. A dual standard would absolutely impact people in the rest of the country. There is a clear interstate commerce issue here, and a clear justification for a national standard.

The US has had a dual system in the past, it can have one in the future. It only impacts bringing non compliant vehicles into California, which will have fewer used cars that it can choose from

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

However, the inverse is also true - California doesn't have the right to dictate standards (and prices) to the rest of the US. A dual standard would absolutely impact people in the rest of the country. There is a clear interstate commerce issue here, and a clear justification for a national standard.

California law is NOT applicable outside of California (unless some other state's legislature adopts the provisions in it) so no California law "dictates" to anyone outside of California.

The automakers have VOLUNTARILY decided that they want to have a place in the California automobile market - California didn't "dictate" that they MUST participate in the California automobile market.

The automakers have VOLUNTARILY decided that, since the do want to have a place in the California automobile market they would manufacture vehicles which could be sold, legally, in California - California didn't "dictate" that they MUST manufacture vehicles which could be sold, legally, in California.

The automakers have VOLUNTARILY decided that they would NOT make different versions of the same vehicle (one version which could be sold, legally, in California and one that could not - California didn't "dictate" that they MUST NOT make different versions of the same vehicle (one version which could be sold, legally, in California and one that could not.

The automakers made those VOLUNTARILY decisions because they wanted to maximize their own profits - California didn't "dictate" that they MUST maximize their own profits.

What you are, in fact, complaining about is the fact that corporate executives made market (read as "profit") driven decisions that you don't like.

Since that is the case, the appropriate course of action for you is to mobilize a mass up-welling of popular support for a movement to boycott any automaker which [a] manufactures vehicles which are in compliance with the laws of California AND does NOT manufacture another version of the same vehicle that is NOT in compliance with the laws of California. Possibly one of your objectives should be to convince your state legislature to impose an additional tax on vehicles which ARE in compliance with the laws of California because the one sure thing that that will do is cause the automakers to manufacture vehicles which are NOT in compliance with the laws of California (provided that they don't VOLUNTARILY decide that they simply cannot be bothered to take part in the automobile market in your state).