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

[Oborosen]

Because he can't think past his nose.

Great, then he's no better than the rest of you.

 

[Oborosen]

Holly hell, Coral Davenport... I should've known.

Have to remind myself to read who's actually written the article next time.

 

[ocean515]

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

I recall driving down the 91 during the 70s, before the catalytic converter was mandated, and the freeway is raised for much of it in the Torrance area,
and downtown from the 91 was a good 10 miles away. You literally couldn't see downtown for the smog. I remember distinctively seeing the brown smog layer in the distance, settling in the basin and the horizon was blue sky, then a sharp brown carpet on the horizon, it was unsettling to know that we were breathing that air.

Today, that brown carpet-like layer is pretty much gone, and I can see downtown from the 91 without much problem.

Unemployment today is 4.3% in CA, less than that overall.

In 1974, a year before the mandated catalytic converter, it was 7%

Damn liberals cleaning up the air, it's disgusting

The 91 has never reached Torrance. Not in the 70's, and certainly not today.

While your description of the Air Quality in Southern California is for the most part accurate, it fails to connect to the current issue. The standard the new regulatory standards are seeking to establish are already more stringent that called for today.


You claim the air is clear in California because of it's Progressive policies. Why would the air get worse with more stringent standards?

No other State in the United States has the ability to set it's own Air Quality standards. As such, as the Automakers have explained, it has the ability to harm thousands of jobs and a major industrial sector of the United States. through it's unilateral actions.

The rest of the Nation is being held hostage by California.


As to unemployment rates, Progressives running California have placed California as the home of the highest poverty in the Nation.


Damn liberals, screwing the National Economy, and creating poverty in it's citizens.

 

[American]

Yep. Obama liked clean air, so Trump is against clean air.

Trump doesn't breathe the same air as us.

 

[Airyaman]

The Hill on Twitter: "President Trump: "We have the cleanest air in the world, in the United States, and it's gotten better since I'm president."… https://t.co/kp28eoKTdr"

 

[YouveBeenTrumpd]

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


This is absolute lies and fake news. De-regulation never HURTS profits. Only an imbecile would buy that. These are people with a political agenda

 

[ocean515]

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


This is absolute lies and fake news. De-regulation never HURTS profits. Only an imbecile would buy that. These are people with a political agenda

Actually, it's the liberal media turning the issue inside out.

They are speaking of how Progressives in California are holding the Nation hostage.

If you look under the covers, what they are saying is California needs to have it's status as the only state that can set it's own air quality standards stripped from it, so there is equality across the Nation.

As it is now, California is setting standards for electric vehicles, MPG, etc., that effectively establish a National regulatory standard, since the state represents so much of the US auto industry sales.

 

[dcsports]

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.

You really should read the article you posted.

Trump isn't 'slashing' the regulation. He's freezing it at 37 mpg for cars, which is still at a level very few cars currently can achieve. The Obama standard included an increase to 54.4 mpg, which everyone knows is not realistic, and car manufacturers begged the Trump administration to change.

The issue is that California continues to insist on the higher level, and they have the power to enforce it due to a provision in the 1970 clean air act. Manufacturers are concerned about returning to a split market where they have to produce different cars for California, manipulate prices to change the mix in that state (i.e. sell electric cars at a loss), and deal with cross-state sales for cars with different standards. They are NOT wanting the administration to put in place the Obama standard. The letter is asking him to negotiate a deal with California on a middle ground.

Personally, I like the plan C floated by the Trump Administration... strip California of the ability to set different standards, and have one national standard. That's probably going to happen at some point, especially since the California government is being insistent on the unrealistic level. Having two standards makes no sense, and this is without question an issue of interstate commerce. They can even increase the standard for the future to a middle ground, provided it's realistic.

 

[dcsports]

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


This is absolute lies and fake news. De-regulation never HURTS profits. Only an imbecile would buy that. These are people with a political agenda

Actually if you read the article, you'll probably agree with much of it. It doesn't say what the OP claims. The auto emission regulations are NOT being removed, or slashed, only frozen. The complaint of auto manufacturers is that California is threatening to enforce it's own standards (which it can under the 1970 federal law). This will force auto companies to make cars, and set prices, for two different standards, which will hurt profits.

 

[ocean515]

You really should read the article you posted.

Trump isn't 'slashing' the regulation. He's freezing it at 37 mpg for cars, which is still at a level very few cars currently can achieve. The Obama standard included an increase to 54.4 mpg, which everyone knows is not realistic, and car manufacturers begged the Trump administration to change.

The issue is that California continues to insist on the higher level, and they have the power to enforce it due to a provision in the 1970 clean air act. Manufacturers are concerned about returning to a split market where they have to produce different cars for California, manipulate prices to change the mix in that state (i.e. sell electric cars at a loss), and deal with cross-state sales for cars with different standards. They are NOT wanting the administration to put in place the Obama standard. The letter is asking him to negotiate a deal with California on a middle ground.

Personally, I like the plan C floated by the Trump Administration... strip California of the ability to set different standards, and have one national standard. That's probably going to happen at some point, especially since the California government is being insistent on the unrealistic level. Having two standards makes no sense, and this is without question an issue of interstate commerce. They can even increase the standard for the future to a middle ground, provided it's realistic.

I'm wondering what approach would work to strip California of it's special status?

It's an interesting legal question.

I believe it would have to be done via a Constitutional/Legal question, since Progressives who now control the New Democratic Party would never vote to strip the capital of their religion from such powers.

 

[dcsports]

I'm wondering what approach would work to strip California of it's special status?

It's an interesting legal question.

I believe it would have to be done via a Constitutional/Legal question, since Progressives who now control the New Democratic Party would never vote to strip the capital of their religion from such powers.

I wonder that too. Obviously, it would solve the problem, and really should be done. But congress passed the law, and you are right, the current congress would never agree. I suppose they could sue to make that provision unconstitutional under the interstate commerce clause, but that shouldn't fly either, since congress delegated the authority.

 

[trouble13]

Because they'd still have to follow California's state regulations. If the national regs are less strict, there would be two standards to follow.

Maybe i am ignorant to something in this because i fail to see how lowering regulatory restrictions increases prices and even if it did there is nothing preventing them from continuing to manufactor their vehicles to the current specs.

Im sure they have a legitimate objection i am just not seeing what it is and the article does not explain it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[ocean515]

I wonder that too. Obviously, it would solve the problem, and really should be done. But congress passed the law, and you are right, the current congress would never agree. I suppose they could sue to make that provision unconstitutional under the interstate commerce clause, but that shouldn't fly either, since congress delegated the authority.

There's got to be an angle somewhere. If the law can debate the definition of "is", there must be some way to strip a State from having a power that no other State is allowed.

As it is, California has the power to set national policy on matters that effect citizens in every state. Something doesn't fly there, or shouldn't....

 

[dcsports]

Maybe i am ignorant to something in this because i fail to see how lowering regulatory restrictions increases prices and even if it did there is nothing preventing them from continuing to manufactor their vehicles to the current specs.

Im sure they have a legitimate objection i am just not seeing what it is and the article does not explain it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

It doesn't. Posted above, but no restrictions are being lowered. The mpg standard is just not being increased to the proposed unrealistic level. The concern is that California is threatening to impose it's own standards, causing manufacturers to accommodate two different standards - which would increase prices.

 

[dcsports]

There's got to be an angle somewhere. If the law can debate the definition of "is", there must be some way to strip a State from having a power that no other State is allowed.

As it is, California has the power to set national policy on matters that effect citizens in every state. Something doesn't fly there, or shouldn't....

I agree. They shouldn't... but congress agreed to it almost 50 years ago. The option likely involves the courts... and I'm not a fan of that.

 

[ocean515]

I agree. They shouldn't... but congress agreed to it almost 50 years ago. The option likely involves the courts... and I'm not a fan of that.

Well, I'm a fan of anything that smacks down the POS's that have ruined my State.

 

[ttwtt78640]

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

Assuming that profit is a percentage of total sales volume then yes, lowering total sales volume means lowering profits. Getting a 5% profit on a $50K vehicle is better than getting a 5% (or even 6%) profit on a $40K vehicle. The price of a car (or almost anything bought via a long term loan/lease) is typically viewed as the (minuscule?) difference in monthly payment amounts.

 

[apdst]

Assuming that profit is a percentage of total sales volume then yes, lowering total sales volume means lowering profits. Getting a 5% profit on a $50K vehicle is better than getting a 5% (or even 6%) profit on a $40K vehicle. The price of a car (or almost anything bought via a long term loan/lease) is typically viewed as the (minuscule?) difference in monthly payment amounts.

$50, or $100 a month off of a car note every month is a big deal to some folks. It is to me. I've walked away from a car deal over $20 before.

 

[apdst]

I suppose you want lead back in the gasoline too.

Damn ****ing right! My '79 F-250 prefers leaded gas.

 

[trouble13]

It doesn't. Posted above, but no restrictions are being lowered. The mpg standard is just not being increased to the proposed unrealistic level. The concern is that California is threatening to impose it's own standards, causing manufacturers to accommodate two different standards - which would increase prices.

So charge more for cars in california or abandon that market if its an unobtainable standard thats cost effective. Thats the logical response.

Suggesting Trump is causing a problem in the industry for not making that same new standard a federal one is illogical to me.

Thats why i feel like i am missing some key element to the story

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Assuming that profit is a percentage of total sales volume then yes, lowering total sales volume means lowering profits. Getting a 5% profit on a $50K vehicle is better than getting a 5% (or even 6%) profit on a $40K vehicle. The price of a car (or almost anything bought via a long term loan/lease) is typically viewed as the (minuscule?) difference in monthly payment amounts.

Thst can be easily fixed by raising the price of the car to $55k

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Automakers Tell Trump His Pollution Rules Could Mean ‘Untenable’ Instability and Lower Profits
This is absolute lies and fake news. De-regulation never HURTS profits. Only an imbecile would buy that. These are people with a political agenda

You believe that these corporations are putting politics ahead of profits?
That doesn't strike you as an odd thing to believe?

I guess we all have to do what we have to do.
You have to believe the a group of automakers'd rather play politics than make money in order to keep your world view intact.

 

[MTAtech]

Maybe i am ignorant to something in this because i fail to see how lowering regulatory restrictions increases prices and even if it did there is nothing preventing them from continuing to manufactor their vehicles to the current specs.

Im sure they have a legitimate objection i am just not seeing what it is and the article does not explain it.

I'm not an expert either but according to the car corps, satisfying different requirements is more expensive.

 

[dcsports]

So charge more for cars in california or abandon that market if its an unobtainable standard thats cost effective. Thats the logical response.

Suggesting Trump is causing a problem in the industry for not making that same new standard a federal one is illogical to me.

Thats why i feel like i am missing some key element to the story

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

That would be the free market approach... just let California cars cost more. However, it will still likely drive up overall prices.

Again though, I don't think auto are suggesting 'Trump is causing trouble'. That was more the OP's interpretation. They were asking the current administration to negotiate a compromise with California at something between the most recent standard and powering cars by unicorns and rainbows.

 

[dcsports]

Thst can be easily fixed by raising the price of the car to $55k

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

You can't raise the cost of a car by X to increase profit by X. That's 'spreadsheet math'. In reality, people are going to buy another car, you sell fewer, spread fixed costs more, and get less profit.