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

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Because then they would have to sell cheaper cars.


Man, you gotta stop crusading for the wealthy, bro!

Describe what a hypothetical "cheaper car" would be like.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Having two standards makes manufacturing MORE expensive. Of course, you are really advocating going back to the no emissions standards of the 1950s. Who cares if we scuttle the controls that got the air 97% cleaner?

There is a good reason my father used to call conservatives "regressive."

We have now developed engines which run substantially more efficiently than their predecessors. And because they run more efficiently, they're not ONLY cleaner, they run for a longer period of time. So you're getting more car for your money. Cars of yesteryear were pretty much done and over at around a hundred thousand miles. Of course, most people did not have commutes of 50 or even a hundred miles a day back then either, so most cars didn't rack up a hundred thousand miles in four or five years either.

I would like to know what a hypothetical "cheaper TrumpMobile" car would be like.
Would it have a crappy non-blueprinted engine that never held a tuneup properly for more than a couple of thousand miles? Would it get crappy gas mileage? Would it develop major engine problems at forty thousand miles?
It sounds like Trump wants us all driving Chevy Vegas.

Nice.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

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

Adding to the cost of cars. Pollution control equipment is expensive. It will be cheaper for working stiffs to keep their old smog-belching beaters running than to take out eight-year loans to buy new ones, but then that's a problem because progressives don't really want private citizens to own cars anymore. Better to take an Uber like AOC or ride a bike like Beto. For years cars came with California pollution-control packages. The rest of the country didn't die. If Californians want that crap, let them pay for it.

Which pollution controls are expensive? Catalytic converters? Engine control computers? Fuel injection instead of carburetors? Vapor recovery units?
What OTHER pollution controls are there?

Try adding up the total cost of running engines without that equipment, including the much more frequent tuneups and repairs, and the drastically shorter engine life, then compare.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

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

Actually, some people did die.

Catalytic Converters Tied to Sharp Drop in Poisoning Deaths


Travis Kalanick, the founder of Uber, is a libertarian. One of his stated objectives for starting Uber was to make riding in an Uber cheaper than owning a car.

yeah, a real frickin' liberal he is. Hah !

In fact, progressives have issues with the "gig economy". So, you are incorrect that liberals want no one to own cars.

Here's an article about a guy who is complaining about liberals putting down the "gig economy" (that would include Uber, etc ).

Progressives Need To Stop Putting Down The Gig Economy


The advent of the catalytic converter was, unquestionably, a good idea with the cost/benefit analysis
and the air we breathe is better because of it.

Better health is always good for the economy.


However, better health is not about economics, it's just the right thing to strive for, period.

Uber and Lyft have never turned a profit.
And the so called gig economy creates a nation of nomads.
That's a new feudalism: rootless, doomed and devoid of saved assets.
Libertarianism is just another name for anarchy, and Kalanick will sooner or later meet someone with more money who will eat his lunch, drink his milkshake, bone his girlfriend and steal his company and sell off the assets and THAT guy will make the profit.
And he'll probably be Mitt Romney.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You are missing something.

The issue is not the President reducing the final numbers, it's California having the power to set their own, and with the size of the market, establishing standards the rest of the Nation must live by.

In the end, changing the standards could have no impact whatsoever on the auto industry, if they chose to ignore them.

There is no requirement that automakers can't exceed the regulations the EPA sets. They can ignore the changes that are being proposed and build cars that meet California's unilateral demands.

What automakers want is to strip California of their singular status.

The draconian California Air Resources Board shouldn't have the ability to set national standards. It's just an unintended twist in the law that granted such status that allows them to do so.

So you're in favor of a national, federal standard, one set by the Federal Government, but as a far Right winger, you're supposed to hate intervention by the feds on state matters. What happened to states rights?
Is it only a matter of states rights when it's something that doesn't drive you into a tizzy?
After all, pretty much ALL cars now meet CA EPA standards anyway as it is, right now.

That's right, most if not ALL cars sold here are now 50-state compliant. If it was Pennsylvania that had the strictest pollution laws instead of California, you'd still hate California to the marrow of your bones anyway, but the question is, would you be ranting and raving about Pennsylvania telling the rest of the country what to do?

Sorry but if this amounts to a tradeoff of California versus the feds, what's the difference? Does anyone actually think that the feds will suddenly say it's okay to put lead back in the gasoline and offer kits to remove your catalytic converters?

 

[dixon01767]

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

The topic is emmissions, not eficiency.

 

[Ahlevah]

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

Which pollution controls are expensive? Catalytic converters? Engine control computers? Fuel injection instead of carburetors? Vapor recovery units?
What OTHER pollution controls are there?

Try adding up the total cost of running engines without that equipment, including the much more frequent tuneups and repairs, and the drastically shorter engine life, then compare.

Honestly, I don't know what additional equipment will be required to get to the new mileage standard of 54.5 by 2025, but it will be in the thousands of dollars per vehicle. Last year NHTSA placed the cost at an average of $2,340 per unit (Trump proposes freezing fuel economy standards, reversing Obama).

 

[dcsports]

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).

California adopting a separate set of standards absolutely impacts the auto market for the entire country. There's no question having two standards would make cars more expensive for everyone. That's the nature of interstate commerce. Adopting a national standard makes absolute sense.

If I had a magic wand that you suggest, I would mobilize a mass welling up of popular support to end California's special status under the Clean Air Act, and have all US automakers comply with rules set by the Federal Government under the EPA. California has representatives in congress that participate in that process.

 

[dcsports]

We have now developed engines which run substantially more efficiently than their predecessors. And because they run more efficiently, they're not ONLY cleaner, they run for a longer period of time. So you're getting more car for your money. Cars of yesteryear were pretty much done and over at around a hundred thousand miles. Of course, most people did not have commutes of 50 or even a hundred miles a day back then either, so most cars didn't rack up a hundred thousand miles in four or five years either.

I would like to know what a hypothetical "cheaper TrumpMobile" car would be like.
Would it have a crappy non-blueprinted engine that never held a tuneup properly for more than a couple of thousand miles? Would it get crappy gas mileage? Would it develop major engine problems at forty thousand miles?
It sounds like Trump wants us all driving Chevy Vegas.

Nice.

Again we're diverting into siliness. The administration has not proposed lowering any standards. Cars will not get worse. Automakers will continue to innovate and make cars better. The change is to the planned, future, unrealistic MPG standards.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

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

Honestly, I don't know what additional equipment will be required to get to the new mileage standard of 54.5 by 2025, but it will be in the thousands of dollars per vehicle. Last year NHTSA placed the cost at an average of $2,340 per unit (Trump proposes freezing fuel economy standards, reversing Obama).

By 2025??
Remember, these standards are FLEET AVERAGE standards, which means that individual car models are not measured, the average for the entire manufacturer FLEET is. Thus the GM average, the Ford average, Chrysler average, etc must meet that 54 mpg mark BY 2025.
Well guess what? GM is rolling out EIGHTEEN new battery electric models between now and 2022.

That's going to boost the GM fleet average way above 54.5 by 2025, because even if they still offer a few gasoline models, which they will, the overall fleet average will hit that mark easily, and by 2025 it's a pretty good guess that electrics will reach parity with gas vehicles, and some of those gas vehicles might still be hybrids too.
Lastly, pickup trucks don't have to fit the CAR standard, because they are trucks.

It's not impossible at all, in fact it is doable.
And 2400 bucks per car isn't scary horrible terrible, it's 2400 bucks, big whoop.

 

[dcsports]

So you're in favor of a national, federal standard, one set by the Federal Government, but as a far Right winger, you're supposed to hate intervention by the feds on state matters. What happened to states rights?
Is it only a matter of states rights when it's something that doesn't drive you into a tizzy?
After all, pretty much ALL cars now meet CA EPA standards anyway as it is, right now.

That's right, most if not ALL cars sold here are now 50-state compliant. If it was Pennsylvania that had the strictest pollution laws instead of California, you'd still hate California to the marrow of your bones anyway, but the question is, would you be ranting and raving about Pennsylvania telling the rest of the country what to do?

Sorry but if this amounts to a tradeoff of California versus the feds, what's the difference? Does anyone actually think that the feds will suddenly say it's okay to put lead back in the gasoline and offer kits to remove your catalytic converters?

I understand that it's a generic talking point to say, "what happened to states rights?" However, under the constitution, there are certain areas delegated to the federal government, and some reserved for the states. This is clearly an issue related to interstate commerce, and it makes sense to have it regulated at the federal level.

If you would like to talk about another issue, where you see hypocrisy with this standard, feel free to present it.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Again we're diverting into siliness. The administration has not proposed lowering any standards. Cars will not get worse. Automakers will continue to innovate and make cars better. The change is to the planned, future, unrealistic MPG standards.

I realize that.
I STILL want to know what the hypothetical "freedom CAR" would be like...seeing as how so many IN this thread ARE diverting into silliness.
I am inquiring what motivates it, that's all.
So far no one has offered an explanation as to what such a "freedom" car would be like.
They're quick to complain but they suffer a paucity of ideas when it comes time to answer the questions.

And Trump or not, it's a fair question.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I understand that it's a generic talking point to say, "what happened to states rights?" However, under the constitution, there are certain areas delegated to the federal government, and some reserved for the states. This is clearly an issue related to interstate commerce, and it makes sense to have it regulated at the federal level.

If you would like to talk about another issue, where you see hypocrisy with this standard, feel free to present it.

No not at all, if it boils down to it being a federal standard, so be it.
California has the toughest earthquake safety standards for residential and business construction in the country if not the world. Maybe Japan has tougher standards...MAYBE.
But CA is not enforcing their earthquake standards on the rest of the country.
But guess what?
It might not be a bad idea when one looks at the damage from a 4.1 quake in Oklahoma, or one ponders what might happen to the entire Sea-Tac region if the Northwest Acadian Fault lets go a whopper promising to be bigger than "The Big One" from San Andreas in SoCal.
Clearly, if that Northwest Pacific fault goes kaboom, it is going to devastate MASSIVE parts of the Pacific Northwest, and those areas are NOT built to California quake standards, but I daresay they should retrofit and they SHOULD adopt those standards for new construction, but it is doubtful they will.
Think about what that will cost the nation.

But OKAY, if it's federal pollution standards, it's federal then, so be it.
Now someone tell me what those standards would be like. Would they ignore the special needs of regions like SoCal just because Trump hates SoCal?
Is that appropriate?

Should SoCal be forced to revert back to THIS?

SO. MUCH. WINNING.

 

[OscarLevant]

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

Uber and Lyft have never turned a profit.
And the so called gig economy creates a nation of nomads.
That's a new feudalism: rootless, doomed and devoid of saved assets.
Libertarianism is just another name for anarchy, and Kalanick will sooner or later meet someone with more money who will eat his lunch, drink his milkshake, bone his girlfriend and steal his company and sell off the assets and THAT guy will make the profit.
And he'll probably be Mitt Romney.

I think the one flaw in unfettered libertarian Darwinian capitalism is just what the phrase implies, a dog eat dog world were only the rich make out okay, and the rest suffer without hope or recourse. It doesn't start out that way, but it winds up that way, because morals are not driving the thing, the endless quest for profits and morality is not even in the equation, it's whatever anyone can get away with, and the more money you have, the more power you acquire, the more you are able to rig the system where you can get away with what no small guys can get away with, and then you own the media and shape the narrative, and viola, a Russian styled society ruled by oligarchs and a titular head. I.e., a fascist universe where, if there is a "constitution', it's only on paper, and there is no law, no freedom of press or expression, an a place where they murder journalists and 'undesireables" ( like gay people ) but that of the oligarchs and leader.


Every time Donald Trump says "you press people are committing treason", "the press is the enemy of the people", "fake news" "what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what is happening" (classic gaslighting technique of the sociopath) he is moving the country, in small increments, towards unbridaled power, i.e., he is trying to manipulate pubic opinion his way so that one day, he will have enough power that he can get away with what our forefathers feared the most, the unchecked power of a sociopath.

Trump is a deeply disturbed man. But, all dictators are disturbed men, and are totally corrupt --- Trump wants to go in that direction, the signals are all over the place.

By electing trump, the right has planted a monster and the monster is hunger for more power, make no mistake about it. Our only recourse is for both the left and the right to stand up to him, and take him down.


I'm not encouraged though, given the fact the soul of the right has been poisoned by Trump.


They are under his spell. Trump has a knack for mass mind manipulation, all famous demagogues do, he understands that all you have to do with a lie is repeat it a lot, and people will start to believe it.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I am so sick and tired of the nonstop tsunami of posts that basically boil down to

"Huuuhh??? DERP DERP evil LIBRULS!!!"

When Los Angeles, Burbank, San Diego, Merced, Sacramento, Tulare, Modesto and Bakersfield all plunged into soupy gray darkness and stepping outside was hazardous to our health, it wasn't just some EVIL LIBRULS!!! who complained about the smog, it was EVERYONE.

I do not remember any conservatives stepping outside, inhaling and yelling,
"I LOVE this wonderful smog! It smells like FREEDOM!!"

Everyone demanded answers and everyone demanded that car manufacturers do something.

"DOOOOO SOMETHING!!!!!!!!"

Same with New York, same with Chicago, same with Pittsburgh, same everywhere.
People objected to the smog, the pollution, the litter, the dangerous chemicals in everything.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Again we're diverting into siliness. The administration has not proposed lowering any standards. Cars will not get worse. Automakers will continue to innovate and make cars better. The change is to the planned, future, unrealistic MPG standards.

Then tell me what hypothetical federal standards would be realistic? What MPG figure smells and sounds like FREEDOM?
Give me a number.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Do any conservatives here think it is possible that gasoline might again spike to six or seven dollars per gallon sometime in the future, like say perhaps in 2024?
Let's do some math.

At seven bucks a gallon, it will cost 140 dollars to fill a twenty gallon gas tank, and at 37 mpg (the proposed frozen Trump standard) that works out to about $19.95 a day or 606.33 per month.
Still think we shouldn't strive for better fleet mileage figures?
Still smelling that "freedom"?

 

[dcsports]

I realize that.
I STILL want to know what the hypothetical "freedom CAR" would be like...seeing as how so many IN this thread ARE diverting into silliness.
I am inquiring what motivates it, that's all.
So far no one has offered an explanation as to what such a "freedom" car would be like.
They're quick to complain but they suffer a paucity of ideas when it comes time to answer the questions.

And Trump or not, it's a fair question.

lol -- no, you are being silly. We're talking about cars manufactured today.

 

[dcsports]

No not at all, if it boils down to it being a federal standard, so be it.
California has the toughest earthquake safety standards for residential and business construction in the country if not the world. Maybe Japan has tougher standards...MAYBE.
But CA is not enforcing their earthquake standards on the rest of the country.
But guess what?
It might not be a bad idea when one looks at the damage from a 4.1 quake in Oklahoma, or one ponders what might happen to the entire Sea-Tac region if the Northwest Acadian Fault lets go a whopper promising to be bigger than "The Big One" from San Andreas in SoCal.
Clearly, if that Northwest Pacific fault goes kaboom, it is going to devastate MASSIVE parts of the Pacific Northwest, and those areas are NOT built to California quake standards, but I daresay they should retrofit and they SHOULD adopt those standards for new construction, but it is doubtful they will.
Think about what that will cost the nation.

But OKAY, if it's federal pollution standards, it's federal then, so be it.
Now someone tell me what those standards would be like. Would they ignore the special needs of regions like SoCal just because Trump hates SoCal?
Is that appropriate?

Should SoCal be forced to revert back to THIS?

SO. MUCH. WINNING.

Great example. Buildings are used locally, and for the most part are manufactured on the land they sit on. It makes sense that local standards apply, and there's no interstate commerce issue.

With a few exceptions, cars aren't manufactured in the state they are used in, they are transferred across state lines, and move across state lines. Having 50+ sets of standards would be impossible to maintain, and drastically increase costs / prices. There's a clear interstate commerce issue, and it's well established that this is within the authority of the US government.

And no one is talking about increasing pollution from cars. They are far better than in the past, and continue to get better.

 

[dcsports]

Then tell me what hypothetical federal standards would be realistic? What MPG figure smells and sounds like FREEDOM?
Give me a number.

Nope. That's silly. I'll leave that up to the experts at the EPA. In 1985 the goal was 27.5 MPG. There was a phased in program of 5% better per year to the from 2012 to the current standard (just increased) is 34.1 MPG (2016) - a 25% increase. The jump was supposed to be to 54.5 MPG by 2025. That's a 60% increase, which just isn't realistic.

Note that no one is arguing that the level should be increased - the issue is how much. Continuous improvement is making cars more efficient.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Nope. That's silly. I'll leave that up to the experts at the EPA. In 1985 the goal was 27.5 MPG. There was a phased in program of 5% better per year to the from 2012 to the current standard (just increased) is 34.1 MPG (2016) - a 25% increase. The jump was supposed to be to 54.5 MPG by 2025. That's a 60% increase, which just isn't realistic.

Note that no one is arguing that the level should be increased - the issue is how much. Continuous improvement is making cars more efficient.

Then freezing it is also silly, just make an adjustment to the 60 percent, that's all.
By the way, with the majors rolling out dozens of BEV vehicles between now and 2022 (or 2024) you can COUNT on the fleet figures rising exponentially anyway.
An off the top of my head guesstimate says that meeting or exceeding 54 mpg is highly doable if the majors were to only roll out FIVE BEV models between now and 2022, because the astronomical MPGe figures will drastically boost the fleet average.

 

[dcsports]

Then freezing it is also silly, just make an adjustment to the 60 percent, that's all.
By the way, with the majors rolling out dozens of BEV vehicles between now and 2022 (or 2024) you can COUNT on the fleet figures rising exponentially anyway.
An off the top of my head guesstimate says that meeting or exceeding 54 mpg is highly doable if the majors were to only roll out FIVE BEV models between now and 2022, because the astronomical MPGe figures will drastically boost the fleet average.

They are cancelling the increase. No one said they wouldn't implement a new standard. Again - automakers are pushing the administration to negotiate something in between.

And yes, gamesmanship with BEV's is the only way they could 'get' there. Note from the OP this would likely require playing with the prices to push people to buy pricing electric cars below cost and charging higher values for traditional cars.

 

[KevinKohler]

Describe what a hypothetical "cheaper car" would be like.

10k. Small, cheap, "old tech" motor, 80 hp, tops. No power windows, locks, etc. The most simple and basic thing possible. Hell, could probably sell them for 8k.

 

[Media_Truth]

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.

Depends on the source. Many EV owners are purchasing Solar-Edge systems (see below) to charge their cars, and provide much of their household needs. Electricity can also be generated by hydroelectric , natural gas, or wind turbines. Many Utilities have an option to pay a little extra for wind energy. Over 3 million households have installed solar PV systems, with netmetering. Coal use is declining every year.

 

[ocean515]

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

An absurd claim based on an emotional uninformed opinion.

The reduction being sought is higher than the current standards.

California needs to be stripped of it's power to screw the citizens in the rest of Nation to pay for their insane drive into oblivion.