14 ms·

Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

onecooldev24 8y ago
Elon musk want only his car to sell in the state of California. People are upset now cause Trump wants things to be fair. Edit: LOL at the hate for Trump. He is the only guy who wants to stop the consistent H1B misuse but people here are to dumb/sensitive to support him.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
zamalek 8y ago
Arnie has been pretty vocal against Trump, respectful but openly defiant. I wonder if this is disciplinary action - turning climate change is very close to Arnie's heart.
- joshmn 8y ago
  Exactly this. It's merely a petty move. It doesn't benefit the country, it benefits his fragile, classless ego. Has he looked or been otherwise briefed on how these mandates have crippled the American automakers? I'll be damned if he knows more than a talking point or two. Didn't you hear? Those coal miners in West Virginia with black lung disease are losing their jobs because those yuppies in California are buying electric vehicles. He must protect BlockBuster. Hell, subsidize the shovels.
  - mrunkel 8y ago
    It “helps” automakers. As it stands now, they only build to the California standards since it is too expensive to build two sets of cars. Until they do away with California’s stricter regulations, the loosening of regulations at the federal level has no effect.
    - zamalek 8y ago
      How many of those are American, though? Loosely regulating American manufacturers only would be more in line with Trump's isolationist tendencies.
      - mrunkel 8y ago
        You mean the auto makers? Well, the Trump administration isn't beholden to the foreign automakers, and the ones from Europe already have to build to strict engine emission standards. There is still plenty of money in Ford, Chevy, etc.
    - atomi 8y ago
      Some California cities used to have some of the worst smog in the world. These regulations and exceptions were put in place to curb that. And considering the trade tariffs on some vehicles the difference could be a wash in terms of margin for car manufacturers. What happens to our clean air?
      - mrunkel 8y ago
        Oh, I agree. I was simply pointing out that as long California has it's stricter emissions rules, it doesn't matter what the EPA regulates since automakers will build to the California market since it is so large. If they remove the exception for California, now the weaker EPA rules are what automakers can work towards. This probably saves the auto manufacturer money. If they Trump administration has a defining principle, it's the removal of regulations.
  - chrissnell 8y ago
    Not true--when CA imposes new emissions or efficiency regulations, the automakers are forced to comply to keep access to that huge market. Not wanting to design two different vehicles, they simply comply and pass the cost along to all of the buyers, whether they live in CA or not. The rest of the country has no way to directly affect the CARB's decisions. This exemption, therefore, is very unfair for the rest of us. The administration's policy could have significant impact on the price of vehicles for the rest of us. My diesel truck, for example, has several thousand dollars worth of emissions equipment that my state does not require. It's problematic and I'd love to skip it on my next purchase.
    - Alex3917 8y ago
      > automakers are forced to comply to keep access to that huge market As has already been explained, this is false. These rules are for CARB states, not for California. California is in charge of working with the other states to set the rules.
      - dahdum 8y ago
        Please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the other states only have a say, and not a vote? It's ultimately California's decision what they must accept. Edit: Looked it up, no other states have a vote. 12 governor appointed members and 2 elected members of the CARB board decide.
        Alex3917 8y ago
        The other states can either accept the federal standard or the CARB standard. The states adopt the California standard because it’s better, not because the feds are forcing them.
        khuey 8y ago
        The other states have the choice of the CARB standards or the EPA standards.
    - civilitty 8y ago
- civilitty 8y ago
  "Arnie" has absolutely nothing to do with it. California has been the critical point of failure in the conservatives' attack on the environmental regulations since the 70s. Due to the size of the California economy, CalEPA and California Air Control Board emission standards are the floor for regulatory approval, even if national EPA standards are less strict. This is nothing more than special interests dictating policy, helpfully exposing GOP hypocrisy in its wake. "State's rights" for me when I want to enslave someone, externalize costs, or infringe on civil rights but "federal supremacy" when you don't do what we want.
  - olivermarks 8y ago
    The planet follows California bureaucratic edicts, whether it's banning plastic shopping bags or complex legislation on vehicle or power plant emissions, California decisions define other nation states manufacturing and laws...
  - socialentp 8y ago
    Agreed. Almost all of his actions can easily be explained by looking at how it is benefiting old money — coal, mining, oil, sugar, cars, cable, telecom etc. He is just helping last century’s industries hold onto their power.
chrissnell 8y ago
These regulations impose an unfair burden on consumers outside of the state, who must pay for California-spec'ed emissions equipment that they never wanted or were required to have. Non-Californians have litte power in the voting booth to resist California's impositions. By going after the exemption, the administration is making things more fair for the folks in the other 49 states.
- Tuxer 8y ago
  The lack of regulations regarding car emissions imposes an unfair burden on California's air breathing residents, who must live on the same overheating planet as the other 49 states without any power in the voting booth to make them employ more planet-friendly transportation systems. By keeping the exemption, the state is making things more fair for its residents :)
  - masonic 8y ago
    the same overheating planet California-specific fuels have less energy per unit volume, requiring more to be burned per mile, which results in worsened production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in order to slightly reduce oxides of nitrogen. Global warming is not an argument in favor of CA's policy.
- lph 8y ago
  So we should only have to follow the intersection of all state regulations? That sounds like a great race to the bottom.
  - chrissnell 8y ago
    No, that's not what I'm saying at all. As the article states, CA has a special exemption to the law. We merely need to set a national standard and have the automakers follow that.
    - elgenie 8y ago
      The article isn't quite correct there. CA only has a by-name carveout for non-public-road vehicles. For cars, they get the same automatically granted formality of a waiver to exceed the standards that any other state can. Indeed, something like 15 other states adhere to the stricter California standard via that process.
spilk 8y ago
states' rights?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- DrStalker 8y ago
  States have the right to make laws that agree with the ruling party.
- debacle 8y ago
  Commerce clause has needed an amendment for almost 200 years.
- masonic 8y ago
  ... is a bogus concept. States don't have rights. States have certain powers granted them by their and the US constitutions. People too often misinterpret "limited Federal powers" as equating to "states' rights".
kyrra 8y ago
It seems odd to me that California gets a pass to make their own rules here. I don't know the law enough, but there does seem to be some minor parallels to the sports betting SCOTUS case that was just ruled on (saying that it was illegal to have special waivers for a single state). Maybe this is different as it was a waiver by the EPA and not a law?
- adrr 8y ago
  Why? Min wage uses the same concept. Feds set the bottom threshold and states can make it higher.
- zupzupper 8y ago
  To be clear, the exemption has been in place since the 1970's and allows California to pass their own requirements, that meet or exceed federal requirements. We would not be allowed standards that are below federal standards, we're just allowed to be tougher on ourselves than the fed requires.
  - dahdum 8y ago
    Getting downvotes for saying this, but why should California be the only state allowed to set stricter emission standards? Why not New York or Rhode Island? I don't want standards to be rolled back, but it's hard for me to defend the principle of this waiver even if I like the outcome.
    - GW150914 8y ago
      Because those states haven’t sought an exemption, but there’s no reason to believe they couldn’t have gotten one. The notion that power not reserved default to states is enshrined in the American constitution.
      - dahdum 8y ago
        Per this article in the Atlantic, other states are not allowed to even ask for a waiver. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/trump-california-clean-air-act-waiver-climate-change/518649/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/trump-ca...
iosDrone 8y ago
Lol, TSLA is going to die.
- mozumder 8y ago
  TSLA was going to die anyways, mostly from competition from better manufacturers.
triviatise 8y ago
In wickard vs filburn the govt made the case that a wheat farmer that grew wheat only for himself was subject to the interstate commerce clause. The reasoning was that he impacted markets by not having to buy wheat and therefore he should be fined for violating farming restrictions. The supreme court ruled in favor of the US govt. This expansion of the commerce clause could lead to trump being able to get something like this through. Be wary of expansions of federal power predicated on reinterpretation of the constitution.
- Xcelerate 8y ago
  > The reasoning was that he impacted markets by not having to buy wheat and therefore he should be fined for violating farming restrictions I see the government is familiar with interaction-free measurements of quantum systems. But seriously, it sounds like people will "interpret" anything in any way that is most convenient to them. I almost wish we had a formal system of language so these sorts of things would not occur. Of course, then we would have bugs in that system that would miss important edge cases...
  - evv 8y ago
    > I almost wish we had a formal system of language You mean "legalese"? The language used in law is very specific and nuanced. I enjoy how similar it is to programming, where a bug in the source language can be exploited, much how imperfections in legal documents can be used as a loophole. I'd love to see a software system that is able to reliably output high-quality legal documents. If developed in the open, any lawyer could theoretically contribute and help avoid loopholes for everyone. In theory we could build a framework that makes it easy to write loophole-free contracts that are easy for all parties to understand.
    - acobster 8y ago
      > In theory we could build a framework that makes it easy to write loophole-free contracts You mean similar to how, in theory, we could build a framework that makes it easy for us all to write readable, bug-free code? Edit: I was mostly being tongue in cheek, but I also recognize that this is about provably correct code à la Coq, etc. That'd be cool for sure. :)
elgenie 8y ago
This is just nonsensical saber-rattling without Congressional action that stands approximately zero chance of taking place. The relevant portion of the law [1] is pretty clear. The "waiver" granted to California is automatic, with no discretion for the EPA, "if the State determines that the State standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards", unless the standards are "arbitrary and capricious" or not needed for "compelling and extraordinary conditions". If they go to court with the current law, they'll get laughed at and then either give up or get an early 2020s Supreme Court to upend over two hundred years of federalism jurisprudence. Good luck with that. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7543 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7543
- comex 8y ago
  > or not needed for "compelling and extraordinary conditions". To clarify, here's the original quote: > No such waiver shall be granted if the Administrator finds that— > (B) such State does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions That is, the heightened state standards themselves must be justified by compelling and extraordinary conditions, in the judgement of the EPA administrator. (Your trimmed quote suggests an alternate interpretation where they'd need compelling and extraordinary reasons to reject the state standards, but it's the other way around.) It doesn't sound hard to me for the EPA administrator to argue that there are no longer "extraordinary" conditions specific to California that justify additional regulation. Apparently, when the language was initially enacted in 1970, it was meant to refer to smog episodes in Los Angeles [1]... [1] https://theconversation.com/why-california-gets-to-write-its-own-auto-emissions-standards-5-questions-answered-94379 https://theconversation.com/why-california-gets-to-write-its...
  - elgenie 8y ago
    Sure, they can make that argument and then attempt to try to sell "climate change isn't real" in a fact-focused forum. That's not going to go too well for them. The Administator's discretion to get out of giving a waiver that shall be granted is pretty limited.
  - 8y ago
ape4 8y ago
Maybe the EU can adopt the California standards.
- consp 8y ago
  While there are some differences for diesel engines due to the way it is measured (in favour of diesel engines in the eu), the Euro 6b standard is on par with the californian standard for the most part. The comparison is not easy though as the european standards focussus on hydrocarbons and the californian on NOx.
- flukus 8y ago
  It's kind of amusing to contrast the comments here vs a thread on the GDPR. Here many of the comments are along the lines of "it's not fair how California can enforce a law outside it's borders" but the GDPR ones were all "How does the EU hope to enforce this on american companies".
dmode 8y ago
The Trump administration cannot have us breathing clean air, lest it impacts a fraction of some companies bottom line. What's next ? Force us to fire up some coal powered plants ?
patrickg_zill 8y ago
I have never lived in CA. but I have been affected by CA's usurpation of the market. Let me explain... CA wrote extraordinarily strict rules (maybe the Feds will call them "arbitrary and capricious" ?) that unduly penalized diesel engines. As a result, great diesel engines and often the cars that go in them, that are sold in other parts of the world, are not available in the USA. Since CA is such a large market for cars, a car maker will usually not bother to make or import a car that they can't sell in CA. So, I am harmed by CA's standards and have no recourse - I can't vote in CA state elections because I don't live in CA. The BMW 320d, which is sold all over EU etc. and has better performance and better fuel economy than the Toyota Prius? CA won't allow its sale because of their regulations. Meanwhile, up to 29% of SF Bay Area smog is from China (I found different quoted numbers ranging from 20 to 29%)... which has nothing to do with cars being driven by Americans. see https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/03/518323094/rise-in-smog-in-western-u-s-is-blamed-on-asias-air-pollution https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/03/518323094...
- danso 8y ago
  California is much bigger than just the SF Bay Area. And I don't understand the relevance of the effect of the Chinese smog.
  - patrickg_zill 8y ago
    The smog from China is not under the control of CA...
    - mcphage 8y ago
      > The smog from China is not under the control of CA... Right, which is why it's not relevant.
      - patrickg_zill 8y ago
        Not impressed with your response... it is entirely relevant if the claim about the regulation is that it will reduce smog, but the smog isn't even coming from cars in CA to begin with. Try thinking a bit harder.
gesman 8y ago
With plenty of trucks fuming exhaust all over in any way they like + bunch ancient cars clogging the traffic and poisoning an air in front of your nose while being exempted - this begs the question: why shouldn't drivers of a cleaner cars get a tax break for being forced into submission to regulation but also being forced to breathe-in and smell the poisonous exhaust of exempt cars? There are less problems with standards, more problems with double-standards.
dctoedt 8y ago
At the zoo years ago, my kids and I saw a bunch of monkeys playing in their enclosure — and pissing and shitting wherever they felt like it. Of course, it was the zoo staff who had to clean up the resulting messes. I think of those monkeys whenever some executives and their political allies complain about the regulations that keep them from making big messes for the taxpayers to clean up.

Elon musk want only his car to sell in the state of California. People are upset now cause Trump wants things to be fair. Edit: LOL at the hate for Trump. He is the only guy who wants to stop the consistent H1B misuse but people here are to dumb/sensitive to support him.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

zamalek 8y ago

Arnie has been pretty vocal against Trump, respectful but openly defiant. I wonder if this is disciplinary action - turning climate change is very close to Arnie's heart.

joshmn 8y ago
Exactly this. It's merely a petty move. It doesn't benefit the country, it benefits his fragile, classless ego. Has he looked or been otherwise briefed on how these mandates have crippled the American automakers? I'll be damned if he knows more than a talking point or two. Didn't you hear? Those coal miners in West Virginia with black lung disease are losing their jobs because those yuppies in California are buying electric vehicles. He must protect BlockBuster. Hell, subsidize the shovels.
- mrunkel 8y ago
  It “helps” automakers. As it stands now, they only build to the California standards since it is too expensive to build two sets of cars. Until they do away with California’s stricter regulations, the loosening of regulations at the federal level has no effect.
  - zamalek 8y ago
    How many of those are American, though? Loosely regulating American manufacturers only would be more in line with Trump's isolationist tendencies.
    - mrunkel 8y ago
      You mean the auto makers? Well, the Trump administration isn't beholden to the foreign automakers, and the ones from Europe already have to build to strict engine emission standards. There is still plenty of money in Ford, Chevy, etc.
  - atomi 8y ago
    Some California cities used to have some of the worst smog in the world. These regulations and exceptions were put in place to curb that. And considering the trade tariffs on some vehicles the difference could be a wash in terms of margin for car manufacturers. What happens to our clean air?
    - mrunkel 8y ago
      Oh, I agree. I was simply pointing out that as long California has it's stricter emissions rules, it doesn't matter what the EPA regulates since automakers will build to the California market since it is so large. If they remove the exception for California, now the weaker EPA rules are what automakers can work towards. This probably saves the auto manufacturer money. If they Trump administration has a defining principle, it's the removal of regulations.
- chrissnell 8y ago
  Not true--when CA imposes new emissions or efficiency regulations, the automakers are forced to comply to keep access to that huge market. Not wanting to design two different vehicles, they simply comply and pass the cost along to all of the buyers, whether they live in CA or not. The rest of the country has no way to directly affect the CARB's decisions. This exemption, therefore, is very unfair for the rest of us. The administration's policy could have significant impact on the price of vehicles for the rest of us. My diesel truck, for example, has several thousand dollars worth of emissions equipment that my state does not require. It's problematic and I'd love to skip it on my next purchase.
  - Alex3917 8y ago
    > automakers are forced to comply to keep access to that huge market As has already been explained, this is false. These rules are for CARB states, not for California. California is in charge of working with the other states to set the rules.
    - dahdum 8y ago
      Please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the other states only have a say, and not a vote? It's ultimately California's decision what they must accept. Edit: Looked it up, no other states have a vote. 12 governor appointed members and 2 elected members of the CARB board decide.
      - Alex3917 8y ago
        The other states can either accept the federal standard or the CARB standard. The states adopt the California standard because it’s better, not because the feds are forcing them.
      - khuey 8y ago
        The other states have the choice of the CARB standards or the EPA standards.
  - civilitty 8y ago
civilitty 8y ago
"Arnie" has absolutely nothing to do with it. California has been the critical point of failure in the conservatives' attack on the environmental regulations since the 70s. Due to the size of the California economy, CalEPA and California Air Control Board emission standards are the floor for regulatory approval, even if national EPA standards are less strict. This is nothing more than special interests dictating policy, helpfully exposing GOP hypocrisy in its wake. "State's rights" for me when I want to enslave someone, externalize costs, or infringe on civil rights but "federal supremacy" when you don't do what we want.
- olivermarks 8y ago
  The planet follows California bureaucratic edicts, whether it's banning plastic shopping bags or complex legislation on vehicle or power plant emissions, California decisions define other nation states manufacturing and laws...
- socialentp 8y ago
  Agreed. Almost all of his actions can easily be explained by looking at how it is benefiting old money — coal, mining, oil, sugar, cars, cable, telecom etc. He is just helping last century’s industries hold onto their power.

chrissnell 8y ago

These regulations impose an unfair burden on consumers outside of the state, who must pay for California-spec'ed emissions equipment that they never wanted or were required to have. Non-Californians have litte power in the voting booth to resist California's impositions. By going after the exemption, the administration is making things more fair for the folks in the other 49 states.

Tuxer 8y ago
The lack of regulations regarding car emissions imposes an unfair burden on California's air breathing residents, who must live on the same overheating planet as the other 49 states without any power in the voting booth to make them employ more planet-friendly transportation systems. By keeping the exemption, the state is making things more fair for its residents :)
- masonic 8y ago
  the same overheating planet California-specific fuels have less energy per unit volume, requiring more to be burned per mile, which results in worsened production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in order to slightly reduce oxides of nitrogen. Global warming is not an argument in favor of CA's policy.
lph 8y ago
So we should only have to follow the intersection of all state regulations? That sounds like a great race to the bottom.
- chrissnell 8y ago
  No, that's not what I'm saying at all. As the article states, CA has a special exemption to the law. We merely need to set a national standard and have the automakers follow that.
  - elgenie 8y ago
    The article isn't quite correct there. CA only has a by-name carveout for non-public-road vehicles. For cars, they get the same automatically granted formality of a waiver to exceed the standards that any other state can. Indeed, something like 15 other states adhere to the stricter California standard via that process.

spilk 8y ago

states' rights?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
DrStalker 8y ago
States have the right to make laws that agree with the ruling party.
debacle 8y ago
Commerce clause has needed an amendment for almost 200 years.
masonic 8y ago
... is a bogus concept. States don't have rights. States have certain powers granted them by their and the US constitutions. People too often misinterpret "limited Federal powers" as equating to "states' rights".

kyrra 8y ago

It seems odd to me that California gets a pass to make their own rules here. I don't know the law enough, but there does seem to be some minor parallels to the sports betting SCOTUS case that was just ruled on (saying that it was illegal to have special waivers for a single state). Maybe this is different as it was a waiver by the EPA and not a law?

adrr 8y ago
Why? Min wage uses the same concept. Feds set the bottom threshold and states can make it higher.
zupzupper 8y ago
To be clear, the exemption has been in place since the 1970's and allows California to pass their own requirements, that meet or exceed federal requirements. We would not be allowed standards that are below federal standards, we're just allowed to be tougher on ourselves than the fed requires.
- dahdum 8y ago
  Getting downvotes for saying this, but why should California be the only state allowed to set stricter emission standards? Why not New York or Rhode Island? I don't want standards to be rolled back, but it's hard for me to defend the principle of this waiver even if I like the outcome.
  - GW150914 8y ago
    Because those states haven’t sought an exemption, but there’s no reason to believe they couldn’t have gotten one. The notion that power not reserved default to states is enshrined in the American constitution.
    - dahdum 8y ago
      Per this article in the Atlantic, other states are not allowed to even ask for a waiver. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/trump-california-clean-air-act-waiver-climate-change/518649/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/trump-ca...

iosDrone 8y ago

Lol, TSLA is going to die.

mozumder 8y ago
TSLA was going to die anyways, mostly from competition from better manufacturers.

triviatise 8y ago

In wickard vs filburn the govt made the case that a wheat farmer that grew wheat only for himself was subject to the interstate commerce clause. The reasoning was that he impacted markets by not having to buy wheat and therefore he should be fined for violating farming restrictions. The supreme court ruled in favor of the US govt. This expansion of the commerce clause could lead to trump being able to get something like this through. Be wary of expansions of federal power predicated on reinterpretation of the constitution.

Xcelerate 8y ago
> The reasoning was that he impacted markets by not having to buy wheat and therefore he should be fined for violating farming restrictions I see the government is familiar with interaction-free measurements of quantum systems. But seriously, it sounds like people will "interpret" anything in any way that is most convenient to them. I almost wish we had a formal system of language so these sorts of things would not occur. Of course, then we would have bugs in that system that would miss important edge cases...
- evv 8y ago
  > I almost wish we had a formal system of language You mean "legalese"? The language used in law is very specific and nuanced. I enjoy how similar it is to programming, where a bug in the source language can be exploited, much how imperfections in legal documents can be used as a loophole. I'd love to see a software system that is able to reliably output high-quality legal documents. If developed in the open, any lawyer could theoretically contribute and help avoid loopholes for everyone. In theory we could build a framework that makes it easy to write loophole-free contracts that are easy for all parties to understand.
  - acobster 8y ago
    > In theory we could build a framework that makes it easy to write loophole-free contracts You mean similar to how, in theory, we could build a framework that makes it easy for us all to write readable, bug-free code? Edit: I was mostly being tongue in cheek, but I also recognize that this is about provably correct code à la Coq, etc. That'd be cool for sure. :)

elgenie 8y ago

This is just nonsensical saber-rattling without Congressional action that stands approximately zero chance of taking place. The relevant portion of the law [1] is pretty clear. The "waiver" granted to California is automatic, with no discretion for the EPA, "if the State determines that the State standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards", unless the standards are "arbitrary and capricious" or not needed for "compelling and extraordinary conditions". If they go to court with the current law, they'll get laughed at and then either give up or get an early 2020s Supreme Court to upend over two hundred years of federalism jurisprudence. Good luck with that. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7543 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7543

comex 8y ago
> or not needed for "compelling and extraordinary conditions". To clarify, here's the original quote: > No such waiver shall be granted if the Administrator finds that— > (B) such State does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions That is, the heightened state standards themselves must be justified by compelling and extraordinary conditions, in the judgement of the EPA administrator. (Your trimmed quote suggests an alternate interpretation where they'd need compelling and extraordinary reasons to reject the state standards, but it's the other way around.) It doesn't sound hard to me for the EPA administrator to argue that there are no longer "extraordinary" conditions specific to California that justify additional regulation. Apparently, when the language was initially enacted in 1970, it was meant to refer to smog episodes in Los Angeles [1]... [1] https://theconversation.com/why-california-gets-to-write-its-own-auto-emissions-standards-5-questions-answered-94379 https://theconversation.com/why-california-gets-to-write-its...
- elgenie 8y ago
  Sure, they can make that argument and then attempt to try to sell "climate change isn't real" in a fact-focused forum. That's not going to go too well for them. The Administator's discretion to get out of giving a waiver that shall be granted is pretty limited.
- 8y ago

ape4 8y ago

Maybe the EU can adopt the California standards.

consp 8y ago
While there are some differences for diesel engines due to the way it is measured (in favour of diesel engines in the eu), the Euro 6b standard is on par with the californian standard for the most part. The comparison is not easy though as the european standards focussus on hydrocarbons and the californian on NOx.
flukus 8y ago
It's kind of amusing to contrast the comments here vs a thread on the GDPR. Here many of the comments are along the lines of "it's not fair how California can enforce a law outside it's borders" but the GDPR ones were all "How does the EU hope to enforce this on american companies".

dmode 8y ago

The Trump administration cannot have us breathing clean air, lest it impacts a fraction of some companies bottom line. What's next ? Force us to fire up some coal powered plants ?

patrickg_zill 8y ago

I have never lived in CA. but I have been affected by CA's usurpation of the market. Let me explain... CA wrote extraordinarily strict rules (maybe the Feds will call them "arbitrary and capricious" ?) that unduly penalized diesel engines. As a result, great diesel engines and often the cars that go in them, that are sold in other parts of the world, are not available in the USA. Since CA is such a large market for cars, a car maker will usually not bother to make or import a car that they can't sell in CA. So, I am harmed by CA's standards and have no recourse - I can't vote in CA state elections because I don't live in CA. The BMW 320d, which is sold all over EU etc. and has better performance and better fuel economy than the Toyota Prius? CA won't allow its sale because of their regulations. Meanwhile, up to 29% of SF Bay Area smog is from China (I found different quoted numbers ranging from 20 to 29%)... which has nothing to do with cars being driven by Americans. see https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/03/518323094/rise-in-smog-in-western-u-s-is-blamed-on-asias-air-pollution https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/03/518323094...

danso 8y ago
California is much bigger than just the SF Bay Area. And I don't understand the relevance of the effect of the Chinese smog.
- patrickg_zill 8y ago
  The smog from China is not under the control of CA...
  - mcphage 8y ago
    > The smog from China is not under the control of CA... Right, which is why it's not relevant.
    - patrickg_zill 8y ago
      Not impressed with your response... it is entirely relevant if the claim about the regulation is that it will reduce smog, but the smog isn't even coming from cars in CA to begin with. Try thinking a bit harder.

gesman 8y ago

With plenty of trucks fuming exhaust all over in any way they like + bunch ancient cars clogging the traffic and poisoning an air in front of your nose while being exempted - this begs the question: why shouldn't drivers of a cleaner cars get a tax break for being forced into submission to regulation but also being forced to breathe-in and smell the poisonous exhaust of exempt cars? There are less problems with standards, more problems with double-standards.

dctoedt 8y ago

At the zoo years ago, my kids and I saw a bunch of monkeys playing in their enclosure — and pissing and shitting wherever they felt like it. Of course, it was the zoo staff who had to clean up the resulting messes. I think of those monkeys whenever some executives and their political allies complain about the regulations that keep them from making big messes for the taxpayers to clean up.