6 ms·

why? what is the point of this? how does this benefit the country? climate change aside, i cannot imagine how someone could argue in favor of dirtier air when

why? what is the point of this? how does this benefit the country? climate change aside, i cannot imagine how someone could argue in favor of dirtier air when we already had a solution in place which addressed the issue somewhat. and yet, that's where we are. this change will make the air dirtier and cause cancer rates to rise. and for what?

war1025 7y ago
Aside from the fact that California has stricter standards than the EPA, what sense does it make for California to dictate automotive emissions for the nation? If you want stricter emissions standards, fine. But figure out how to do it through the federal government, and not via a side channel. Edit: Just wanted to note that I was pleasantly surprised to see people posting reasonable rebuttals and not just the normal "Republicans are evil" replies I've come to expect.
- sq_ 7y ago
  > If you want stricter emissions standards, fine. But figure out how to do it through the federal government, and not via a side channel. I agree that it would be better if this was federal, but if the federal government cannot or will not implement good regulations, I'd rather states do it via a side channel than just leave the problem as it is.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  California wasn't forcing anyone else to follow their rules. And this is a perfect example of federalism. California wants cleaner air than Florida, so it sets stricter standards. Which is fine, Florida doesn't have to follow. If the cost difference is enough to matter, Ford can create two catalytic converters, the California 'hypochondriac' model and the Florida 'lunger' model, and all will be as it should be.
- tathougies 7y ago
  Registered republican here. I actually disagree. This is not something that should be under federal purview. The states retain full sovereignty over their land and are under no obligation to 'figure out how to do it through the federal government'. California is and should be free to set whatever standards it pleases, regardless of how idiotic someone in Iowa or New York think they may be. Trump has violated states rights and deserves to be criticized for it.
  - Aloha 7y ago
    The issue is - only California had that special right - but thats more of an issue with the framing of the original clean air act - the special rule was put in because California had standards on emissions before the rest of the country
    - mrosett 7y ago
      I think that's a relevant point. I don't like California having a unique exception on an issue where every other state has been preempted by federal law.
      - elliekelly 7y ago
        Don’t start digging around in the Federal Code then. A law that doesn’t have a unique exception is a unique exception.
        tathougies 7y ago
        And all of these ought to be declared illegal via the Constitution's prohibition on bills of attainder.
        qtplatypus 7y ago
        How is that a bill of attainder? A bill of attainder is one that says “$Foo $Bar and $Baz of people will be punished/have properly removed”. And exemption from a regulation is “If you fulfill this criteria/make an application then different set of regulations take effect”.
        tathougies 7y ago
        > A bill of attainder is one that says “$Foo $Bar and $Baz of people will be punished/have properly removed” Correct. However, I see no difference between this, and attempting to formulate a set of criteria that is obviously intended to make the law only apply to someone (or some entity) the legislature has already selected. I think we have lots of examples of laws in the current US code that clearly were written with criteria designed to uniquely punish certain individuals or businesses, and I don't see a substantive difference between this and a 'traditional' bill of attainder.
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  Given that auto manufacturers already build all their cars to meet California's requirements, then it would have made sense to simultaneously adopt their standards right along with stripping their future right to change them. Unilaterally rolling back the standard means this decision had nothing to do with federalizing the standards and everything to do with attacking a blue state.
  - magashna 7y ago
    Near the end of the article is mentions car makers have little incentive to reduce standards because it makes them less competitive globally.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    This is tricky. California cars generally emit more CO2, but less of other things. The right choice for a rural area (has to drive a lot, and air quality isn't a problem) is different for dense areas (air quality is a problem)
    - mywittyname 7y ago
      California cars generally emit exactly the same as any other American car. Back when emissions standards were coming into effect, there were "California cars" with separate emissions equipment. That was because said emissions equipment was expensive and unreliable. Today, almost all US sold cars conform to CA emissions, regardless of where they are sold. Sometimes you will see cars or trucks with the option for CA Emissions, but this does effect power or performance, it just has different parameters for determining when to trigger check engine lights for emissions-related issues. Though, heavy duty truck can be equipped with an emissions exemption. I think this is, ironically, limited to government vehicles.
- Slippery_John 7y ago
  Auto makers don't have to use california's rules to determine how they design the whole US fleet. They choose to do so because the cost to comply nationwide is low if they're already doing it anyway. A company could absolutely design cars for the 31 states with lax standards and attempt to compete with lower costs. That nobody has done so in the last 50 years seems to imply that you actually wouldn't see much in the way of savings. Realistically international car companies will want to make as few changes as possible between markets, and so even if California's regulations are removed we'll still have Europe effectively dictating the floor of emissions standards.
  - the_pwner224 7y ago
    This is a thing with motorcycles, the California models are often different. The California version of my model has an Evaporative Emissions Control System; I am in Indiana and unfortunately did not have the option of getting it on my bike.
- dangus 7y ago
  Los Angeles is the smoggiest city in the USA. The same reason to get the waiver in the first place still exists.
- nullc 7y ago
  > what sense does it make for California to dictate Many California cities are among the worst in air quality in the nation, even though there are stricter standards in California. The fact that different locations may have different air quality needs due to geography, ecology, or activity is a pretty good reason for the law to allow locally stricter versions. Auto makers could make different cars for California, that they choose to not do so-- presumably much of the compliance costs are non-reoccurring expenses-- and instead use the same cars elsewhere is just the free market at work.
  - sjg007 7y ago
    Automakers make their cars and trucks comply with CAlifornia emissions standards because they sell most of their cars in California. California sets the market.
    - nullc 7y ago
      > because they sell most of their cars in California. 11% of US auto sales are in California. But even if it were 50%, they could still make different cars for California. They are simply choosing not to because the costs are high enough to bother. They seem to perfectly manage to produce cars in different colors or with dozens of other options, including ones that are picked in less than 10% of sales.
      - sjg007 7y ago
        https://www.statista.com/statistics/196010/total-number-of-registered-automobiles-in-the-us-by-state/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/196010/total-number-of-r... and https://www.statista.com/statistics/634072/us-car-sales-by-key-state/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/634072/us-car-sales-by-k...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
bilbo0s 7y ago
>and for what? Um, money and power. Not saying it's right, but they stand to get on the good side of some deep pocketed donors.
m463 7y ago
Not that I think this way, but... There are people who think US corporations should be able to compete without any hindrance. Having a car with lower emissions might mean it is more expensive, or less efficient, or have some other factor that makes it less competitive. They think competing is better for the environment than regulation. There are theories that support this, "the solution to pollution is economic growth" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve#Environmental_Kuznets_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve#Environmental_Ku... though not without controversy.
- ajmurmann 7y ago
  Competing with whom? Foreign car makers face the same constraints and if not in the US they certainly will in Europe.
- whytaka 7y ago
  What better way to turn up the innovation engine of competition than to raise the bar with a baseline standard?
  - m463 7y ago
    I think regulation is the issue here - the trump administration has a history of fighting regulation. And although I don't mind california regulating cleaner cars, and everyone wants clean air, water, food and medicine, not every regulation is great. For example, regulation and electricity. Why can PG&E charge california residents 0.22/0.27/0.48 per kwh when their cost of electricity is 0.03 per kwh? This is regulatory capture.
    - Arnt 7y ago
      I've heard that before. Most recently from someone who thought ig completely unreasonable that he had to pay to withdraw money from his account. What are PG&E's costs OTHER than electricity? Why don't you just buy that 3¢ electricity on those terms, which I presume means include advance warning before any usage change, and you pay for transport from seller's location.
- 7y ago
khazhou 7y ago
I know your question was likely rhetorical and you know this, but I'll say it anyway... He is actively looking for ways to antagonize California. This issue and homelessness, he couldn't give two craps about. He is just looking for ways to make California look bad or powerless, and he's just starting a fight because he's going to use that fight on his red-state roadshow. California will never give him its electoral votes and therefore it's of no use to him. BUT, Trump is astute, and knows that people across the country don't give two hoots about California either, and will be happy to trash talk them. Many people live their lives or conduct their work by seeking out friends and allies. Trump actively seeks out enemies. And, it works (if you concede that ascending to the most powerful leadership role in the world is a success), so is he a dummy or a genius?
- boring_twenties 7y ago
  > And, it works Does it? I think almost always not. It just happened to work spectacularly in 2016 because of a number of factors that have been building up for years, or longer. I don't think Trump himself deserves much if any of the credit -- he was just the right dummy at the right time.

war1025 7y ago

Aside from the fact that California has stricter standards than the EPA, what sense does it make for California to dictate automotive emissions for the nation? If you want stricter emissions standards, fine. But figure out how to do it through the federal government, and not via a side channel. Edit: Just wanted to note that I was pleasantly surprised to see people posting reasonable rebuttals and not just the normal "Republicans are evil" replies I've come to expect.

sq_ 7y ago
> If you want stricter emissions standards, fine. But figure out how to do it through the federal government, and not via a side channel. I agree that it would be better if this was federal, but if the federal government cannot or will not implement good regulations, I'd rather states do it via a side channel than just leave the problem as it is.
merpnderp 7y ago
California wasn't forcing anyone else to follow their rules. And this is a perfect example of federalism. California wants cleaner air than Florida, so it sets stricter standards. Which is fine, Florida doesn't have to follow. If the cost difference is enough to matter, Ford can create two catalytic converters, the California 'hypochondriac' model and the Florida 'lunger' model, and all will be as it should be.
tathougies 7y ago
Registered republican here. I actually disagree. This is not something that should be under federal purview. The states retain full sovereignty over their land and are under no obligation to 'figure out how to do it through the federal government'. California is and should be free to set whatever standards it pleases, regardless of how idiotic someone in Iowa or New York think they may be. Trump has violated states rights and deserves to be criticized for it.
- Aloha 7y ago
  The issue is - only California had that special right - but thats more of an issue with the framing of the original clean air act - the special rule was put in because California had standards on emissions before the rest of the country
  - mrosett 7y ago
    I think that's a relevant point. I don't like California having a unique exception on an issue where every other state has been preempted by federal law.
    - elliekelly 7y ago
      Don’t start digging around in the Federal Code then. A law that doesn’t have a unique exception is a unique exception.
      - tathougies 7y ago
        And all of these ought to be declared illegal via the Constitution's prohibition on bills of attainder.
        qtplatypus 7y ago
        How is that a bill of attainder? A bill of attainder is one that says “$Foo $Bar and $Baz of people will be punished/have properly removed”. And exemption from a regulation is “If you fulfill this criteria/make an application then different set of regulations take effect”.
        tathougies 7y ago
        > A bill of attainder is one that says “$Foo $Bar and $Baz of people will be punished/have properly removed” Correct. However, I see no difference between this, and attempting to formulate a set of criteria that is obviously intended to make the law only apply to someone (or some entity) the legislature has already selected. I think we have lots of examples of laws in the current US code that clearly were written with criteria designed to uniquely punish certain individuals or businesses, and I don't see a substantive difference between this and a 'traditional' bill of attainder.
rootusrootus 7y ago
Given that auto manufacturers already build all their cars to meet California's requirements, then it would have made sense to simultaneously adopt their standards right along with stripping their future right to change them. Unilaterally rolling back the standard means this decision had nothing to do with federalizing the standards and everything to do with attacking a blue state.
- magashna 7y ago
  Near the end of the article is mentions car makers have little incentive to reduce standards because it makes them less competitive globally.
- bluGill 7y ago
  This is tricky. California cars generally emit more CO2, but less of other things. The right choice for a rural area (has to drive a lot, and air quality isn't a problem) is different for dense areas (air quality is a problem)
  - mywittyname 7y ago
    California cars generally emit exactly the same as any other American car. Back when emissions standards were coming into effect, there were "California cars" with separate emissions equipment. That was because said emissions equipment was expensive and unreliable. Today, almost all US sold cars conform to CA emissions, regardless of where they are sold. Sometimes you will see cars or trucks with the option for CA Emissions, but this does effect power or performance, it just has different parameters for determining when to trigger check engine lights for emissions-related issues. Though, heavy duty truck can be equipped with an emissions exemption. I think this is, ironically, limited to government vehicles.
Slippery_John 7y ago
Auto makers don't have to use california's rules to determine how they design the whole US fleet. They choose to do so because the cost to comply nationwide is low if they're already doing it anyway. A company could absolutely design cars for the 31 states with lax standards and attempt to compete with lower costs. That nobody has done so in the last 50 years seems to imply that you actually wouldn't see much in the way of savings. Realistically international car companies will want to make as few changes as possible between markets, and so even if California's regulations are removed we'll still have Europe effectively dictating the floor of emissions standards.
- the_pwner224 7y ago
  This is a thing with motorcycles, the California models are often different. The California version of my model has an Evaporative Emissions Control System; I am in Indiana and unfortunately did not have the option of getting it on my bike.
dangus 7y ago
Los Angeles is the smoggiest city in the USA. The same reason to get the waiver in the first place still exists.
nullc 7y ago
> what sense does it make for California to dictate Many California cities are among the worst in air quality in the nation, even though there are stricter standards in California. The fact that different locations may have different air quality needs due to geography, ecology, or activity is a pretty good reason for the law to allow locally stricter versions. Auto makers could make different cars for California, that they choose to not do so-- presumably much of the compliance costs are non-reoccurring expenses-- and instead use the same cars elsewhere is just the free market at work.
- sjg007 7y ago
  Automakers make their cars and trucks comply with CAlifornia emissions standards because they sell most of their cars in California. California sets the market.
  - nullc 7y ago
    > because they sell most of their cars in California. 11% of US auto sales are in California. But even if it were 50%, they could still make different cars for California. They are simply choosing not to because the costs are high enough to bother. They seem to perfectly manage to produce cars in different colors or with dozens of other options, including ones that are picked in less than 10% of sales.
    - sjg007 7y ago
      https://www.statista.com/statistics/196010/total-number-of-registered-automobiles-in-the-us-by-state/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/196010/total-number-of-r... and https://www.statista.com/statistics/634072/us-car-sales-by-key-state/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/634072/us-car-sales-by-k...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

bilbo0s 7y ago

>and for what? Um, money and power. Not saying it's right, but they stand to get on the good side of some deep pocketed donors.

m463 7y ago

Not that I think this way, but... There are people who think US corporations should be able to compete without any hindrance. Having a car with lower emissions might mean it is more expensive, or less efficient, or have some other factor that makes it less competitive. They think competing is better for the environment than regulation. There are theories that support this, "the solution to pollution is economic growth" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve#Environmental_Kuznets_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve#Environmental_Ku... though not without controversy.

ajmurmann 7y ago
Competing with whom? Foreign car makers face the same constraints and if not in the US they certainly will in Europe.
whytaka 7y ago
What better way to turn up the innovation engine of competition than to raise the bar with a baseline standard?
- m463 7y ago
  I think regulation is the issue here - the trump administration has a history of fighting regulation. And although I don't mind california regulating cleaner cars, and everyone wants clean air, water, food and medicine, not every regulation is great. For example, regulation and electricity. Why can PG&E charge california residents 0.22/0.27/0.48 per kwh when their cost of electricity is 0.03 per kwh? This is regulatory capture.
  - Arnt 7y ago
    I've heard that before. Most recently from someone who thought ig completely unreasonable that he had to pay to withdraw money from his account. What are PG&E's costs OTHER than electricity? Why don't you just buy that 3¢ electricity on those terms, which I presume means include advance warning before any usage change, and you pay for transport from seller's location.
7y ago

khazhou 7y ago

I know your question was likely rhetorical and you know this, but I'll say it anyway... He is actively looking for ways to antagonize California. This issue and homelessness, he couldn't give two craps about. He is just looking for ways to make California look bad or powerless, and he's just starting a fight because he's going to use that fight on his red-state roadshow. California will never give him its electoral votes and therefore it's of no use to him. BUT, Trump is astute, and knows that people across the country don't give two hoots about California either, and will be happy to trash talk them. Many people live their lives or conduct their work by seeking out friends and allies. Trump actively seeks out enemies. And, it works (if you concede that ascending to the most powerful leadership role in the world is a success), so is he a dummy or a genius?

boring_twenties 7y ago
> And, it works Does it? I think almost always not. It just happened to work spectacularly in 2016 because of a number of factors that have been building up for years, or longer. I don't think Trump himself deserves much if any of the credit -- he was just the right dummy at the right time.