7 ms·
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?
by 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 agoCalifornia 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 agoRegistered 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 agoThe 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 agoI 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 agoDon’t start digging around in the Federal Code then. A law that doesn’t have a unique exception is a unique exception.
- tathougies 7y agoAnd all of these ought to be declared illegal via the Constitution's prohibition on bills of attainder.
- qtplatypus 7y agoHow 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.
- bluGill 7y agoThe reason this is federal is California is free on states rights to set rules for cars sold in their state. However the federal government can force California to all someone to go elsewhere and buy a polluting car and register it. Because of this federal exception California can violate normal interstate commerce rules. Note, I'm talking strictly states rights as I think they should be by the constitution. There are other areas of this where the feds have done things I disagree with (such as not allowing each state to set their own standards)
- lacker 7y agoThe federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce, though, right? Since many or most of these cars are made in other states then sold in California it seems like a pretty clear situation of interstate commerce. And it seems like it would be a mess if you had "Ohio cars" that could be driven in Ohio but not California, and "California cars" that could be driven in California but not in Texas, etc etc.
- rblatz 7y agoInterstate commerce is a joke now. Growing a crop on your own land to feed your own livestock is considered interstate commerce.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- hpkuarg 7y agoAdd in the consideration that air and water don't respect state boundaries, it would be an even bigger mess. To be fair, the federal government has a history of abusing the interstate commerce clause -- it's not clear that just because something is capable of crossing a state line, it should automatically fall under federal purview.
- makomk 7y agoYeah. The EU doesn't allow individual states to set their own emissions standards for cars for similar reasons, even though they're nowhere near as unified as the US in general - it affects trade between the member states and therefore is centrally controlled. (This has caused some problems due to the European NO2 and PM5 standards for diesels being rather on the lax side.)
- tomatotomato37 7y agoInterstate commerce yes, but going by the perspective of the original unmutilated Commerce Clause what California is doing involves only intrastate markets and thus should be untouchable. This is one of the funniest things about this whole mess, California's "exemption" is much more legal than the EPA ever was (along with pretty much every other regulatory 3 letter agency).
- defterGoose 7y agoAs a person who comes from a traditionally Republican family and has myself transitioned from center-right to pretty far left, it is reassuring to see a consistency of opinion like yours from those who still identify as Republicans. One of the biggest symptoms of our current political polarization seems to be people on both sides giving carte blanche to their respective leaders to backtrack or redefine their espoused values. Just as it angers me when Democrats throw nuclear power under the bus due to its status as a political non-starter, it angers me when GOP supporters do gymnastics to explain selective abandoning of their most dearly held ideals like states' rights.
- domnomnom 7y agoBeing consistent ad absurdium is just being a different kind of dumb.
- tathougies 7y agoMeh... you can be a right-leaning or left-leaning strict constructionist. The two terms are not correlated really. It all comes down to how much you believe the law should be enforced equally and impartially (in my possibly controversial opinion).
- SubiculumCode 7y agoTo my mind much of the polarization is in part the result of more and more power being handed to a winner-takes-all Federal system. If more power were in the States, then it is more likely that the laws will reflect your political views, and/or have an option to move to another State without having to leave your nation. With most eggs being in the Federal basket, which (generally) does not make laws for one state but not another, you are going to have a bunch of unhappy folks no matter what law gets passed.
- jigglesniggle 7y agoIf you disagree in this case you should be blaming the interstate commerce clause. I strongly suspect the union is going to eventually rattle apart due to being held together too tightly by its abuse.
- rootusrootus 7y agoGiven 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 agoNear the end of the article is mentions car makers have little incentive to reduce standards because it makes them less competitive globally.
- bluGill 7y agoThis 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 agoCalifornia 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 agoAuto 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 agoThis 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 agoLos 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 agoAutomakers 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 agohttps://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]