4 ms·

> A GM spokeswoman said the company has long argued that the U.S. should have a single emissions mandate and that any regulations should factor in market demand

> A GM spokeswoman said the company has long argued that the U.S. should have a single emissions mandate and that any regulations should factor in market demand. Yes, let us stipulate that uniform regulations that disregard the federalist design of the constitution are more convenient and profitable for huge corporations with top flight lobbyists to write the one law to be enforced from sea to shining sea.

CaliforniaKarl 1y ago
If the EV mandate is killed, I could see the California state government making that case before the courts.
- Gibbon1 1y ago
  California should just place an excise carbon tax on gas and diesel cars. How about $100/ton of CO2. At 30 mpg that's 60 tons of CO2 so $6k.
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    Why on cars? If carbon emissions are the problem, why not tax fossil fuels themselves (or tax them more if emissions are still too high)?
    - Gibbon1 1y ago
      Why should we punish someone that bought a car before EV's were commonly available? That's punishing people after the fact. Which is morally wrong. The fundamental idea is the state doesn't actually want the money. It wants manufactures to stop making cars that emit CO2. If someone already has a car like that perhaps the state can buy it back.
      - mullingitover 1y ago
        Just put a vehicle registration fee equivalent to the lifetime carbon tax on new ICE cars sold after a given deadline. After X years, start charging the carbon tax on registration fees for older cars as well if a car’s ownership is transferred. Use revenue from those fees for buybacks.
      - CuriousSkeptic 1y ago
        One approach is to balance the tax with a mileage deduction. No increased cost for existing owners, but still an incentive to replace the car for a lower emission one
      - ponector 1y ago
        Fuel should be heavily taxed to encourage better mpg and less driving.
      - lotsofpulp 1y ago
        I thought the fundamental idea was to reduce carbon emissions. If the state doesn’t want the money, it can reduce plenty other taxes or debt. Or provide more services. All solutions other than punishing fossil fuel use seem like “I want to feel like I did something, but not actually make any sacrifice” solutions so the public doesn’t revolt. See also plastic recycling. The standard response here is “well what about poor people?” And the standard response to that is “if a different fundamental problem is some people are too poor, then give them cash” Less obfuscation and more transparency is always better.
        Gibbon1 1y ago
        When someone buys a car that uses gasoline or diesel they just commuted to dumping 50 to 100 tons of CO2 into the air. Putting an excise tax on those cars tilts the decision to buy gas vs electric strongly away from gas. Which is what you want. The other thing is it sends a very strong signal to manufacturers that they need to stop producing them. Remember the cost of carbon taxes isn't something they pay. The consumer most of whom suck at accounting are the ones. And punishing people that bought a gas car ten years ago is pointless and immoral. Because they already bought it. And they did so in good faith.
  - throw0101b 1y ago
    > California should just place an excise carbon tax on gas and diesel cars. They already have cap-and-trade: * https://www.c2es.org/content/california-cap-and-trade/ https://www.c2es.org/content/california-cap-and-trade/ * https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/cap-and-trade-program https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/cap-and-trade-progr... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_policy_of_California#Cap_and_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_policy_of_Calif... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_policy_of_California#AB_32_(2006) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_policy_of_Calif...
heresie-dabord 1y ago
> Rep. Laura Gillen, a Democrat from New York, one of the states to adopt the mandate, said she supports the goal of reducing emissions but that the timeline is “out-of-touch with reality” and an undue burden on consumers facing a cost-of-living crisis. US consumers are facing hardship directly caused by overtly erratic tariffing. US ICE makers are seeking protections. Consumers will not have smaller vehicles nor the affordable EVs they could use. The air and water are fine, we never pollute, climate change is a silly leftist slogan, and Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
dogma1138 1y ago
State regulations for such things are silly, you can’t have a product being legal in one state and not in another the US has a single market.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- jvanderbot 1y ago
  Well, you can actually. That's how it works legally. It may be silly, but that's literally how it works.
- hellisothers 1y ago
  Why is it silly though?
  - vinyl7 1y ago
    It depends on your view of who should have the most say...state gov or federal gov
    - 9283409232 1y ago
      Conservatives flip on this depending on who is in the White House. Right now, the fed should run everything. Should Dems take back the White House then they will be back to supporting states' rights.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    It's certainly logistically complex and you're going to lose a lot of money just to handling regulations. This is generally why I'm in favor of greater federal protections and less per-state regulation. It has a lot of unintended consequences. Also, companies are greedy. They can, and will, just move and leave you high and dry, if you regulate at the source (manufacturing). So you have to not regulate at the source, which is kind of worse. It leads to a lot of tragedy of the commons situations. Maybe Company X is poisoning the water supply and State Y says "no more!". They just move to Texas or some other state that doesn't give a fuck about it's residents and continue poisoning the water supply. State Y will still be affected, maybe they drink from the same water shed. And State Y is also economically harmed, while Texas comes out ahead.

CaliforniaKarl 1y ago

If the EV mandate is killed, I could see the California state government making that case before the courts.

Gibbon1 1y ago
California should just place an excise carbon tax on gas and diesel cars. How about $100/ton of CO2. At 30 mpg that's 60 tons of CO2 so $6k.
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  Why on cars? If carbon emissions are the problem, why not tax fossil fuels themselves (or tax them more if emissions are still too high)?
  - Gibbon1 1y ago
    Why should we punish someone that bought a car before EV's were commonly available? That's punishing people after the fact. Which is morally wrong. The fundamental idea is the state doesn't actually want the money. It wants manufactures to stop making cars that emit CO2. If someone already has a car like that perhaps the state can buy it back.
    - mullingitover 1y ago
      Just put a vehicle registration fee equivalent to the lifetime carbon tax on new ICE cars sold after a given deadline. After X years, start charging the carbon tax on registration fees for older cars as well if a car’s ownership is transferred. Use revenue from those fees for buybacks.
    - CuriousSkeptic 1y ago
      One approach is to balance the tax with a mileage deduction. No increased cost for existing owners, but still an incentive to replace the car for a lower emission one
    - ponector 1y ago
      Fuel should be heavily taxed to encourage better mpg and less driving.
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      I thought the fundamental idea was to reduce carbon emissions. If the state doesn’t want the money, it can reduce plenty other taxes or debt. Or provide more services. All solutions other than punishing fossil fuel use seem like “I want to feel like I did something, but not actually make any sacrifice” solutions so the public doesn’t revolt. See also plastic recycling. The standard response here is “well what about poor people?” And the standard response to that is “if a different fundamental problem is some people are too poor, then give them cash” Less obfuscation and more transparency is always better.
      - Gibbon1 1y ago
        When someone buys a car that uses gasoline or diesel they just commuted to dumping 50 to 100 tons of CO2 into the air. Putting an excise tax on those cars tilts the decision to buy gas vs electric strongly away from gas. Which is what you want. The other thing is it sends a very strong signal to manufacturers that they need to stop producing them. Remember the cost of carbon taxes isn't something they pay. The consumer most of whom suck at accounting are the ones. And punishing people that bought a gas car ten years ago is pointless and immoral. Because they already bought it. And they did so in good faith.
- throw0101b 1y ago
  > California should just place an excise carbon tax on gas and diesel cars. They already have cap-and-trade: * https://www.c2es.org/content/california-cap-and-trade/ https://www.c2es.org/content/california-cap-and-trade/ * https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/cap-and-trade-program https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/cap-and-trade-progr... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_policy_of_California#Cap_and_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_policy_of_Calif... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_policy_of_California#AB_32_(2006) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_policy_of_Calif...

heresie-dabord 1y ago

> Rep. Laura Gillen, a Democrat from New York, one of the states to adopt the mandate, said she supports the goal of reducing emissions but that the timeline is “out-of-touch with reality” and an undue burden on consumers facing a cost-of-living crisis. US consumers are facing hardship directly caused by overtly erratic tariffing. US ICE makers are seeking protections. Consumers will not have smaller vehicles nor the affordable EVs they could use. The air and water are fine, we never pollute, climate change is a silly leftist slogan, and Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

dogma1138 1y ago

State regulations for such things are silly, you can’t have a product being legal in one state and not in another the US has a single market.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
jvanderbot 1y ago
Well, you can actually. That's how it works legally. It may be silly, but that's literally how it works.
hellisothers 1y ago
Why is it silly though?
- vinyl7 1y ago
  It depends on your view of who should have the most say...state gov or federal gov
  - 9283409232 1y ago
    Conservatives flip on this depending on who is in the White House. Right now, the fed should run everything. Should Dems take back the White House then they will be back to supporting states' rights.
- const_cast 1y ago
  It's certainly logistically complex and you're going to lose a lot of money just to handling regulations. This is generally why I'm in favor of greater federal protections and less per-state regulation. It has a lot of unintended consequences. Also, companies are greedy. They can, and will, just move and leave you high and dry, if you regulate at the source (manufacturing). So you have to not regulate at the source, which is kind of worse. It leads to a lot of tragedy of the commons situations. Maybe Company X is poisoning the water supply and State Y says "no more!". They just move to Texas or some other state that doesn't give a fuck about it's residents and continue poisoning the water supply. State Y will still be affected, maybe they drink from the same water shed. And State Y is also economically harmed, while Texas comes out ahead.