5 ms·

It makes sense to me: they're forcing the automakers to subsidize the R&D of electric vehicles from their profits on ICE vehicles, which seems like a normal thi

by e28eta 11y ago

It makes sense to me: they're forcing the automakers to subsidize the R&D of electric vehicles from their profits on ICE vehicles, which seems like a normal thing for a business to do when it benefits the business. Since conventional automakers don't seem to be willing to aggressively pursue EVs on their own, this seems like a reasonable approach. Or, put another way, the consumers who continue to buy ICE cars, and in doing so create pollution, are helping to pay for the EVs that other people are buying.

gertef 11y ago
> Since conventional automakers don't seem to be willing to aggressively pursue EVs on their own, this seems like a reasonable approach. There are EV and plug-in hybrid options across many price ranges and car shapes.
- jacobolus 11y ago
  And California policy has had a not-insignificant impact on that range of options.
  - igravious 11y ago
    I never knew that. I thought it was upcoming competition from Tesla and the "writing on the wall" so to speak... I didn't know that legislation was manipulating the product output mix of Big Auto...
    - cmurf 11y ago
      Yes it goes way back to California Emissions. California has legislated to drag auto manufacturers kicking and screaming to the contrary position for many years. I think it's unlikely engine efficiency, and battery technology would be as progressed as it is now without that. There is such a thing as government failure, just as there's such a thing as market failure. The problem with both is that perfect information, and hence perfect markets don't exist. The role of a regulator is to try to get close to a perfect market (like truth in lending laws, anti-fraud laws, compulsory minimum warranty, lemon laws, competition law, etc.) in order to bring about a free market that can actually mostly let people (markets) determine outcome rather than it being a planned economy. Of course it doesn't always work for a litany of reasons, mainly because it's a difficult problem.
      - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
        People were buying Hondas, Toyotas and Datsuns in the '70s. Part of that was mileage, some of it was price, part of it was ... a sort of rebellion. There was interest. The US automakers were just downright bellicose. No real surprise; they're huge organizations and turning a thing that large takes forever. This was so profound that Roger Smith of all people started the recently defunct Saturn marque. GM remains cast in the same shape today. Outside of electronic engine control and the stupefyingly dumb leaded gasoline, most EPA style "improvements" made cars less efficient and would have been unnecessary for properly tuned vehicles. I suppose it's lost for all time now, but Robert Pease had a great story about his Beetle not registering any emissions and his trouble with that ( an aircooled Beetle has a high enough exhaust gas temperature to theoretically emit no carbon monoxide ). Regulation is extremely difficult - I think of it in terms of Brian Kernighan's "debugging is twice as hard" maxim but with a higher multiplier. I think if you want clean air, $10 a gallon gasoline is a good start. This will be very disruptive. I have never seen proof, but I have heard many times one reason Reagan was popular was because gas prices dropped during his tenure. The sad part is that we mostly use cars to subsidize land use patterns that could be taxed. Commuting is the least efficient thing ever devised.
        jacobolus 11y ago
        Recent story inre GM’s poor quality and high prices relative to Japanese automakers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9946385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9946385 I agree that high priced gasoline, fees for parking and road use, and changes to zoning and land use policy would be great, but perhaps we still also want some regulation of car emissions? Do you have a link explaining how EPA improvements made cars less efficient?
        ArkyBeagle 11y ago
        This glances at it a bit. http://jalopnik.com/5551040/why-old-cars-suck http://jalopnik.com/5551040/why-old-cars-suck Spark control was much more primitive, carbureted engines just were not good candidates for all the complexity of hoses and such, gas of varying quality would clog catalytic converters... the technologies were just in an intermediate state. There were all "add parts" improvements. Japanese cars could be better but frequently were even much more complex. They might meet EPA off the lot, new, but after five years... I had a 1979 Buick Regal (normally aspirated, 3.8 L V6 ) that was getting like 8 MPG when I sold it in 1993 or so. No mechanic in three states could find anything wrong.

by e28eta 11y ago

gertef 11y ago

> Since conventional automakers don't seem to be willing to aggressively pursue EVs on their own, this seems like a reasonable approach. There are EV and plug-in hybrid options across many price ranges and car shapes.

jacobolus 11y ago
And California policy has had a not-insignificant impact on that range of options.
- igravious 11y ago
  I never knew that. I thought it was upcoming competition from Tesla and the "writing on the wall" so to speak... I didn't know that legislation was manipulating the product output mix of Big Auto...
  - cmurf 11y ago
    Yes it goes way back to California Emissions. California has legislated to drag auto manufacturers kicking and screaming to the contrary position for many years. I think it's unlikely engine efficiency, and battery technology would be as progressed as it is now without that. There is such a thing as government failure, just as there's such a thing as market failure. The problem with both is that perfect information, and hence perfect markets don't exist. The role of a regulator is to try to get close to a perfect market (like truth in lending laws, anti-fraud laws, compulsory minimum warranty, lemon laws, competition law, etc.) in order to bring about a free market that can actually mostly let people (markets) determine outcome rather than it being a planned economy. Of course it doesn't always work for a litany of reasons, mainly because it's a difficult problem.
    - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
      People were buying Hondas, Toyotas and Datsuns in the '70s. Part of that was mileage, some of it was price, part of it was ... a sort of rebellion. There was interest. The US automakers were just downright bellicose. No real surprise; they're huge organizations and turning a thing that large takes forever. This was so profound that Roger Smith of all people started the recently defunct Saturn marque. GM remains cast in the same shape today. Outside of electronic engine control and the stupefyingly dumb leaded gasoline, most EPA style "improvements" made cars less efficient and would have been unnecessary for properly tuned vehicles. I suppose it's lost for all time now, but Robert Pease had a great story about his Beetle not registering any emissions and his trouble with that ( an aircooled Beetle has a high enough exhaust gas temperature to theoretically emit no carbon monoxide ). Regulation is extremely difficult - I think of it in terms of Brian Kernighan's "debugging is twice as hard" maxim but with a higher multiplier. I think if you want clean air, $10 a gallon gasoline is a good start. This will be very disruptive. I have never seen proof, but I have heard many times one reason Reagan was popular was because gas prices dropped during his tenure. The sad part is that we mostly use cars to subsidize land use patterns that could be taxed. Commuting is the least efficient thing ever devised.
      - jacobolus 11y ago
        Recent story inre GM’s poor quality and high prices relative to Japanese automakers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9946385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9946385 I agree that high priced gasoline, fees for parking and road use, and changes to zoning and land use policy would be great, but perhaps we still also want some regulation of car emissions? Do you have a link explaining how EPA improvements made cars less efficient?
        ArkyBeagle 11y ago
        This glances at it a bit. http://jalopnik.com/5551040/why-old-cars-suck http://jalopnik.com/5551040/why-old-cars-suck Spark control was much more primitive, carbureted engines just were not good candidates for all the complexity of hoses and such, gas of varying quality would clog catalytic converters... the technologies were just in an intermediate state. There were all "add parts" improvements. Japanese cars could be better but frequently were even much more complex. They might meet EPA off the lot, new, but after five years... I had a 1979 Buick Regal (normally aspirated, 3.8 L V6 ) that was getting like 8 MPG when I sold it in 1993 or so. No mechanic in three states could find anything wrong.