Originally posted by oxmixmudd
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Trump prohibits California's higher emissions standards
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostSo reading the actual press release, it isn't Trump trying to cancel "California's stricter regulations"
Here is the press release (my bolding for emphasis)
...Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostSo the OP and the accompanying CNN article misrepresented the truth. What a surprise.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostNow you switch from "that's just nutty" to "it's not truth." You hand-wave it because you in fact know it's a very simple truth, but it puts the onus on California residents instead of Trump's federal government.
I will probably post more detail about the situation and I'll be glad to discuss any legitimate comments you make, but I'm not going to waste time on this sort of posturing.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostSo reading the actual press release, it isn't Trump trying to cancel "California's stricter regulations"
Here is the press release (my bolding for emphasis)
---------
Trump Administration Announces One National Program Rule on Federal Preemption of State Fuel Economy Standards
09/19/2019
Contact Information:
EPA Press Office (press@epa.gov)
WASHINGTON (September 19, 2019) — President Trump promised the American people that his Administration would address and correct the current fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards, and today, his Administration is taking steps to fulfill this promise.
Today, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took an initial step towards finalizing the proposed Safer, Affordable, Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule by issuing a final action entitled the “One National Program Rule,” which will enable the federal government to provide nationwide uniform fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards for automobiles and light duty trucks.
A top priority for President Trump, when finalized, the proposed SAFE Vehicles Rule standards would establish attainable fuel economy and GHG vehicle emissions standards that will help ensure that more Americans have access to safer, more affordable, and cleaner vehicles that meet their families’ needs. The SAFE rule’s standards are projected to save the nation billions of dollars and strengthen the U.S. domestic manufacturing base by adding millions of new car sales. Most importantly, because newer cars are safer than ever before, the new standards are projected to save thousands of lives and prevent tens of thousands of Americans from being hospitalized by car crashes.
“Today’s action meets President Trump’s commitment to establish uniform fuel economy standards for vehicles across the United States, ensuring that no State has the authority to opt out of the Nation’s rules, and no State has the right to impose its policies on the rest of the country,” said Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao.
“Today, we are delivering on a critical element of President Trump’s commitment to address and fix the current fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards,” said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler. “One national standard provides much-needed regulatory certainty for the automotive industry and sets the stage for the Trump Administration’s final SAFE rule that will save lives and promote economic growth by reducing the price of new vehicles to help more Americans purchase newer, cleaner, and safer cars and trucks.”
Today’s action finalizes critical parts of the SAFE Vehicles Rule that was first proposed on Aug. 2, 2018. This action brings much-needed certainty to consumers and industry by making it clear that federal law preempts state and local tailpipe greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards as well as zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandates. Specifically, in this action, NHTSA is affirming that its statutory authority to set nationally applicable fuel economy standards under the express preemption provisions of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act dictates that such state and local programs are preempted. For its part, EPA is withdrawing the Clean Air Act preemption waiver it granted to the State of California in January 2013 as it relates to California’s GHG and ZEV programs. California’s ability to enforce its Low Emission Vehicle program and other clean air standards to address harmful smog-forming vehicle emissions is not affected by today’s action.
This action will help ensure that there will be one, and only one, set of national fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards for vehicles. The agencies continue to work together to finalize the remaining portions of the SAFE Vehicles Rule, to address proposed revisions to the federal fuel economy and GHG vehicle emissions standards.
In today’s One National Program Rule, NHTSA and EPA have made the following determinations:
Pursuant to Congress’s mandate in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, only the federal government may set fuel economy standards, and state and local governments may not establish their own separate fuel economy standards. This includes state laws that substantially affect fuel economy standards (such as tailpipe GHG emissions standards and ZEV mandates).
In addition, EPA is withdrawing the 2013 Clean Air Act waiver that authorized California to pursue its own tailpipe greenhouse gas emission standard (fuel economy standard) and ZEV mandate. As a result, these two programs are also prohibited by the Clean Air Act.
Moving forward, California must continue to enforce its programs to address smog and other forms of traditional air pollution caused by motor vehicles. The state must redouble its efforts to address the worst air quality in the United States and finally achieve compliance with EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards, where for decades it has failed to address serious, severe, and extreme non-compliance status in several areas within the state.
Details can be found at NHTSA’s website and EPA’s website.
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/tru...ion-state-fuel
========
So what I am reading is that the EPA wants one standard for all states, and that apparently California isn't meeting those standards. Pretty much the opposite of what the OP is saying.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
What I'm most curious about is the validity of legal arguments against this. People posted explaining to me where the president supposedly gets the authority, but I do wonder what the underlying legal arguments on both sides are.
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThey didn't misrepresent the truth. This is an all out attack on California and a move to reward the auto and oil industries. It increases emissions, reduces the overall fuel economy goals in a way that specifically reduces the need for electrics and hybrids. It aims to punish california by demanding they meet air quality standards they can't achieve without being able to enforce higher emission standards than the federal government requires. It is also a move to take away states rights to provide for the welfare of their own people by making it illegal for them to exceed federal emission requirements.
JimSome may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThis is nothing less than an all out attack on california. You should be able see that in the text you quoted. But if you follow the links they proved it becomes quite clear. This is an appeasement of the auto and oil industries, it is also an attack on the environment, and on states rights."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View PostGreat, now let’s get to the meat:
From California’s DMV website:
Not all new vehicles are manufactured to be sold in California. Many manufacturers make vehicles to be sold only in the other 49 states. These vehicles (49-state) are made with smog equipment that meets federal emission standards, but not California standards. California-certified (50-state) vehicles are made to be sold in California.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/de...rYEoGg3dpEVXs/
My car is a 2016 model year and isn’t made for California emission standards. Maybe 2019 or 2020 model years might be, but I doubt it. This claim is looking more and more like it is false."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View PostWhat I'm most curious about is the validity of legal arguments against this. People posted explaining to me where the president supposedly gets the authority, but I do wonder what the underlying legal arguments on both sides are."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View PostHey Jim, when are you going to deal with the fact your source is flat wrong on cars only being made with one emission standard? My 2016 isn’t California compliant so...Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View PostHey Jim, when are you going to deal with the fact your source is flat wrong on cars only being made with one emission standard? My 2016 isn’t California compliant so...
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostYour paranoia is showing again.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostClarification please: are you saying that if you buy a new car in Houston and drive it to Sacramento you might be breaking the law? And that when I hired a car in (i) Utah (ii) Ohio (iii) Washington DC and drove it to (i) Arizona (ii) upstate New York (iii) Virginia I may have done likewise? Or is California the only state which has more restrictive vehicle standards?
If you’re a California resident, you need a car that is compliant with California standards, if you live in the state. You can own one that isn’t compliant though for the following reasons:
1. Age of the vehicle is before emission standards were passed. A 1968 GTO, for example, would be fine.
2. You lived in another state and bought it while living there, had it registered, and moved to California with it. You’ll need the previous state registration, in your name, before you moved.
3. State residents, who were in the military and stationed outside the state and move back with their non compliant vehicle, would also be exempt from this requirement.
Now it doesn’t mean that a California resident can’t buy a non compliant car. They could and pay to have it upgraded to California standards. As I recall, on a modern car it wouldn’t be too hard. The only major difference anyone is that California requires swapping out the caddy with a California approved one, but I’m not 100% on this since I would meet an exception and haven’t researched it much because of that.
The California DMV link should explain the broad details."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostI already did acknowledge it might be the case and I'm not sure about that element. Please Read more carefully. It is mostly an irrelevant sidebar to what Trump is doing to call and the environment through this move, excepting if you are right it makes it even less justified.
Jim"The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
130 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Today, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
335 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
112 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
197 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Today, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
361 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Today, 11:08 AM
|
Comment