Trump prohibits California's higher emissions standards

[Mountain Man]

Always twisting the Truth. California enforces the standard within their state. They are not forcing anything on anyone that lives or sells product outside their state. Individual states, choose which standard to adopt and manufacturers chose whether or not to vary production based on which standard a given state has adopted.

Jim

You might want to actually go to the source, because everything you've been saying from the opening post is the opposite of the truth.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production.../420f19900.pdf

[oxmixmudd]

Thank you pix, great reply.

Fair enough. My point is there are a lot of looks at this out there. Hers is just one, and the issue you are hitting on really has very little to do with the impact of the Trump policy in terms of its environmental impact. It would factor into how much it can actually help lower the costs of automobiles for the average consumer not living in California, which is probable little to none if they don't typically build to a CA spec outside CA.

Honda - and perhaps others - pride themselves in getting to that tougher spec because it is overall good for the environment, good for extending the lifespan of available resources and so on.

Auto companies use those worthless little plastic plugs to hold things together rather than real screws because it saves them a few $$ per car. So I think they'd be quite happy to save $500 per car. GM, VW, Toyota produce upwards of 10 million cars per year. That is 5 BILLION dollars.

I'm guessing what you are trying to say is that CA might not get the full effect of a higher fleet mileage standard if some manufacturers do an end run? Perhaps by some percentage, but let's say they buy credits from Tesla. That still means Telsa is putting cars on the road in CA and emissions are down. Let's say they up regular gas mileage: less fuel burned, all other things equal == less emissions.
Not sure what the first one is getting at. But bottom line, but making it 'illegal' for California to demand automakers that sell in california have a higher fleet mileage, CA still ends up with more emissions and therefore poorer air quality.

Just as it's not all about trump, neither is is all about the MSM. They do a lot of good and they are a critical and integral part of maintaining the freedoms we enjoy. But in this case, it's a bit more objective. The EPA site text that Sparko quoted is clearly showing a strong bias against CA. It is worded so that it implies CA has been negligent in dealing with their air quality issues, when in fact CA's air quality issues are in fact specific to their environment, and contrary to that wording, CA has led the way and it is largely through their efforts that we enjoy the higher fuel efficiency and lower atmospheric emissions we have today. Further, this is going the wrong direction environmentally. This is being sold as saving consumers money, down playing the environmental impacts of increase CO2 levels over the next two decades. That is predicated on automakers passing their savings on to consumers (probability <50%) and it flies in the face of what we know about AGW and it's causes and the need we have to reduce emissions.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

You might want to actually go to the source, because everything you've been saying from the opening post is the opposite of the truth.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production.../420f19900.pdf

You'll need to be more specific. Anyone can say "Everything you've been saying is the opposite of the truth". Back it up.

[Mountain Man]

You'll need to be more specific. Anyone can say "Everything you've been saying is the opposite of the truth". Back it up.

Come on, man, Sparko already did that earlier in the thread, quoting the EPA itself. But then you pulled the tinfoil hat tighter onto your head and insisted that it's an evil scheme to "git" California. The only reason California is specifically mentioned is because it's the only state who was granted a waiver. The EPA has said repeatedly that California is free to continue enforcing its own standards within its own borders. They just can't use those standards to cut deals with auto companies that raise costs for the rest of the country. The EPA also determined that California was using its waiver to address concerns that were not unique to California and for which California's regulations did not provide a remedy.

Instead of expecting me to explain the entire proposal to you, just read it for yourself. And while you're at it, try to suppress your delusions that Trump is a mustache twirling villain who cackles with glee while evicting children from the nearest orphanage.

[Teallaura]

I though he was tying women to rain tracks this week?

[oxmixmudd]

Come on, man, Sparko already did that earlier in the thread, quoting the EPA itself.

And his 'summary' (and your reading as well) completely misses the part where they are using the EPA to take aim at California by threatening them over air quality when they have done more than any other state or agency to try to address their specfici air quality issues. There is no reason to address california as if it was some sort of criminal actor, unless they are in fact targeting california. California has done nothing except to try to make it possible to reduce emissions in their state where they are especially sensitive to such emission. The changes that they would invoke by doing so will do nothing more than they have already done - improve air quality for all of us - assuming the automakers just decide not to do special things for california like they did decades ago. It's a big market, auto makers do not have to make cars the same for everyone, and they can make the costs higher in CA if they want to because of the special equipment. The Californians would have to decide if the cleaner air is worth the extra cost for cars.

But then you pulled the tinfoil hat tighter onto your head and insisted that it's an evil scheme to "git" California. The only reason California is specifically mentioned is because it's the only state who was granted a waiver. The EPA has said repeatedly that California is free to continue enforcing its own standards within its own borders. They just can't use those standards to cut deals with auto companies that raise costs for the rest of the country. The EPA also determined that California was using its waiver to address concerns that were not unique to California and for which California's regulations did not provide a remedy.

But that is where you are wrong. They know that removing he exception will make it harder for California to meet air quality standards, but they are talking about stepping up enforcement and slamming CA for not doing enough to fix their air quality problems - which is a flat out lie,they've done more than anywhere else. That is an attack on California. They are removing their means of making progress, but threatening tougher enforcement.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

But that is where you are wrong.

I'm not wrong. I'm just not adding your generous anti-Trump spin to the mix.

[oxmixmudd]

I'm not wrong. I'm just not adding your generous anti-Trump spin to the mix.

Uh huh ... and that's you have cut away my entire post to make sure people reading your reply can't see how wrong you are...

[Mountain Man]

Uh huh ... and that's you have cut away my entire post to make sure people reading your reply can't see how wrong you are...

Yeah, that must be it.

[lilpixieofterror]

Thank you pix, great reply.

Fair enough. My point is there are a lot of looks at this out there. Hers is just one, and the issue you are hitting on really has very little to do with the impact of the Trump policy in terms of its environmental impact. It would factor into how much it can actually help lower the costs of automobiles for the average consumer not living in California, which is probable little to none if they don't typically build to a CA spec outside CA.

Honda - and perhaps others - pride themselves in getting to that tougher spec because it is overall good for the environment, good for extending the lifespan of available resources and so on.

[quote]

I'm guessing what you are trying to say is that CA might not get the full effect of a higher fleet mileage standard if some manufacturers do an end run? Perhaps by some percentage, but let's say they buy credits from Tesla. That still means Telsa is putting cars on the road in CA and emissions are down. Let's say they up regular gas mileage: less fuel burned, all other things equal == less emissions.

Tesla will put cars on the road anyway, the law simply makes other car companies pay Tesla because of its business model, raising new car prices and pricing more people out of the new car market and doing nothing at all, but making things worse. As I said before, most emissions come from older cars and reducing these older cars and replacing them with newer cars, is a win all around. Honda, Toyota, Ford, etc paying Tesla for its business model simply raises the sticker price on new cars and prices more people out of the market. We want new car prices down, not up.

Not sure what the first one is getting at. But bottom line, but making it 'illegal' for California to demand automakers that sell in california have a higher fleet mileage, CA still ends up with more emissions and therefore poorer air quality.

I say the law does the opposite. It raises the cost per car and makes less cars sell. As I said above, 25% of cars currently on the road are responsible for 75% of car emissions. The goal should be trying to get new cars cheaper, both to help more new and more efficient cars sale and bring slightly used car prices down.

Just as it's not all about trump, neither is is all about the MSM. They do a lot of good and they are a critical and integral part of maintaining the freedoms we enjoy. But in this case, it's a bit more objective. The EPA site text that Sparko quoted is clearly showing a strong bias against CA. It is worded so that it implies CA has been negligent in dealing with their air quality issues, when in fact CA's air quality issues are in fact specific to their environment, and contrary to that wording, CA has led the way and it is largely through their efforts that we enjoy the higher fuel efficiency and lower atmospheric emissions we have today. Further, this is going the wrong direction environmentally. This is being sold as saving consumers money, down playing the environmental impacts of increase CO2 levels over the next two decades. That is predicated on automakers passing their savings on to consumers (probability <50%) and it flies in the face of what we know about AGW and it's causes and the need we have to reduce emissions.

When they lie, they do no one a service. As I previously pointed out, older cars account for more emissions than newer cars, so if we can make new cars cheaper, it can go much further than making them more efficient. The goal should be replacing as many of these older cars as possible and making them more expensive does the reverse.

[oxmixmudd]

This is not true. The 2013 waiver effects the fleet mileage requirement, the ZEV program, and the GHG emissions.

From https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/r...-indefensible/




https://www.boston.com/cars/news-and...nly-25-of-cars

So , that is an interesting alternative take. That by keeping prices a little higher, people hold onto their older cars longer and this program will lower prices enough to make a dent in that.

I'm not sure I buy that, in that as cars age, they become more and more expensive to keep running. So, unless you are a skilled mechanic with lots of tools, that point is typically 10 or so years (except perhaps for certain exceptionally well built models), so most people are forced to upgrade within their ability to afford their own transportation - which means that even though older cars do tend to pollute more, most people are automatically upgrading as time goes on anyway.

The caveat being that even a low emissions car when new can become a poor emissions care when old. And so I'm not sure we'd see a significant down tick in average auto age. That is, I don't think 24% producing 76% moving to 23% producing 74% is the sort of change we need. Electrics don't emit any more when they are 10 years old than when they are new. And hybids just burn less over all (often using atkinson cycle engines which are much more efficient)



Please clarify that last comment. Exactly how is California 'enforcing' its standards outside of its state?

A quick review of cost online per 100 count seems to favor the plastic fasteners of similar size, but who knows what companies who buy them by the million pay. Nevertheless, it does seem weight and they don't corrode seem to be the primary reasons. So you were more on target than I was on that.

Tesla will put cars on the road anyway, the law simply makes other car companies pay Tesla because of its business model, raising new car prices and pricing more people out of the new car market and doing nothing at all, but making things worse. As I said before, most emissions come from older cars and reducing these older cars and replacing them with newer cars, is a win all around. Honda, Toyota, Ford, etc paying Tesla for its business model simply raises the sticker price on new cars and prices more people out of the market. We want new car prices down, not up.

I don't follow you on the 'buisiness model' part, but how successful 'getting older cars off the road' can be depends on what causes older cars to perform poorly. Is it because they were not designed with modern emissions, or is it because they are older and they are worn out or in disrepair. If the latter, then having them start out even less capable is not going to help, and pushing out higher mileage quotas - which helps by encouraging electrics and hybrids, as well as lowering the total amount of fuel burnt - is going to make things get worse by staying the same (i.e. population increase == more cars)

I say the law does the opposite. It raises the cost per car and makes less cars sell. As I said above, 25% of cars currently on the road are responsible for 75% of car emissions. The goal should be trying to get new cars cheaper, both to help more new and more efficient cars sale and bring slightly used car prices down.

Given the study you mention was 2015 and we've had catalytic converters and EGR valves etc for a pretty long time, I'd say the 'older cars' problem is one that would stay pretty much the same even if you reduced the new car cost by even 5 percent (500 on 25,000 car is just 2%). You'd need to make a pretty big dent in New car cost to see enough more people driving late model cars to make a difference. And a lot of the problem is that people that can't afford later model cars also typically also have a hard time affording to maintain then properly, and that is part of what makes them pollute more.

When they lie, they do no one a service. As I previously pointed out, older cars account for more emissions than newer cars, so if we can make new cars cheaper, it can go much further than making them more efficient. The goal should be replacing as many of these older cars as possible and making them more expensive does the reverse.

There is no lying here that I can see, but there are very big differences of opinion.

I don't think we'd get nearly as much 'mileage' (pun intended ) out of the lower cost as we will out of the programs Trump's policies are killing, for the reasons I've stated.

Jim