EPA to reject Obama fuel efficiency standards early next week

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I'm not trying to trivialize what marginalized people are doing,when pushed to the margins of civilization

I like the other points you made, but what in the world are you talking about here?

People slashing and burning rain forests aren't poor because us greedy people have robbed them and driven them to poverty; they were never wealthy in the first place. It's their adoption of technology that has allowed them to quickly destroy forests for short-term profits. See any similarity with that behavior and the rest of humanity?

[jjackstone]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The auto makers shouldn't have to cater to California.
They're just driving the vehicle price up for everyone who isn't in California.

So here is another argument about whether or not individual states can be allowed to set their own laws. I agree that all states should not have to follow California's regulations. But if automakers want to sell cars in California they should have to follow state laws and the Feds need to keep their nose out of it.
If the manufacturer doesn't want to do it for other more lenient states then that is fine.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

If car makers didn't sell cars in California, they would go out of business. California and the other states that follow their regs buy a huge portion of the vehicles sold in the US. Like almost half of them.

Californians buy over 2 million of the 17 million new vehicles purchased in this country every year. That's about 17% of all new cars sold in the country. We only have 10 - 12% of the population. Manufacturers don't have to sell here but I bet they want to. A lot. I would guess that if they wanted to stop selling here we wouldn't even notice. I would expect that newer more nimble and innovative companies would love to step in to take up the slack. It would likely also speed the move to electric vehicles and I'm ok with that too.
JJ

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by jjackstone

I agree that all states should not have to follow California's regulations. But if automakers want to sell cars in California they should have to follow state laws and the Feds need to keep their nose out of it. If the manufacturer doesn't want to do it for other more lenient states then that is fine.

Exactly right.

Perhaps the federal government has the responsibility to set minimum emissions standards, but certainly have no business telling a state they must have looser emission standards (maximum emission standards).

The extremely difficult task is defining what the overall acceptable emissions of many types of pollutants should be at a national level, and developing policy to achieve those goals in a way that doesn't unduly harm individual states, or cause catastrophic economic decline.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Vman455

Before you go blaming poor countries for our consumption/pollution woes, make sure you look in a mirror first.

I am from Brazil, and even though the fuel consumption here is lower than in the U.S. it's often done in a more inefficient way. Cost of implementing some cleaner tech is challenging, and so is providing maintenance and technical support to avoid turning back to "traditional" stuff that may be actually more harmful to the environment. That's why we still see people cooking with wood fire in Brazil, or adapting carburettors to cars originally fitted with EFI in Argentina, among other issues.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

Indeed. Well, some folks would only consider such impact and a way to decrease it if they could take bragging rights for this move. You know, even if one would go as far as replacing a V8 gas-guzzler landyacht with a motorcycle or a tricycle, probably it would involve some attempt to look "stylish" in a Vespa (the newer 4-stroke ones) for example. OTOH it's important to notice that motorcycles are tied to a less stringent emission regulation, which has already been used as an argument to point out that even a 125cc motorcycle could be worse on that matter than a 6-cylinder car of the same age.

I continue to contemplate consumer behavior.I have zero confidence that I'll ever crack that mystery.
Some have described the 'Western' world as mindless automatons,wandering aimlessly in the dark,muttering incantations.
I've been to ten countries.Wherever I've been,I never felt like anybody has figured anything out.
Psychologists have said that many developed countries are inhabited only by emotional-thinking,consumers,who race from purchase to purchase,locked in an endless cycle of hedonic adaptation,flooding their dopamine receptors with every swipe of their credit card.
How you would get them out of their,now,7,000-lb SUV,and into some sustainable transportation technology is beyond me.
I'm not sure if 'styling' would be enough.
Wherever you are,just watch commercial television broadcast advertising to see inside the minds of those who'll decide the future.People obey television.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Xist

Are you saying that Ecomodder uses dirty power?

I'm given to understand,that whenever I'm on a PC,that it takes about a kW/h/h of electricity to support all the CISCO Systems and related hardware,etc. to make the internet connectivity possible.
We'd have to look at the energy mix and related carbon footprint.
My hope is,that the net,degrading effect of being online is more than offset by the energy efficiency gains made by members.

[gone-ot]

Biological electrical power vs. commercial power!?!

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by jjackstone

I had been wondering what the new EPA administrator was planning to do about mr. pruitt's attempt to destroy the fuel emission standards set by Obama. Here's what I found.

From:Inside Climate News

Future of Fuel Economy Standards
The White House also is reviewing the Pruitt EPA's draft of a new set of regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. The draft proposes freezing the emissions standards that the Obama administration crafted in an historic deal with automakers in the wake of their federal government bailout in 2009.

On this proposal, Wheeler could well decide to take a less confrontational path than Pruitt, who indicated he was prepared to challenge California's authority—enshrined in law since the 1970s—to set its own, stricter air pollution rules. Automakers have repeatedly urged the Trump administration to try to reach an agreement with California.

"The automakers are saying, 'Don't start a war with California that we will have to conduct, and get the whole thing rejected by the courts, and leave us with the blame,'" Becker said.

In a blog post published after a contentious meeting between auto executives and Trump at the White House, Ford's executive chairman, Bill Ford, and CEO, Jim Hackett, wrote that their company acknowledged the need to address climate change due to carbon emissions. "We support increasing clean car standards through 2025 and are not asking for a rollback," they wrote. "We want one set of standards nationally, along with additional flexibility to help us provide more affordable options for our customers."

Becker said that translates into a roadmap that Wheeler may be inclined to follow: "Lots of loopholes—the same rollback, but where the public can't really see it."


I hope someone is paying close attention to this man.

In answer to my own post here, the following popped up in the news today.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ntent=politics

It basically says that the EPA is going to continue the fight against California's stricter air pollution measures.

JJ

It looks like the law has been,as long as there has been an USEPA,that California is lawfully authorized to do whatever it wants.
If that's the law,and if the United States is still a nation of the rule of law,then there's close to 50-years of legal precedent allowing the state to make it's own rules.
And if what's good for the goose is good for the gander,the easiest path would be for all 50-states to adopt the California standard,giving the automakers the singular regulation they desire.
Of course,the cost will be passed down to the consumer,but that's always been the case.
Take $$$$ from the fuel savings to pay for the car?
If we're interested in reducing our carbon footprint,this would be a grand gesture.
But of course,climate change is just s Chinese hoax.Right?

[freebeard]

I'm not sure if 'styling' would be enough.
Wherever you are,just watch commercial television broadcast advertising to see inside the minds of those who'll decide the future.People obey television.

I thought at the time that the hippys were an 'organic' movement; turns out it was MK-ULTA the whole time. Then the Sexual Revolution achieved it's goals and immediately shut down. Sheeple all right.

I'm not so sure now. View counts for the mainstream media on Youtube are pathetic. I haven't watched TV (except when I visit friends) since 1975.

[jjackstone]

Originally Posted by aerohead

It looks like the law has been,as long as there has been an USEPA,that California is lawfully authorized to do whatever it wants.
If that's the law,and if the United States is still a nation of the rule of law,then there's close to 50-years of legal precedent allowing the state to make it's own rules.....

Not trying to be too political, but under the current administration it appears the only rule of law is at the whim of the politician in charge. Probably true in all administrations, but so much more blatant in this one.

JJ