Trump prohibits California's higher emissions standards

[lilpixieofterror]

I really don't know - and they are suing - he may not have the right to do it in the end. He really has a beef with California's governor and city mayors - they've challenged him many times. So I believe this is very likely at least in part just another petty, personal attack on California at the expense of the health and well being of at least Californians, but also people living in high population density areas across the US. It is possible he is also trying to service his business buddies that have some $$$ in mind in terms of gain by eliminating the regulations. But I bring it up primarily because it is just 1 of many examples of how Trump is significantly rolling back environmental protections to the benefit of big business or to settle personal scores based on his hatred of Obama, or anyone that has publicly opposed him one way or another.

Not many remember the gross abuses of the environment in the first 2/3 of the 20th century that created the EPA and many of the regulations we now have that protect us from bushiness that has no scruples, no self -discipline when it comes to choosing to spend a bit more to make sure they are being good stewards of our planet and its resources.

[oxmixmudd]

There is no strawman pix. You can't roll back emissions requirements without increasing emissions. Automakers are out for a profit, and cutting back will likely save them money. It will also result in more of the current cars wondering out of spec over time because there is not requirement to keep them working properly in that regard. This thread is about Trump ROLLING BACK an exemption that allows California to set higher emissions standards, which California needs.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Ok - you've left the realm of rational discussion in the dust again - till next time.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

There is no strawman pix. You can't roll back emissions requirements without increasing emissions. Automakers are out for a profit, and cutting back will likely save them money. It will also result in more of the current cars wondering out of spec over time because there is not requirement to keep them working properly in that regard. This thread is about Trump ROLLING BACK an exemption that allows California to set higher emissions standards, which California needs.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

Ok - you've left the realm of rational discussion in the dust again - till next time.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

What has Trump done to hurt the environment:

Well, that is a long list, but here is one that should be accessible to nearly everyone.

Remember the LA problems with Smog?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]39865[/ATTACH]

Well that is one reason why California has stricter emissions requirements than the Federal Government mandates. And 24 other states have adopted those same standards. The impact is auto makers don't make cars with different emissions controls for different states, so the impact is all cars effectively meet these standards, giving cleaner air in all US cities, not just those states that follow the CA standards. But, of course, that does make cars a little more expensive than they would be otherwise.

Now Trump pushes back, says they can't do that anymore.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/23/opini...ger/index.html

Is this some petty personal beef with the Governor of CA? Probably.

Who wants to lower emission standards on vehicles? Do you want cars emitting MORE noxious gasses? No-one I know of.


So - who around here would defend this? And if so why.


Jim

https://www.rockauto.com/en/catalog/...converter,5808

[oxmixmudd]

[oxmixmudd]

https://www.rockauto.com/en/catalog/...converter,5808

You should at least post the text that you think is wrong pix.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

No - it's irrational because you are in 'you are x' and 'you are y' mode, instead of just discussing what you may see as the problem:

"As for your tin foil hat conspiracy theories, beyond your hatred and rage about all things Trump,"

I could try to point out that you missed my response where I would be for some sort of compensation for lower income etc.
But you are just off the rails once again, and there is no potential for rational discussion.

Which solution, in turn, raises taxes or government debt and simply shifts the problem somewhere else.

It's sad, because you are intelligent, but it's just not worth the effort once you've taken this tack.

There is nothing I know of that can be done to return to civil discourse.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

You should at least post the text that you think is wrong pix.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

(So I'm continuing to see if anything useful can be reclaimed - will pix try)

Yes, I know it makes life harder on low income levels. The need for a car period makes life harder on low income levels. Cars are expensive. And I am sympathetic to the issue.


Of course I undertood that. And I know you would focus on it over the issue of the problem itself and why CA needs to have and enforce these standards.
I have already said I would be for government compensation for lower income in terms of the cost of meeting emissions standards.
This is a quality of life issue, and cars are a virtual necessity in some places - though usually less so in big cities.

Which solution, in turn, raises taxes or government debt and simply shifts the problem somewhere else.

Yes - clean healthy air with lots of cars and factories in the area is not cheap. Genearly the cost of maintaining the healthy environment goes to the users of the polluting machinery. The only reason not to put the full burden on car owners is that cars are such an integral part of life these days with employment often dependent on the ability to own a car. That being true, a case can be made for compensation for lower income people who need the car to keep their jobs and keep themselves off welfare which is much more expensive, which means more affluent people bear the larger portion of the cost of meeting the emission standards, but overall it is a smaller cost than having more people on welfare.


Trumps animosity towards California does not need to be proven - it is a given. His lack of respect for the EPA and environmental issues in general also does not need to be proven - it is a given. His deference to business interests and his own personal gain also does not need to be proven.

In the end, there is no legitimate reason to revoke CA's capacity to make and enforce its own emissions standards. So, what is left are illegitimate reasons.

Again, I started this thread as an example of Trump being bad for the environment.

And we are back to 'you are x', 'you are y' and cohesive, intelligent argument is once again abandoned in favor of personal attacks.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I did my own repairs for years. It's a lot cheaper than getting it done by someone else as long as you have the tools.

I don't think he's talking about aftermarket parts pix. He's talking about whether or not a new car is made differently for California than for Texas or for Florida. Are their OEM parts different one State to another, is the same car make and model delivered to a CA dealer different from that car deliver to Florida or North Carolina or Colorado. I actually thought they were, and IIRC at some time in the past cars did have different emissions packages on them in CA. But your point appears to relate to replacement parts. And yes, it may well be that some sub-standard replacement parts are prohibited in CA. And that would be because they don't work as well or they haven't passed some test that is required to be certified for use there.


Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

(So I'm continuing to see if anything useful can be reclaimed - will pix try)

Yes, I know it makes life harder on low income levels. The need for a car period makes life harder on low income levels. Cars are expensive. And I am sympathetic to the issue.

Of course I undertood that. And I know you would focus on it over the issue of the problem itself and why CA needs to have and enforce these standards.

I have already said I would be for government compensation for lower income in terms of the cost of meeting emissions standards.

This is a quality of life issue, and cars are a virtual necessity in some places - though usually less so in big cities.

I find they become more important, west of the Mississippi vs east.

Yes - clean healthy air with lots of cars and factories in the area is not cheap. Genearly the cost of maintaining the healthy environment goes to the users of the polluting machinery. The only reason not to put the full burden on car owners is that cars are such an integral part of life these days with employment often dependent on the ability to own a car. That being true, a case can be made for compensation for lower income people who need the car to keep their jobs and keep themselves off welfare which is much more expensive, which means more affluent people bear the larger portion of the cost of meeting the emission standards, but overall it is a smaller cost than having more people on welfare.

Trumps animosity towards California does not need to be proven - it is a given. His lack of respect for the EPA and environmental issues in general also does not need to be proven - it is a given. His deference to business interests and his own personal gain also does not need to be proven.

In the end, there is no legitimate reason to revoke CA's capacity to make and enforce its own emissions standards. So, what is left are illegitimate reasons.

I have cited reasons, you simply ignore them and invent conspiracy theories to support your belief system. I really do doubt Trump will profit from the reduction. 500 dollars is pocket change to a billion dollar company.

Again, I started this thread as an example of Trump being bad for the environment.

So what is your evidence for this claim? Is the air and water quality worse now than it was 3 years ago?

And we are back to 'you are x', 'you are y' and cohesive, intelligent argument is once again abandoned in favor of personal attacks.

[lilpixieofterror]

I did my own repairs for years. It's a lot cheaper than getting it done by someone else as long as you have the tools.

I don't think he's talking about aftermarket parts pix. He's talking about whether or not a new car is made differently for California than for Texas or for Florida. Are their OEM parts different one State to another, is the same car make and model delivered to a CA dealer different from that car deliver to Florida or North Carolina or Colorado. I actually thought they were, and IIRC at some time in the past cars did have different emissions packages on them in CA. But your point appears to relate to replacement parts. And yes, it may well be that some sub-standard replacement parts are prohibited in CA. And that would be because they don't work as well or they haven't passed some test that is required to be certified for use there.

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/

[Sparko]

So 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

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. 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.