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.

If we were talking about the opinion of someone that doesn’t need or claim expertise, I’d agree it’s a minor point that isn’t too important, but that isn’t what is going on. The writer should be an expert on current vehicle emissions standards. Tell me, would you trust the advice of an engineer that has no idea what the weight bearing characteristics of the bridge they designed? How about an electrician that doesn’t know the NEC? She got a pretty basic detail wrong, it makes me wonder what else she got wrong.

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.

Your second point is an opinion and nothing more. Car companies are not going to make a killing just because they no longer need to install California compliant exhaust systems. They really are not all that expensive, for a billion dollar company, and might add a few hundred dollars more, that is already tacked onto the price anyway. Perhaps you might have a case for their RnD budget, but that’s unlikely since Europe is still going for tougher emissions standards and most car manufacturers are global and still need to meet increased European standards anyway. Sorry, I don’t think you can prove that GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda, etc are going to profit from this shift. Oil maybe, but that still assumes a lot.

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.

Now lower MPG standards and no more electrical vehicle quotas might help boost gas sales, but note that these standards are fleet-wide. Meaning that car companies have a few ways of offsetting this:

1. They build and sell more fuel efficient vehicles in markets that demand them and build less for markets that don’t.
2. They work on technology that ups mileage.
3. They buy credit from companies that have a greater balance of electrical vehicles. Tesla had made around 1.6 billion, since 2012, from what I found.

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.

You should know as well as I do that the saying, ‘Figures don’t lie, but liars figure’ has a ring of truth. Considering the media’s inability to be impartial about anything Trump does, yet again, I’ll take these claims with a grain of salt.

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.

Glad you liked it, but I still don’t think it’s going to have an environmental impact you think it will:

1. California is still free to enforce its own emission laws within the state and companies are still free to set their own standards above federal requirements. The state simply can’t enforce its standards outside the state. Which is pretty much how the EPA has always operated. States are free to enforce stricter standards in their own state and companies are free to enforce tougher standards in their own company.

2. From more than a few sources I’ve read name a study that came to the conclusion that 75% of all car related emissions, come from 25% of all vehicles, mostly those that are older and we’re built to less strict standards. By far, keeping the price of a new or slightly used car down can go a long way.

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.

Honda is just one car brand out there and while they are the 4th most popular brand, HondaÂ’s do have a history of smaller cars, using smaller engines, with high revs, which are more fuel efficient and emissions friendly. Now I do know Honda’s Odyssey, CR-V, and it’s Pilot line are popular (with the Odyssey line being the third best selling minivan in the US), Honda’s bread and butter is still the Accord and Civic. Honda, just by virtue of its market and business model, will fair better with MPG and emissions than Ford, which had pretty poor small car sales, but moves F series trucks by the million.

[quote]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. [\quote]

As I said above, any state or company is free to make whatever emission and MPG standards they please. The California emissions standards are not going away, California simply can’t enforce its laws beyond the state. Second, the increase plastic usage has more to do with weight reduction. Cost does factor into it, that’s why carbon fiber is only used in expensive cars and aircraft, but steel is cheap, cheaper than plastic even. I can buy sheet metal screws for 0.017 cents each those plastic clips are way more than that. Per pound, steel is still one of the cheapest building materials around.

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]

Glad you liked it, but I still don’t think it’s going to have an environmental impact you think it will:

1. California is still free to enforce its own emission laws within the state and companies are still free to set their own standards above federal requirements. The state simply can’t enforce its standards outside the state. Which is pretty much how the EPA has always operated. States are free to enforce stricter standards in their own state and companies are free to enforce tougher standards in their own company.

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/

Source: above

It is also bad for public health. A waiver revocation, if upheld, would upset not only California’s authority to enforce its tailpipe GHG standards, but would also interfere with enforcement of its zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate. The ZEV program was originally adopted not to address climate change, but to combat smog pollution, a purpose it still serves. California suffers from some of the worst smog pollution in the nation; for example, the South Coast Air Basin exceeded federal ozone standards for over one-third of the year in 2017. California isn’t the only state that uses these regulations to reduce air pollution, either. Even the administration’s own analysis recognizes that other states rely on California’s rules to meet federal ambient air quality standards—but if California loses its authority to enforce its standards, so will those states. That’s why the attorneys general of those states and the mayors of over fifty cities within them have stressed that “these standards are both necessary and feasible” and are “particularly appropriate given the serious public health impacts of air pollution in our cities and states…”

© Copyright Original Source

2. From more than a few sources I’ve read name a study that came to the conclusion that 75% of all car related emissions, come from 25% of all vehicles, mostly those that are older and we’re built to less strict standards. By far, keeping the price of a new or slightly used car down can go a long way.

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)

Honda is just one car brand out there and while they are the 4th most popular brand, HondaÂ’s do have a history of smaller cars, using smaller engines, with high revs, which are more fuel efficient and emissions friendly. Now I do know Honda’s Odyssey, CR-V, and it’s Pilot line are popular (with the Odyssey line being the third best selling minivan in the US), Honda’s bread and butter is still the Accord and Civic. Honda, just by virtue of its market and business model, will fair better with MPG and emissions than Ford, which had pretty poor small car sales, but moves F series trucks by the million.

As I said above, any state or company is free to make whatever emission and MPG standards they please. The California emissions standards are not going away, California simply can’t enforce its laws beyond the state.

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

Second, the increase plastic usage has more to do with weight reduction. Cost does factor into it, that’s why carbon fiber is only used in expensive cars and aircraft, but steel is cheap, cheaper than plastic even. I can buy sheet metal screws for 0.017 cents each those plastic clips are way more than that. Per pound, steel is still one of the cheapest building materials around.

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