Trump vs CARB / Freezing CAFE standards

I submit there is not much if any smog coming from cars these days.

The reason I say this, is because the 3-way cat converters are basically getting ALL of the of the contaminants out now.
This is a new development for most of the Country, because although cat converters are not new, what is new is that the gasoline supply is phasing into ultra-low sulfur due to EPA mandates, and the main reason EPA wanted all of the sulfur out is because sulfur traces reduce the efficiency of the catalyst (sulfur is a cat "poison" as we say). So we are entering an era of very low near zero tailpipe emissions from gasoline. Diesel of course is another story.

The other important developments helping to reduce smog a lot are the Prius-style flex gas tank in Gen2, updated after Gen2 with newer technology that captures the evap emissions. Also I know states like NJ and Ca. have special gas pumps that minimize evap emisions.

As far as I know, smog from gasoline vehciles is extremely low now. If there are places where smog is still a problem, then either the smog problem is not related to gasoline cars, or those states are guilty of not applying Califorinia-style technology that already exists. Toyota only makes CARB-Prii, so all of us are essentially pollution free.

Nobody is opposed to reducing smog. Trump wants clean air. I want clean air. What California is doing that is disruptive is requiring highly strict CO2 regs and mandating EV's for climate change, not smog, reasons.

Smog in this argument is a Red Herring becuase there is no more smog issue from U.S. gaso vehciles, and furthermore noboody is suggesting smog reduction is not valid regulation. It is when we get into unilateral mandating vehicle design for climate change reasons that we have the issue. But people like Red Herring these days, so I do not know where we go from here

 

Not only directonally correct, near zero emissions. You would probably be OK in your closed garage until you sucked all the O2 out.

 

i'm not smart enough to argue the point. but i still see many other reasons to drive ev

 

You are entitled to your own preference of course, but the sticking point comes with mandating it for states or Country as whole..

...but Trump is going along with ethanol mandates, and I see it as the same issue. Congress has the power to mandate the structure of economy, for whatever reason(s) they want to. This is the pre-mandate period when we are arguing if it makes sense to mandate plug-ns.

This is like the E10 ethanol issue back in 1990, the new joint study data was showing no eco-benefit of ethanol, but Congress wanted to mandate it so they did, and there was big argument this was bad science. We are in the argument stage of plug-in mandates nation-wide, and California has the Country over a barrel by mandating it unilaterly.

 

But California isn't mandating it. Other states were free to choose to adopt CARB emission regulations for cars or not. They were also free to adopt the ZEV program or not on top of that. Some CARB states aren't ZEV states. California isn't forcing this on anyone else.

 

It seems like Mr. Tracy is trying REAL hard to dig up weak arguments and throw a smoke screen, that admitted sounds plausible......until you think it over a bit.

It sounds to me like he knows basically nothing, from personal experience, about the current state of air pollution in areas where it is a REAL problem.

I went to California a couple of years ago. Since there hasn't been any national news about the state of air pollution out there in literally decades, I was SHOCKED to see that the air still looks BROWN. Light brown maybe instead of dark orange like it used to be but obviously not healthy. In San Diego even. Appalling.

 

Its definitely improved, but hardly negligible. Here's the most recent data from the EPA (2014):
(Mobile -> On-Road is the relevant road vehicle categories)

% of total emissions for that pollutant
CO = 37.22%
NOx = 38.74%
PM10 = 1.67%
SO2 = 0.61%
VOCs = 14.06%
(Ones in bold are most relevant for smog)

could have fooled me. Though, I tend to judge based on actions more than words.

 

No I am not over-stating the clean-ness of gasoline.
I am not creating a smoke screen.
I am trying to convey the untold truth is a sea full of Red Herrings.

The big issue we face is the CAFE regs and credits for EV's, which are mainly climate change arguments.

If California wants to charge each resident a million dollar$ tax, I could care less.
If California wants to charge each resident a million dollars tax, but I have to subsidize it, then I do care.

Once California gets beyond local smog issues, and starts saying they have the right to unilaterally mandate what the USA auto industry has to manufactuire to sell cars that in the opinion of Ca. are politcally correct, then Houston, we got a problem.

Now obviously many support the Ca. approach but I submit it is insubordination and getting into civil war at least figuratively. This should be Congress job to mandate CAFE, which if the repubs get ousted, there will be plenty of oppotunity for Dems in Congress to do as they darn well please. I think that might be ugly scenario (because there is not good consensus) but nonetheless we may have chance before long to witness the liberal Congress apporoach.

 

mustn't one present facts and data to convey an untold truth?

 

California isn't mandating anything beyond its borders + the CARB states. If you want a villain to the story, blame the auto manufacturers. They are the ones making the decision to comply with CARB requirements so that they can sell vehicles into CARB states.

However, the bigger issue with the "I have to subsidize it" argument, is that its the other way around. Pollution famously doesn't respect political boundaries, such that CA and other CARB states are subsidizing cleaning up the environment for states next to or downwind of them. Honestly, its the CARB states that should be upset that the other states around them are free riding on their pollution reductions.

I will agree, one nationwide standard would be preferable. However, the U.S. political system doesn't really deliver on the optimal solution as much as the one of least resistance (typically the status-quo).

 

Except that CA is mandating only what the industry can sell in California, not in Houston.

 

And if a car company choose to only sell only California compliant cars in Texas, there is other car companies to buy from.

 

No no no no no no no. If you do that, then it doesn't stay untold, and then where would you be next time you want to convey it as an untold truth?

 

must be the 'silent majority' thing

 

i love my electric power tools, and electric driving. i'm not sure what people are afraid of

 

CO2 is non completely non-toxic, so CO2 does not bother me at all re: pollution heading Northeast.
California has no unilateral need to clean up CO2. California has one of the lowest CO2 of any state. We can debate the reasons for that (climate, hydro imports etc) nontheless California demanding heroic measures to reduce in-state CO2 is not a need for the USA.

There is no issue re: smog because if California wants to mandate a more expensive cat converter, that does not impact everyone.
Once you say Califorina is unilaterally mandating the auto industry by some fornula sell only cars with lower CO2, that starts impacting the auto industry R&D and manufacturing lines in a big way, and also cost of ICE cars are higher to allow auto manufacturers to reduce price of plug-ins so they can sell for CARB credits.

This is the central issue. Now then if Congress makes it the law of the land, then we have to go along with it.