Trump vs CARB / Freezing CAFE standards

OK, so you need to explain that.
I think more than one of us has said that is NOT true.
Just because the car makers have decided it is a good business decision to start making only "50 state" vehicles, that does NOT mean that California has forced then to do that.

Edit: Your logic is twisted. Your comment about CAT converters applies equally to ANY OTHER local California mandate too.

I quit. It appears that we can't confuse you with facts 'cause your mind is already made up.

 

I don't have a problem with 50-states cars. Toyota/Honda have always done this.
I have heard more USA manufacturers are starting to do that approach. I do not have a big problem with updating to Ca.smog controls.. But if that's true then cars are really getting cleaner due to meeting Ca. smog standards combined with lower sulfur in gasoline allowing better activity of the catalyst in the tailpipe.

Overall what we are saying is gasoline is better than diesel because it turns out to be sceintitifically possible to almost totally eliminate the contaminants out the tailpipe, and hybrid tecnology gives gasoline the MPG boost to compete with diesel power there.

The big issue is the over-aggressive CO2/CAFE mandates.

 

NO, the big issue in this discussion is YOU misrepresenting the facts.

California.....nor any other state.....can mandate what the Federal government does.
They also cannot mandate that other states follow their lead.

 

Due to historic severe smog issues related to geographic features (bowl effect), California CARB for many years had special federal exclusion rules allowing Ca. to pursue smog-controls/fuel formulas that were more strict than the Federal EPA requirement.

In recent years, Califormia has changed their eco-objective to CO2 reduction for a global climate change reasons, and is progressing this objective by requiring EV's and CAFE regs beyond Federal gov't rules.

The issue we face is, now that Ca. is changing the objective to global climate change reduction and not smog reduction, why should Ca. have the right to push around the national Auto market, which impacts all of us? That needs to be Congress mandate.

It is a little like SALT (state and local) taxes as an analogy. The high tax tax states (Ca., NY) liked to charge very high state taxes, in part because it was tax deductible on the Federal taxes, which means the whole of America had to subsidize those higher state taxes.

I am hearing a lot of ad hominem attacks. Have you folks checked emissions on your Prii? Near zero. I reazlie I am upsetting some paradigms, that all gaso-autos are highly toxic poisonous eco-disasters, but I feel like we are losing sight of the vast improvements made. We are in a period of chemophobic extreme hype in this Country, for political reasons, just realize that.

 

I see this as CA trying to get some control of, and reign in, its own share of climate change emissions. It isn't forcing other states or countries to follow suit.

I purchased non-CA cars back in the previous century. The car makers are still free to continue manufacturing non-CA vehicles for sale to the other states and countries. If they can serve numerous national markets smaller than CA, then they can handle this separate-CA market too. Or pull out of it.

 

The US is no longer the largest auto market in the world, and hasn't been since 2011 at the latest. Number one(China) and three(EU) are both pushing EVs and lower emissions, including CO2.

No car company sells to just the US.

The R&D expenses you are pinning on California would be incurred even without CARB, because of those international markets. Those companies that signed onto California's higher MPG targets did so in order to spread those already going to happen R&D costs out over more product. The others are probably hoping that they will be able to dump obsolete technology in the US, and they could still charge us for that R&D.

Separate federal and CARB car models haven't been the norm for quite some time; all the F150 engine options are 50 state. The Volt ended up with fed and CARB versions because what GM thought was going to be 50 state ended up having CO emissions spike too high on start up during the official test. Even then, the Volt met CARB, just not the emission bin needed to qualify for state incentives. This is because 3 CARB states are in the top five of most populous states.

None of the CARB states were forced into joining up by California, and they would likely be pushing for tougher emission standards on their own without CARB.

 

i'm fine with California forcing any issues that help cleaning up the environment, and i'm fine with other states following along if they perceive it to be the best thing for them.

and i'm fine with future administrations promoting all of that, but i'm not fine with the current administrations roll back of public health solutions.

 

Recently some States have increased registration fees for EVs far above any reasonable rate for lost gasoline tax loss. Two can play that game and CARB could levy an asthma and global warming fee. Tie the CARB value to the most regressive EV tax and the problem is solved ... label by abusive State name.

Bob Wilson

 

Republicans have historically been States rights leaning and folks like Nixon (CA representative/senator/US president) and Reagan (CA governor/US president) were important players in getting CARB where it is today. Until the falling away of recent years, the party of Theodore Roosevelt had a strong environmental heritage.

 

sad. how far we have come. not.

i prefer clean water, air, soil, food, and etc. republicans are offering me death, disease and heartache.

oops, well,theis had to go fhopol sooner or later.

 

OVERSIGHT: California Governor Gavin Newsom stuns environmental advocates by vetoing a bill that would have made it easier for state regulators to counter the Trump administration’s rollback of clean air and endangered species regulations. (Associated Press)

OK fellow eco advocates, not sure what this means but I take it Gov Newsom agrees a little with my points above.

 

It's hard to know what's really going on behind that headline. No doubt there are nuances in the legislation that only those close to the situation know intimately.

 

Did your points involve water useage in California?

"Many of the labor and environmental provisions were not controversial. But debate over the legislation quickly centered on one of California’s oldest and most bitter divides — the fight over water in the delta, which provides water for more than 25 million people and millions of acres of Central Valley farmland.

Numerous water agencies, including the influential Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, feared the endangered species provisions and delta pumping restrictions would limit their water supply at key times of the year.

The Newsom administration shared some of those concerns, as did U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and four Central Valley Democrats in Congress who submitted a letter last week requesting the bill be amended."
California lawmakers defy Newsom, block Trump on environment - Los Angeles Times

"This veto comes after a massive and furious lobbying effort against SB 1 by agricultural water districts and wealthy farming interests who were determined to kill this bill because it sought to require that the federal Central Valley Project comply with the California Endangered Species Act.
....

SB 1’s provision regarding the application of the California Endangered Species Act to the federal Central Valley Project is consistent with the state’s position for decades. But recipients of this water opposed the legislation, arguing that it would derail the ongoing Bay-Delta voluntary agreements process.

In short, they threatened to walk out of this collaborative process unless Gov. Newsom vetoed the bill. Gov. Newsom, believing that these voluntary agreements are close to being completed, sided with the SB 1 opponents."
Commentary: Newsom's veto of Senate Bill 1 puts environment at risk

 

No but I am shooting from the hip here on this thread anways. We were just looking the low water levels in Hoover Dam a few weeks back

 

sounds like a typical political over reach, adding things to a bill that should stand alone

 

It sounded more like groups that were hoping to benefit from Trump's roll back of regulations threatened to walk away from negotiations over a related matter if the law had been signed.

 

Really ?? Honestly ????
What's the opposite of "progress"........Congress.

 

Buried in that article is this little tidbit:

Methinks the Trump administration is throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks.

 

Source: CARB to block DMV registration of pre-2011 trucks starting 2020

Carriers domiciled in California with trucks older than 2011 model, or using engines manufactured before 2010, will need to meet the Board’s new Truck and Bus Regulation beginning in 2020 or their vehicles will be blocked from registration with the state’s DMV, the state has said.

The new “health-based requirements” will need to be met before a driver is allowed to register his or her truck through the Department of Motor Vehicles, CARB says. A new enforcement tool used by the DMV beginning in 2020 will automatically block 2010 and older trucks from registration.

For older vehicles, CARB says they must be either replaced with a 2011 or newer vehicle or repowered with a 2010 or newer engine.
. . . ​

Source_2: Sacramento’s dismantling of trucking in California – Daily News

Gov. Gavin Newsom just signed three bills into law that further tighten the state’s grip on the industry’s throat. As always, large companies will be better able to absorb the fees, regulatory costs and compliance burdens than small companies, which could be forced out of business.

Senate Bill 210 creates a new emissions inspection program for trucks. The law requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to establish a Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program for trucks and other heavy vehicles. CARB will also create licensing standards for the inspection and repair shops, as well as a new compliance certificate that drivers will be required to keep with the vehicle. New fees will be deposited into the new Truck Emissions Check Fund.​

California air regulators have already mandated that the trucking industry convert to cleaner engines. The 2008 Statewide Truck and Bus Rule required all heavy-duty trucks to have new or retrofitted engines as a condition of operating on California roads. This enormous compliance expense earned the industry only the slightest nod from Sacramento lawmakers. “SB 210 acknowledges the investments made by the trucking industry to upgrade truck fleets,” a Senate analysis of the bill noted, before claiming that the bill “leverages this investment to create improved time and cost efficient compliance measures.”​

Bob Wilson

 

If that's the case he's pulled it from the Democrats very own playbook.