Jump to content

Trump to bar California from setting vehicle emissions rules, say sources


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, msm859 said:

 Make the formula such that the companies that have agreed with California i.e Ford would not pay.  Make the tax prohibitive say $10,000 on  every truck and suv from a non complying company i.e GM and see what happens.

 

 

But thats the problem-your back to California setting policy for the rest  of the country-the United States isn't supposed to work that way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tbone said:

 

Great idea, tax all the people who don’t think like you, because that is what you are suggesting. That affects everyone across the political spectrum. 

Climate change affects everyone across the world.  And it is not just California  - or me - it is the rest of the world who thinks the same way.  There is only one political party in the world - the GOP - who deny climate change.  I am not suggesting to tax all the people who don't think like me.   I am suggesting that the overwhelming majority of Californians would want this tax  - which would only apply in California.  GM can sell all the inferior cars they want in other states - just not California and the rest of the world.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, msm859 said:

Climate change affects everyone across the world.  And it is not just California  - or me - it is the rest of the world who thinks the same way.  There is only one political party in the world - the GOP - who deny climate change.  I am not suggesting to tax all the people who don't think like me.   I am suggesting that the overwhelming majority of Californians would want this tax  - which would only apply in California.  GM can sell all the inferior cars they want in other states - just not California and the rest of the world.

 

The vehicles Californians are buying and the amount of miles they're driving them would suggest you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, msm859 said:

Climate change affects everyone across the world.  And it is not just California  - or me - it is the rest of the world who thinks the same way. 

 

And as bzcat explained, CARB and EPA worked to harmonize emissions regulations so there would effectively be a "50 state" standard. The part that's different is that California plus 9 of the other Section 177 states have ZEV mandates. The other 40 states do not.

 

bzcat - please correct me if I'm wrong about the ZEV mandate part, thank you in advance sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, msm859 said:

Climate change affects everyone across the world.  And it is not just California  - or me - it is the rest of the world who thinks the same way.  There is only one political party in the world - the GOP - who deny climate change.  I am not suggesting to tax all the people who don't think like me.   I am suggesting that the overwhelming majority of Californians would want this tax  - which would only apply in California.  GM can sell all the inferior cars they want in other states - just not California and the rest of the world.

 

The problem is first it was "global warming" and now to fit additional narratives, it's "climate change."  I'm in the camp of I think it is both a cyclical global thing AND that we're having an affect on things.  I don't have a problem with instituting better climate-friendly/lower pollution policies, but don't do it to the point where you have to chop off your leg because of a mosquito bite.  When you have people that propose concepts such as outlawing flying completely and not allowing people to eat meat because of cow farts - delusional and absurd ideas - how do you expect most people to react?

 

As has been pointed out, the biggest world polluters aren't doing anything to lessen their impact, so we and other countries revert to draconian measures to cause a blip on the radar vs. what improving them would do.  And I realize that's a bigger issue than just states.

 

Reverting back to your comment, you think if California instituted a tax like that that the other states that follow California's policies wouldn't introduce the same tax?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

The problem is first it was "global warming" and now to fit additional narratives, it's "climate change."  I'm in the camp of I think it is both a cyclical global thing AND that we're having an affect on things.  I don't have a problem with instituting better climate-friendly/lower pollution policies, but don't do it to the point where you have to chop off your leg because of a mosquito bite.  When you have people that propose concepts such as outlawing flying completely and not allowing people to eat meat because of cow farts - delusional and absurd ideas - how do you expect most people to react?

 

As has been pointed out, the biggest world polluters aren't doing anything to lessen their impact, so we and other countries revert to draconian measures to cause a blip on the radar vs. what improving them would do.  And I realize that's a bigger issue than just states.

 

Bingo!  Look at how much of a difference latitude makes in climate.   I'm in Atlanta - go 200 miles North and I bet the avg temp is more than 1 or 2 degrees colder.  That's only a few degrees change in the sun angle.

 

Also - if the problem is CO2 then deforestation (both in huge areas like South America and subdivision by subdivision across the US) and urban expansion (creating more heat islands) has got to play a significant role.   And if that's the case then one of the first solutions should be RE-forestation.  But reforestation doesn't fit anybody's agenda, does it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

Bingo!  Look at how much of a difference latitude makes in climate.   I'm in Atlanta - go 200 miles North and I bet the avg temp is more than 1 or 2 degrees colder.  That's only a few degrees change in the sun angle.

 

Also - if the problem is CO2 then deforestation (both in huge areas like South America and subdivision by subdivision across the US) and urban expansion (creating more heat islands) has got to play a significant role.   And if that's the case then one of the first solutions should be RE-forestation.  But reforestation doesn't fit anybody's agenda, does it?

 

I 100% agree with the deforestation thing.  Add more trees/plants.  They'll "eat" the CO2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, akirby said:

 But reforestation doesn't fit anybody's agenda, does it?

 

Sure it does. There are many reforestation and tree planting programs all around the world. Here in the DFW Metroplex, lots of businesses big and small, from AT&T to my family's own landscaping business, participate in "Tree Tender", volunteering money, time, and equipment for the TXU Energy Urban Tree Farm and Education Center.

 

20190417_124703.jpg

 

These reforestation programs, important as they are, do not diminish the need for vehicle emissions regulations including ZEV mandates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Auto manufacturers, including Ford, have stated many times that they as long as the fuel/emission standards apply to everyone they can meet the standards.    And its not California setting the standard for the rest of the Country or even the group of states representing 40% of the car sales.    Auto manufacturers are free to sell different versions of their cars.   But they negotiated a deal on auto efficiency that they can live with and at the same time it moves the needle forward on efficiency, which is a good thing!     

 

Trump's claim that it brings in the new fleet quicker is short sighted.   Ultimately the fleet is going to turn over - but the true, long term fix is advancing the technology to provide alternative propulsion systems for our cars and Trucks.     And continually raising the efficiency - MPG/Emission - standards in a manner that the auto industry can live with is the way to do it.   Granted slashing regulations will likely provide a short boost in economic activity - but isn't his record deficit spending enough to accomplish that.     The Administration after Trump is going to be facing a huge challenge when the next recession hits - with interest rates already being pushed down and record deficit spending happening during the growth cycle, what tools will be available to stimulate the economy when it needs to be stimulated? 

 

Trump's administration on this is being guided by a mix of interests  such as support from the fossil fuel industry,  pandering to those that don't believe increasing CO2 concentrations or other pollutants in the air is a problem, and perhaps those that want cars to be made solely from steel and as body on frame with carburetors.      I mean we are letting a man who believes the reason he looks orange is not because of his make up but because of LED lightbulbs and that Windmills are folly because when the wind stops blowing the emergency rooms at hospitals will not have power!      And now his people want to "make washing machines great again"         

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Sure it does. There are many reforestation and tree planting programs all around the world. Here in the DFW Metroplex, lots of businesses big and small, from AT&T to my family's own landscaping business, participate in "Tree Tender", volunteering money, time, and equipment for the TXU Energy Urban Tree Farm and Education Center.

These reforestation programs, important as they are, do not diminish the need for vehicle emissions regulations including ZEV mandates.

 

The point is if it's that important then these climate change alarmists should be touting the benefits and pushing for a lot more than what is currently being done instead of trying to ban ICE vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish they would have left motorcycles out of this political epa stuff...we are not contributing much of anything if at all the there smog problem....its nothing but a power grab on there part....we get 60mpg and yet they want to choke them down...really do we need a charcoal canister on something that gives the epa everything they have ever wanted...great mpg and low emissions...i guess the epa hates harley riders and any biker too

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, akirby said:

 

 climate change alarmists

.

 

 "climate change alarmists" always love labels like that it, it speaks volumes.   Problem is those who throw this term around apparently  are referring to the vast majority of the scientific community that believes global warming is happening and humans are contributing to it?    But hey, I'm sure some of those folks have uncles that were scientists so their superior knowledge of Earth Sciences is baked into their  blood which sure beats disciplined analysis based on proven scientific principles. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

...  I don't have a problem with instituting better climate-friendly/lower pollution policies, but don't do it to the point where you have to chop off your leg because of a mosquito bite.  When you have people that propose concepts such as outlawing flying completely and not allowing people to eat meat because of cow farts - delusional and absurd ideas - 

 

I've heard of people that want to outlaw flying because air travel proportionally contributes a  good amount of pollution per person served,  same thing with meat eating.  But I've yet to hear of any serious proposal to institute legislation limiting air travel or meat eating.    That's a pretty far out there idea that as they say is going no where fast. 

 

Per https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

on a per capita basis only Saudi Arabia and Australia contribute more .   And on a total Carbon Dioxide basis only China contributes more.   So as one of the leading contributors and as leader of the Free World - what we do has a huge and important impact. 

Edited by Fordowner
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Fordowner said:

 

 "climate change alarmists" always love labels like that it, it speaks volumes.   Problem is those who throw this term around apparently  are referring to the vast majority of the scientific community that believes global warming is happening and humans are contributing to it?    But hey, I'm sure some of those folks have uncles that were scientists so their superior knowledge of Earth Sciences is baked into their  blood which sure beats disciplined analysis based on proven scientific principles. 

 

 

Alarmists refers to people who exaggerate the potential effects of climate change and say the world is going to end in the next 10 years if we don’t do something drastic.

 

The problem with scientific theories is that you can’t model the Earth’s climate nor can you accurately reproduce it in a lab.  It’s too big and too complicated.

 

We should absolutely do reasonable things to reduce CO2 but that includes things like reforestation and not just banning ICEs.  PHEVs would provide 75% or more of the fuel savings compared to BEVs with none of the problems but that doesn’t fit the agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Fordowner said:

 

 "climate change alarmists" always love labels like that it, it speaks volumes.   Problem is those who throw this term around apparently  are referring to the vast majority of the scientific community that believes global warming is happening and humans are contributing to it?    But hey, I'm sure some of those folks have uncles that were scientists so their superior knowledge of Earth Sciences is baked into their  blood which sure beats disciplined analysis based on proven scientific principles. 

 

 

My statement above is not well said.   I  should have said I agree that those who want to ban Internal Combustion Engines (ICE) probably fall under the no planes and no meat category - but again that's not on the table.  we are talking about CAFE standards to provide benchmarks or incentives to industry to improve efficiency.     And I think the science that vast majority of scientists (not funded by the Oil Industry) support says global warming/climate change is happening and man is contributing to it.    Government officials who say otherwise are ill advised or worse. 

Edited by Fordowner
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fordowner said:

 

My statement above is not well said.   I  should have said I agree that those who want to ban Internal Combustion Engines (ICE) probably fall under the no planes and no meat category - but again that's not on the table.  we are talking about CAFE standards to provide benchmarks or incentives to industry to improve efficiency.     And I think the science that vast majority of scientists (not funded by the Oil Industry) support says global warming/climate change is happening and man is contributing to it.    Government officials who say otherwise are ill advised or worse. 

 

There is no proof that the vast majority of “scientists” believe that man is contributing to climate change. The climate has always been and will always be changing. The only constant is change. Your funded by the oil industry comment is comical as we are bombarded daily by “scientific”studies with pre-ordained results paid for by the green movement and governments. They far exceed anything put out by the oil industry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trader 10 said:

 

There is no proof that the vast majority of “scientists” believe that man is contributing to climate change. The climate has always been and will always be changing. The only constant is change. Your funded by the oil industry comment is comical as we are bombarded daily by “scientific”studies with pre-ordained results paid for by the green movement and governments. They far exceed anything put out by the oil industry. 

 

Yes there is.  https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one interesting thing about this (as brought up by my Father in Law who teaches earth science at a high school and College level) is that we might have done damage already to the environment 20-30 years ago that we don't know about that irreversible, so we might be in a situation that even if we do this, we aren't going to "change" it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

The problem is first it was "global warming" and now to fit additional narratives, it's "climate change."  I'm in the camp of I think it is both a cyclical global thing AND that we're having an affect on things.  I don't have a problem with instituting better climate-friendly/lower pollution policies, but don't do it to the point where you have to chop off your leg because of a mosquito bite.  When you have people that propose concepts such as outlawing flying completely and not allowing people to eat meat because of cow farts - delusional and absurd ideas - how do you expect most people to react?

 

As has been pointed out, the biggest world polluters aren't doing anything to lessen their impact, so we and other countries revert to draconian measures to cause a blip on the radar vs. what improving them would do.  And I realize that's a bigger issue than just states.

 

Reverting back to your comment, you think if California instituted a tax like that that the other states that follow California's policies wouldn't introduce the same tax?

 

First, it was "global cooling." 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

Nearly half of the U.S. states, District of Columbia, and 3 U.S. cities petitioned the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today. They are seeking to declare the Trump EPA action unlawful. Petition is attached.

 

Let the court battles begin!

092019_California_v_Chao_complaint.pdf

Thanks for the link.  Pretty solid Complaint.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

The one interesting thing about this (as brought up by my Father in Law who teaches earth science at a high school and College level) is that we might have done damage already to the environment 20-30 years ago that we don't know about that irreversible, so we might be in a situation that even if we do this, we aren't going to "change" it. 

 

A lot of "mights" in there.  Ronald Reagan did not believe we were burning a hole in the ozone layer with fluorocarbons.  But he banned them anyways - saying it was cheap insurance in case he was wrong.  The cost of being wrong on this is catastrophic.  The costs of being wrong if it is not true but still acting is de minimis and actually still a lot of good things - cleaner air, water, land and not sending billions to the Middle East to fund terrorists to attack us.  How much American blood have we spilled and gold taken from the treasury protecting oil in the Middle East?

Edited by msm859
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...