They can give it a shot I guess. Really though the last thing CA needs is more/larger highways. Pour state money into transit instead.
Maintenance is crucial for both highways & transit. Putting it off just costs more in the end.
They can give it a shot I guess. Really though the last thing CA needs is more/larger highways. Pour state money into transit instead.
Maintenance is crucial for both highways & transit. Putting it off just costs more in the end.
Trump administration issues final rule on lower fuel-economy increases
Next up, a protracted legal fight with automakers, states split
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday completed a rollback of vehicle emissions standards adopted under his predecessor Barack Obama and will require 1.5% annual increases in efficiency through 2026 - far weaker than the 5% increases in the discarded rules.
The announcement — condemned by Democrats and environmentalists while being lauded by big business — sets up a legal battle, with California and 22 other states planning to challenge the rewrite of what had been one of most ambitious U.S. policies aimed at combating climate change.
The Trump administration called the move its largest single deregulatory action and said it would will save automakers upwards of $100 billion in compliance costs. The policy reversal marks the latest step by Trump, a Republican, to erase environmental policies pursued by Obama, a Democrat.
James Owens, acting head of the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said the plan "strikes the right balance between environmental considerations, health and safety considerations and economic considerations."
Volvo working with California on more stringent emissions standards
It'll join Ford, BWM, Honda, VW in siding with states, not the EPA
WASHINGTON — Swedish automaker Volvo Cars confirmed Tuesday it is in talks with California to reach a voluntary emissions agreement.
Mary Nichols, who heads the California Air Resources Board, disclosed earlier Volvo planned to join Ford Motor Co, Honda Motor Co, BMW AG and Volkswagen AG. In July, the four struck an agreement with California to adopt emissions requirements that were more stringent than the Trump administration rewrite but looser than the Obama-era federal rules. Fourteen other states and the District of Columbia follow the California standards.
Volvo, whose parent is Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, said a deal with California "will serve as a national path forward."
The news came on the same day the administration announced its final rule, which would increase fuel economy by 1.5% per year.
I agree. And interestingly enough, it’s exactly the thinking you think others are thinking, your own 4 year old projection of what a progressive is. Maybe you will learn better when you grow up or should I say if you do.Maybe your paycheck needs to take a backseat to the environment and we should just confiscate it.
Sorry but this stupid progressive thinking that believes rich people and corporations just spend all day swimming in vats of gold like Scrooge McDuck and can easily afford whatever policy idea you have just by "buying one less yacht" is the thinking of a 4 year old. If you want to achieve some policy goal, then have taxpayers fund it and don't expect private companies to lose money and put themselves out of business for you. If you want people to drive electric cars instead of gas powered SUVs, have the government pay the automakers to produce them and give them away.
What’s funny is his argument is ‘this is inefficient/this costs too much money’ when the overall rule by Obama was projected to save money.I agree. And interestingly enough, it’s exactly the thinking you think others are thinking, your own 4 year old projection of what a progressive is. Maybe you will learn better when you grow up or should I say if you do.
What I see when you two debate is a deeply sophisticated command of real world data going up against an ideologically rationalized, unexamined religious-like belief. I deeply admire the sophistication you bring to this forum.What’s funny is his argument is ‘this is inefficient/this costs too much money’ when the overall rule by Obama was projected to save money.
Glenn wants the world to be less efficient so that the libruls are wrong. Oops!
Thanks! I think it comes back to the problem that people like glenn still view air pollution as ‘free’. Companies never had to pay for it before, so they don’t understand what’s happening now isn’t that companies are getting new costs levied on them, they are just no longer allowed to shorten our lives for free.What I see when you two debate is a deeply sophisticated command of real world data going up against an ideologically rationalized, unexamined religious-like belief. I deeply admire the sophistication you bring to this forum.
Such understanding is predicated on a desire for real understanding, an openness to facts as they accumulate from the objective study of data, science based information rather than the mastery of rationalizations that defend ideological opinions, or so is my opinion. It is that difference in mind set that separates conservative from liberal, in my opinion, and the data on brain differences in amygdala and cingulate seem to support that theory. It seems to me that the root of defensiveness is fear and the fear of the loss of ideological orientation strikes me as the fear of the loss of the sacred, which, in turn, is the result of the inculcated threat we faced as children that we would only be loved if we conformed to this or that ‘sacred belief’.Thanks! I think it comes back to the problem that people like glenn still view air pollution as ‘free’. Companies never had to pay for it before, so they don’t understand what’s happening now isn’t that companies are getting new costs levied on them, they are just no longer allowed to shorten our lives for free.
I doubt any car companies are going to make design decisions based on these regs. Using the previous regs makes sense from a certainty perspective plus they are more closely aligned to the global market.The overwhelming consensus is that these new regs are doomed in court and could be moot anyway presuming the admin doesn’t survive the election.
I doubt any car companies are going to make design decisions based on these regs. Using the previous regs makes sense from a certainty perspective plus they are more closely aligned to the global market.
Perhaps money is so important to business people that despite whatever greed and amorality motivates its acquisition, rational thinking is used to maximize return on investment, certainly more so than in politics.Correct. Some companies in the industry asked the Trump admin for some relatively modest relief expecting that they would negotiate with CA (and by extension the CARB following states) and arrive at a compromise. Instead the admin flipped over the table and just made a pointless mess. The automakers know California is going to outlive the Trump administration.
