California, 17 other states, sue over proposed EPA changes to fuel efficiency

[K1052]

You don't enjoy his FYGM concern trolling?

It's as boring as it is predictable.

 

[Commodus]

The U.S. has already exported most of our emissions to China. We’re now arguing over whether cars should be a good enjoyed by all or tuned into exotic transport only enjoyed by the wealthy like Gulfstream Jets. Because the poors sure as hell aren’t affording electric cars, and families aren’t driving Smart for 2 cars.

Don't create a false dichotomy, please. Electric cars are the future; they're becoming more affordable, and most major automakers are planning to electrify large parts of their lineups in the next 2-3 years. If/when autonomous cars hit the mainstream, the actual need for any personal car will go down since you'll have access to ride hailing around the clock. So it could actually be cheaper for lower-income people even if car prices don't drop (which they will), since they won't have to buy and maintain a car they may only need for the daily commute.

Besides, you do realize that China is aggressively pursuing EVs, renewable energy and pollution reduction, right? Ironically it's more progressive than the corrupt EPA under Pruitt, since it acknowledges the scientific reality of climate change and is working on more eco-friendly rules and policies, rather than trying to turn back the clock like Pruitt is.

And there's a certain irony to your bringing up the Smart Fortwo... that car is electric-only in the US.

 

[Thebobo]

Not to mention there are electric only aircraft for sale now and many aerospace companies are working on bigger business electrics. There have been electric motor gliders for years. Electrics are the future.

 

[piasabird]

How are these EPA fuel MPG cafe rates suppose to be implemented if they keep selling 4 door trucks and giant SUV's?

Tax the hell out of SUV's like they do cigarettes.

 

[Commodus]

How are these EPA fuel MPG cafe rates suppose to be implemented if they keep selling 4 door trucks and giant SUV's?

Tax the hell out of SUV's like they do cigarettes.

Definitely won't happen as long as Trump and Pruitt are in charge. And technically, Obama's approach does in a way -- those average fleet MPG requirements make it difficult to sell a 12MPG SUV.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

How are these EPA fuel MPG cafe rates suppose to be implemented if they keep selling 4 door trucks and giant SUV's?

Tax the hell out of SUV's like they do cigarettes.

Flip 'em to electric and they can sell as many microbuses as they want.

Plus, what Commodus said... They can have those guzzlers as long as they've got some green lineups pushing the MPG upward. It's not as ideal as mandating a minimum for all vehicles but it's a real-world compromise.

 

[Victorian Gray]

they've been doing it for decades, much to your benefit as a consumer and to their benefit with greater efficiency, you drooling imbecile.

Why do you just make up blatantly stupid shit that is so obviously counter to known history?

Because he's trolling you (and everyone else).

 

[dainthomas]

Definitely won't happen as long as Trump and Pruitt are in charge. And technically, Obama's approach does in a way -- those average fleet MPG requirements make it difficult to sell a 12MPG SUV.

One of the reasons we don't see those V10 Excursions any more. Plus no one bought them.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Don't create a false dichotomy, please. Electric cars are the future; they're becoming more affordable, and most major automakers are planning to electrify large parts of their lineups in the next 2-3 years. If/when autonomous cars hit the mainstream, the actual need for any personal car will go down since you'll have access to ride hailing around the clock. So it could actually be cheaper for lower-income people even if car prices don't drop (which they will), since they won't have to buy and maintain a car they may only need for the daily commute.

Besides, you do realize that China is aggressively pursuing EVs, renewable energy and pollution reduction, right? Ironically it's more progressive than the corrupt EPA under Pruitt, since it acknowledges the scientific reality of climate change and is working on more eco-friendly rules and policies, rather than trying to turn back the clock like Pruitt is.

And there's a certain irony to your bringing up the Smart Fortwo... that car is electric-only in the US.

Electric cars are *part* of the future, but they have a long way to go to replace all vehicles in the lineup. Hybrids are a more practical solution at this point. Fully electric cars simply lack the range and recharging infrastructure to be a solution for long trip driving.

 

[Commodus]

Electric cars are *part* of the future, but they have a long way to go to replace all vehicles in the lineup. Hybrids are a more practical solution at this point. Fully electric cars simply lack the range and recharging infrastructure to be a solution for long trip driving.

Oh, for sure. It's just that a lot of people think mainstream EV adoption is some distant prospect when the cars, the range and the charging stations are a few years off. It feels we're going to wake up one day and decide that of course we're going to get EVs, because it'll have quietly crossed an acceptance threshold.

 

[Jhhnn]

Electric cars are *part* of the future, but they have a long way to go to replace all vehicles in the lineup. Hybrids are a more practical solution at this point. Fully electric cars simply lack the range and recharging infrastructure to be a solution for long trip driving.

They won't work well for people who don't have off street parking, either.

I don't think this business with Pruitt & the EPA is about the car makers but rather more about big oil. That's what Pruitt is all about, anyway, going for the big money after the Trump admin. With the Obama era regs in place, it's estimated that they'll sell less gas in 2025 than today. They want to sell more, not less & depend on Pruitt & the SUV buying public to make it that way.

 

[zerocool84]

President Trump on Friday is expected to meet with the chief executives of the world’s major automakers to deliver a pointed message: Get on board with the administration’s plan to dramatically roll back fuel economy requirements, according to interviews with four people close to the administration’s thinking.

However, this past Tuesday in House testimony, Mitch Bainwol, the auto industry’s top lobbyist, suggested that the automakers have a different message: They are continuing to urge the Trump administration, he said, “to find a solution that continues to increase fuel efficiency standards.”

That sets up an awkward meeting with Mr. Trump. It is a tricky situation of the carmakers’ own making.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/09/climate/automakers-fuel-economy-trump.html

So because they are scared to piss off California, automakers are wanting to compromise now.

 

[Paratus]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/09/climate/automakers-fuel-economy-trump.html

So because they are scared to piss off California, automakers are wanting to compromise now.

Good