California Upholds Auto Emissions Standards, Setting Up Face-Off With Trump

[fskimospy]

Then directly subsidize cars that are smaller and have lower displacement engines. CAFE is just a really ass-backwards means of achieving your stated policy goal. Plus it's not doing a damn thing to change consumer behavior. Having Congress decree a technologically unfeasible MPG standard won't make someone buy a Honda Fit rather than V8 Camaro. CAFE leads to rednecks building "coal rollers," giving them taxpayer incentives to buy small cars means they'll consider a 1.8L small sedan for reasons of economics.

Want to provide any empirical analysis that says CAFE standards have no effect?

 

[glenn1]

Want to provide any empirical analysis that says CAFE standards have no effect?

If CAFE were repealed would it have any impact on consumer behavior? If you want to continue CAFE then just admit you care more about subsidizing Teslas for the rich than fuel efficient cars for the poors.

 

[woolfe9998]

Want to provide any empirical analysis that says CAFE standards have no effect?

I don't know about what he's arguing, but some people say that higher fuel efficiency in cars causes people to drive them more. Average miles driven per person has certainly gone way up since the 1970's when CAFE standards were first introduced, though correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.

In any event, from what I've read, at least some people who strongly support reducing emissions favor a gas tax over increasing fuel efficiency because of that. However, a gas tax is obviously a harder sell politically.

 

[fskimospy]

If CAFE were repealed would it have any impact on consumer behavior? If you want to continue CAFE then just admit you care more about subsidizing Teslas for the rich than fuel efficient cars for the poors.

So is that a no?

 

[glenn1]

So is that a no?

It's not like it will change your mind anyway. Your side seems to like simplistic solutions to problems rather than addressing root causes. CAFE is the functional equivalent of trying to improve consumer nutritional choices by banning Happy Meals.

https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2005/05/cafe.pdf

 

[SNC]

Then directly subsidize cars that are smaller and have lower displacement engines. CAFE is just a really ass-backwards means of achieving your stated policy goal. Plus it's not doing a damn thing to change consumer behavior. Having Congress decree a technologically unfeasible MPG standard won't make someone buy a Honda Fit rather than V8 Camaro. CAFE leads to rednecks building "coal rollers," giving them taxpayer incentives to buy small cars means they'll consider a 1.8L small sedan for reasons of economics.

So you're advocating for more government control in private lives? A car driven 125,000 miles at 15 MPG will use 8,333 gallons of gas, at 20 MPG it will use 6,250, at $3 per that's a savings of $6249 over that 125,000 miles. If you bump that up to 28 MPG its a savings over 15 of $11,607 That is money that is directly put back into the economy. As for not making someone buy a fit over a V8 anything, that's a horrible example. I would love to here the reasons behind CAFE being the cause of rednecks building coal rollers?

 

[SNC]

It's not like it will change your mind anyway. Your side seems to like simplistic solutions to problems rather than addressing root causes. CAFE is the functional equivalent of trying to improve consumer nutritional choices by banning Happy Meals.

https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2005/05/cafe.pdf

So what is the root cause of the problem as you see it?

 

[fskimospy]

It's not like it will change your mind anyway. Your side seems to like simplistic solutions to problems rather than addressing root causes. CAFE is the functional equivalent of trying to improve consumer nutritional choices by banning Happy Meals.

https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2005/05/cafe.pdf

No, 'my side' just likes solutions that are empirically shown to be effective. You would be amazed how much your thinking would change if you based your opinions in reality as opposed to whatever you're currently enraged by.

 

[glenn1]

No, 'my side' just likes solutions that are empirically shown to be effective. You would be amazed how much your thinking would change if you based your opinions in reality as opposed to whatever you're currently enraged by.

You are obviously feel free to believe what you wish about CAFE. To think it's the sole or even primary reason for increases in fuel efficiency over the decades is somewhat wishful thinking but harmless. As I said before you could achieve better results with fewer unintended consequences if you simply subsidized small engine cars directly instead of the roundabout Rube Goldberg way that CAFE represents. If you're going to give government subsidies I'd rather they not go indirectly to rich people buying $80k Teslas.

 

[IGBT]

In a world wide market..manufactures won't bother to build for goofy California. And that's what the eco-KOOKS want anyway. Everybody walking or riding a bike...like North Korea.

 

[agent00f]

You are obviously feel free to believe what you wish about CAFE. To think it's the sole or even primary reason for increases in fuel efficiency over the decades is somewhat wishful thinking but harmless. As I said before you could achieve better results with fewer unintended consequences if you simply subsidized small engine cars directly instead of the roundabout Rube Goldberg way that CAFE represents. If you're going to give government subsidies I'd rather they not go indirectly to rich people buying $80k Teslas.

Let's not pretend your sorts ever care about "solutions"; tradable credits are the "market" approach implemented to appease degenerates in lieu of straight regs, and your posts are a pretty good exhibit of the degeneracy to expect in turn.

 

[SNC]

You are obviously feel free to believe what you wish about CAFE. To think it's the sole or even primary reason for increases in fuel efficiency over the decades is somewhat wishful thinking but harmless. As I said before you could achieve better results with fewer unintended consequences if you simply subsidized small engine cars directly instead of the roundabout Rube Goldberg way that CAFE represents. If you're going to give government subsidies I'd rather they not go indirectly to rich people buying $80k Teslas.

So you think that without CAFE the 2.5 4 in my outback would move this barge around with ease and still get 27-18 around town?

 

[glenn1]

So you think that without CAFE the 2.5 4 in my outback would move this barge around with ease and still get 27-18 around town?

Yes, probably. I don't see why the auto industry is some outlier that would only adopt technological change if forced to by the government. In pretty much every other field advances in speed, energy consumption, efficiency, et cetera are adopted routinely via the competitive demands of the marketplace. Your laptop runs faster than it did 20 years ago absent laws, your mobile phone has better battery life, you get the point. If you can think of some reason the auto industry would have not adopted front-wheel drive, fuel injection, unibody construction, computer controls, and and most of the other advances that have allowed fuel savings since the 1970s unless CAFE was in force? And it's not like the advances that will save even more fuel in the future (like self-driving cars) are being driven by CAFE either.

 

[SNC]

Yes, probably. I don't see why the auto industry is some outlier that would only adopt technological change if forced to by the government. In pretty much every other field advances in speed, energy consumption, efficiency, et cetera are adopted routinely via the competitive demands of the marketplace. Your laptop runs faster than it did 20 years ago absent laws, your mobile phone has better battery life, you get the point. If you can think of some reason the auto industry would have not adopted front-wheel drive, fuel injection, unibody construction, computer controls, and and most of the other advances that have allowed fuel savings since the 1970s unless CAFE was in force? And it's not like the advances that will save even more fuel in the future (like self-driving cars) are being driven by CAFE either.

So the reason what these "advances" were not done before the 70's is? Not sure if you're into older cars but there is a reason the 70s were the death of the true muscle cars. There was no way to produce that much power and still get a decent MPG. It's a cakewalk to get 400 horse out of a small block if you don't care about MPG. It was because of CAFE that automakers were forced to figure out how to get 400 horse and 20+ mpg.

 

[glenn1]

So the reason what these "advances" were not done before the 70's is? Not sure if you're into older cars but there is a reason the 70s were the death of the true muscle cars. There was no way to produce that much power and still get a decent MPG. It's a cakewalk to get 400 horse out of a small block if you don't care about MPG. It was because of CAFE that automakers were forced to figure out how to get 400 horse and 20+ mpg.

Maybe because the technology to implement them didn't exist yet? And I think engineering and physics advances enabled that 400HP/20MPG combo just like it enabled mobile phones to have orders of magnitude more processing power than "supercomputers" from the 1960s despite lack of a CAFE type legislative mandate.

 

[SNC]

Maybe because the technology to implement them didn't exist yet? And I think engineering and physics advances enabled that 400HP/20MPG combo just like it enabled mobile phones to have orders of magnitude more processing power than "supercomputers" from the 1960s despite lack of a CAFE type legislative mandate.

You're right, I don't know what I was thinking. We should go back to 6mpg cars with no emissions controls. Let freedom ring mutherfucker, LET HER RING!!! (I'm not sure if that's the correct wording, my redneck parlance is not up to snuff)

 

[WelshBloke]

rather than make cheap but shitty cars until Trump is over.

Ah. So Trump wants his own "people's car" then?

 

[glenn1]

You're right, I don't know what I was thinking. We should go back to 6mpg cars with no emissions controls. Let freedom ring mutherfucker, LET HER RING!!! (I'm not sure if that's the correct wording, my redneck parlance is not up to snuff)

Yeah quick you better pass another law like CAFE else we'll all be forced to give up our Snapdragon 835 smartphones and go back to using Intel 8080 processors. Or worse yet pass a law outlawing disco else we'll all be forced to listen to the Bee Gees also.

 

[cbrunny]

Maybe because the technology to implement them didn't exist yet? And I think engineering and physics advances enabled that 400HP/20MPG combo just like it enabled mobile phones to have orders of magnitude more processing power than "supercomputers" from the 1960s despite lack of a CAFE type legislative mandate.

oh man. I agree completely. Having goals and targets is the worst. Why we'd ever want to advance is beyond me. #MAGA

 

[glenn1]

oh man. I agree completely. Having goals and targets is the worst. Why we'd ever want to advance is beyond me. #MAGA

If your goal was to pass CAFE as a means of driving light truck/SUV sales from less than 10% of the market in 1978 to almost half now then you've admirably succeeded.

 

[agent00f]

Maybe because the technology to implement them didn't exist yet? And I think engineering and physics advances enabled that 400HP/20MPG combo just like it enabled mobile phones to have orders of magnitude more processing power than "supercomputers" from the 1960s despite lack of a CAFE type legislative mandate.

The tech was literally created due to CAFE & such, which is evident enough to anyone familiar with the subject.