Obama to allow States to restrict Emission Standards

[MikeMike]

http://www.iht.com/articles/20...26/america/26calif.php

This just makes absolutely no sense from any standpoint. Why can we not have a SINGLE emissions standard, are manufacturers going to have to make CA versions, ME versions, TX, etc? talk about just not uniting and going with what the industry needs, universal policy regarding everything.

 

[frostedflakes]

The answer is, they'd probably one car that meets the strictest requirements and then sell them everywhere.

I still don't understand the point of this, why not just implement stricter federal standards? It sounds like they plan to do this eventually, though, maybe this is just so the states can get a head start.

Thought this was kind of interesting:

In a White House announcement scheduled for Monday morning, Obama will also direct federal agencies to immediately begin work on making all government buildings more energy efficient, with an eye toward saving as much as $2 billion a year and reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for the warming of the planet.

Those would be some pretty big savings. I wonder how much all the retrofitting would cost, though.

 

[Brainonska511]

They won't make a version for each state, they'd make a version that simply complies with strictest of standards. Either way, what they are trying to do per state will be a disaster; the federal government should be the one setting the standard, at least in this case. The only reason states were pushing for it though was because the EPA was not doing anything for the past 8 years in regards to pollution control in autos.

 

[theeedude]

Standards that are fine for Montana may not be stringent enough for a highly populated state like California.
So you have an option of forcing cars sold in all states to meet standards that are strict enough for California and forcing all drivers to pay for equipment necessary to meet those standards , picking a weaker middle ground standard and forcing Californians to breathe unhealthy air, or allowing states to set standards that fit their environmental needs. Supposedly "states' rights" conservatives are of course predictably against States rights on this one.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
They won't make a version for each state, they'd make a version that simply complies with strictest of standards.

Exactly, like beer companies and alcohol content.

 

[First]

CA is a special case actually, their emission standards are rooted back in the original 70's law that passed the particulate matter requirement and, frankly, it's good for the rest of the nation as the feds will eventually react to CA (and their millions upon millions of drivers) by increasing PM standards anyway (as they have in the past). CA just wants to do it faster. But I think a particular emphasis on public transportation still needs to be emphasized.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
They won't make a version for each state, they'd make a version that simply complies with strictest of standards.

Exactly, like beer companies and alcohol content.

But wouldn't a unified federal standard need to meet the environmental needs of all states anyways?
The main difference is that this allows the states decides what their environmental needs are, instead of having someone in Washington do it for them.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Standards that are fine for Montana may not be stringent enough for a highly populated state like California.
So you have an option of forcing cars sold in all states to meet standards that are strict enough for California and forcing all drivers to pay for equipment necessary to meet those standards , picking a weaker middle ground standard and forcing Californians to breathe unhealthy air, or allowing states to set standards that fit their environmental needs. Supposedly "states' rights" conservatives are of course predictably against States rights on this one.

i've always found states rights people to be interesting on issues liek this

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
They won't make a version for each state, they'd make a version that simply complies with strictest of standards.

Exactly, like beer companies and alcohol content.

...either you're makng a funny, or you've never heard of Utah.

 

[pstylesss]

As a conservative and a federalist, I like this idea.

 

[ericlp]

I guess it makes some sense. Like California has a lot more cars then say Ohio, so they have stricter standards since more cars more pollution. Tho, in Ohio you don't even need to take your car in for a emissions test like you do in many other states. Quick get the welding torches out we don't need no catalytic converters.

 

[Mani]

This is a good thing. In the technology industry, the fact that PCBs and components are now lead- and mercury-free has a lot to do with the fact that progressive states like Vermont led the charge on requiring it. This has moved technology on an ecologically friendly path much faster than if the federal government was the only body regulating this. And though people will try to scare you by saying this will increase prices, make american companies uncompetitive yada yada - it's all bullshit. Prices have declined for PCB over the time these processes have been implemented, and since the same standard applies to everyone, it doesn't disadvantage anyone - except the companies who lack the foresight to plan for upcoming regulations.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
As a conservative and a federalist, I like this idea.

This only works if states can abolish emission standards or lower them as well.

 

[sandorski]

Obviously a response to the Bush lead Feds who refused to allow Ca to set standards. California has always been on the leading edge anyway, they seem better adapt to be setting the standard. Certainly would be better if the EPA was the sole standard setter, but you snooze you lose, as they say.

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
They won't make a version for each state, they'd make a version that simply complies with strictest of standards.

Exactly, like beer companies and alcohol content.

...either you're makng a funny, or you've never heard of Utah.

...or Oklahoma.

I think this is a good idea after the do nothing of the last 8 years.

 

[StageLeft]

Those would be some pretty big savings. I wonder how much all the retrofitting would cost, though.

A damn lot more than $2B.

 

[Craig234]

This is an excellent policy. It's not new, it's a return to before the Bush administration that sold out to polluters started asserting the federal power to deny this right to CA.

CA can work with car companies in setting the policies; in the worst case, the car companies can ismply choose not to sell to CA; in the medium case, the car makers can sell 'CA edition vehicles' that meet the standards; and in the best case, the car makers might find it more profitable to imprve the cars everywhere to meet the higher CA standards, providing an additional benefit.

Research recently showed that improved air quality has raised Americans' life spans by 5 months. In car-concentrated areas in CA, air pollution is a big deal.

People should not try to fit this into some rigid ideology about federalism for no good reason, and should not forget the basic merits of the policy involved.

This allows for cleaner air, and it's a good policy. For people who want to make some point about federalsm and condemn people to unhealthier air, they need to broaden their view.

 

[Dari]

This is actually good if you care about the environment because the biggest states are the most liberal and environmentally friendly. That means the car companies will adhere to the strictest standards and sell it everywhere. It also saves time because you won't have unimportant Senators debating something they don't understand or are in cahoots with oilmen. Everybody wins.

EDIT" Craig234 beat me to it.

 

[BoomerD]

For years, after Kahleeforneeya implemented the stricter standards in the 70's, you had Kahleeforneeya emmissions equipped cars, and 49 state cars...Nowadays, ALL new cars meet the stricter Kahleeforneeya emmission standards.
States have the option of requiring strict emmissions testing...or not requiring it at all.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
http://www.iht.com/articles/20...26/america/26calif.php

This just makes absolutely no sense from any standpoint. Why can we not have a SINGLE emissions standard, are manufacturers going to have to make CA versions, ME versions, TX, etc? talk about just not uniting and going with what the industry needs, universal policy regarding everything.

As best I can guess, it might be an attempt to lure certain industries back here.

 

[Elias824]

So what your saying is that states like Cali will fork out more money to ensure stricter guidelines for their emissions standards. Then all cars will be made to the Cali standards, so here in Utah we get better cars for free!
and yes Utah beer is lower alcohol, also you can only buy beer in grocery stores anything more has to be in a state liquor store, Also any alcohol in public has to be brown bagged, with some exceptions.
http://abc.utah.gov/Liquor_Law...ffecting_visitors.html

(edit) On second thought dosent this have to do alot with interstate commerce, im pretty sure the fed is supposed to be in control of that.

 

[waggy]

I am a strong believer on states rights. BUT i do think they should have a Federal standard. Having to worry if my car is legal if i decide to move and then paying to get it legal is insane. its a un-needed expense.

though i figure the manufactures will make it to the hardest emission standards there is.

 

[Xellos2099]

That the point, the government want to fine as many as there is possible.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Topic Title: Obama to allow States to restrict Emission Standards

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

This just makes absolutely no sense from any standpoint. Why can we not have a SINGLE emissions standard, are manufacturers going to have to make CA versions, ME versions, TX, etc? talk about just not uniting and going with what the industry needs, universal policy regarding everything.

This won't be the first time California's stricter standards have lead the way to cleaner cars, nationwide. California's leadership in mandating lower emissions is one reason we have cleaner cars, today.

When there's an economy that supports any market, at all, California is a huge automotive market. The very first generation of cars meeting the newer standards cost a little more, but as soon as the manufacturers get the technology down and build it in, rather than bolting it onto existing models, it provides them with an instant economy of scale for cars that meet the tougher standards.

As frostedflakes said, once the technology is proven, they stop building 49 state and one state cars. It's easier and cheaper to make all of them cleaner cars.

 

[spidey07]

Great idea! With the auto industry in utter chaos let's hurt their bottom line even MORE. I don't see how this could not increase manufacturers operating costs by a good amount.