Obama to allow States to restrict Emission Standards

[Hayabusa Rider]

Unfortunately Harvey this will come at a time when auto makers are pretty much down to their last dime. Having to invest a whole lot of money to make more expensive cars that people will be less inclined to buy may kill them. Sure, they can build cars and just not market them in CA but again with the economy it's like saying to someone who's hungry to not worry, just don't eat.

What this effectively does at this time is to put the entire transportation future in the hands of the CA legislature which does not seem to use the most prudent judgment.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Unfortunately Harvey this will come at a time when auto makers are pretty much down to their last dime. Having to invest a whole lot of money to make more expensive cars that people will be less inclined to buy may kill them. Sure, they can build cars and just not market them in CA but again with the economy it's like saying to someone who's hungry to not worry, just don't eat.

What this effectively does at this time is to put the entire transportation future in the hands of the CA legislature which does not seem to use the most prudent judgment.

and that is what scares me. right now is really not the time to be messing with the car industry by makeing the cars more expensive.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

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

A damn lot more than $2B.

the Guberment wont save a damn penny doing this. it will get dragged on for years and the cost of retro fitting and labor will be 4X more than that 2 billion in savings.

 

[KK]

My lawn power tools cannot be purchased in CA. I wonder what they are left with in CA to buy?

It'd be funny if the auto makers just stopped selling vehicles in CA.

 

[Schadenfroh]

The auto-industry is under enough pressure right now to be worrying about this as well. They should wait until the auto-industry stabilizes before raising standards (or allowing them to be raised).

That being said, I agree that individual states should be able to set their own emission standards (as high or as low as they chose).

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Skoorb

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

A damn lot more than $2B.

the Guberment wont save a damn penny doing this. it will get dragged on for years and the cost of retro fitting and labor will be 4X more than that 2 billion in savings.

of course.

they are going to hire a company to come in and replace all the $2 lights with $20 lights at $100 each.

then soon it come out that teh company hired to do it has on its board a nephew of someone high in the goverment or a teh company just gave them a huge donation.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Unfortunately Harvey this will come at a time when auto makers are pretty much down to their last dime. Having to invest a whole lot of money to make more expensive cars that people will be less inclined to buy may kill them. Sure, they can build cars and just not market them in CA but again with the economy it's like saying to someone who's hungry to not worry, just don't eat.

What this effectively does at this time is to put the entire transportation future in the hands of the CA legislature which does not seem to use the most prudent judgment.

That won't be CARB's "problem" though...they're only going to care about their agenda.

Hope you all like paying more for less powerful vehicles folks, because, courtesy of this action and upcoming actions by CARB, we'll have more expensive less powerful vehicles. Thanks CA (and Obama)!!! :thumbsup:

Chuck

 

[sactoking]

This is a terrible idea. It puts an incredible strain on the auto manufacturers and opens the door very widely for extortion by the states/politicians.

I understand that it's "50 regulations- 1 vehicle"; they manufacture to the toughest requirements. But, by having state standards and not a federal mandate, what's to stop CA/CARB/SCAQMD from changing their regulation EVERY YEAR, or more often than that? Or, what's to stop a state like Montana from saying "Hey Honda, you know California's regulations? Well, we're going to make ours 10 times harder for no real reason unless you pay us one gajillion dollars!".

Imagine if, at your job, you had to report to 50 different people who may or may not have a cohesive idea of what it is you do. That's what Obama is asking the auto makers to do. I'm usually for states' rights, but this is such a logistical cluster that it's ridiculous.

 

[Jaskalas]

In this case, I agree with Obama. If California wants clean air, then let California have clean air.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: sactoking
This is a terrible idea. It puts an incredible strain on the auto manufacturers and opens the door very widely for extortion by the states/politicians.

I understand that it's "50 regulations- 1 vehicle"; they manufacture to the toughest requirements. But, by having state standards and not a federal mandate, what's to stop CA/CARB/SCAQMD from changing their regulation EVERY YEAR, or more often than that? Or, what's to stop a state like Montana from saying "Hey Honda, you know California's regulations? Well, we're going to make ours 10 times harder for no real reason unless you pay us one gajillion dollars!".

Imagine if, at your job, you had to report to 50 different people who may or may not have a cohesive idea of what it is you do. That's what Obama is asking the auto makers to do. I'm usually for states' rights, but this is such a logistical cluster that it's ridiculous.

Obama is not asking any such thing.

He is proposing letting States do as they will.

If any State wants to demand that automakers clean up their act; let them.

 

[CrimsonWolf]

Hooray for regulatory clusterfucks. There are costs in adhering to regulation. That's fine. But compound them across 50 potentially different standards and this could be a far more costly than envisioned. There could be a lot of unintended consequences as it is more complicated than just "letting each state clean up their air".

The administration needs to watch this carefully. If large groups of states adjust their standards in a pretty unified direction and magnitude, it'll probably be fine and beneficial. But if standards diverge significantly this needs to be killed ASAP and have changes made to the regulations at the federal level.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: sactoking
This is a terrible idea. It puts an incredible strain on the auto manufacturers and opens the door very widely for extortion by the states/politicians.

I understand that it's "50 regulations- 1 vehicle"; they manufacture to the toughest requirements. But, by having state standards and not a federal mandate, what's to stop CA/CARB/SCAQMD from changing their regulation EVERY YEAR, or more often than that? Or, what's to stop a state like Montana from saying "Hey Honda, you know California's regulations? Well, we're going to make ours 10 times harder for no real reason unless you pay us one gajillion dollars!".

Imagine if, at your job, you had to report to 50 different people who may or may not have a cohesive idea of what it is you do. That's what Obama is asking the auto makers to do. I'm usually for states' rights, but this is such a logistical cluster that it's ridiculous.

Obama is not asking any such thing.

He is proposing letting States do as they will.

If any State wants to demand that automakers clean up their act; let them.

Right, he is asking automakers to adhere to 50 potentially divergent systems.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: sactoking
This is a terrible idea. It puts an incredible strain on the auto manufacturers and opens the door very widely for extortion by the states/politicians.

I understand that it's "50 regulations- 1 vehicle"; they manufacture to the toughest requirements. But, by having state standards and not a federal mandate, what's to stop CA/CARB/SCAQMD from changing their regulation EVERY YEAR

Because: the legislature is interested in what's sensible; they have no need to change it every year. They're out for a practical policy to improve air quality, not mess things up.

As I said before, worst case the automakers can choose not to sell cars in CA. The legislature doesn't want that.

You're creating arguments out of thin (and hot) air and obstructing a good policy that helps peiople's health - putting ideology ahead of any common sense of good priorities.

The majority of the public being able to set standards for emissions makes sense, and it's democracy, not your little tyranny where the car companies matter more than the public.

 

[chucky2]

That's all well and good Craig, but this isn't just going to get us cleaner air. It's going to raise the prices of vehicles, make them less powerful (I'd say where they're at right now is fine...less is going to suck), and generally be a F'ing potential nightmare for - all - the auto manufacturers.

They already have to deal with US emissions standards, EU standards, and who knows what others...now we're going to change from one US emission standard to: How many?

CARB is surely one, and, since other states just follow CARB, that's fine. What about all the rest? Will the auto manufacturers go with the strictest? Does that depend on how strict and what the consequences of doing that do to the rest of the market? How insane will CARB go now? Does anyone know the answers to any of these questions, given the leadtimes it takes to develop the tech to meet these requrements?

If you're an auto manufacturer, it's already bad enough having designs that have to meet different crash specs between countries...now we're talking about what may be wildly different emissions standards in the same country. Not a good idea.

Far better to just absorb CARB into EPA and have CARB handle the emissions regs, or something along those lines. At least it'd be one standard, instead of 10's of different ones.... This is like saying: Lets have 10 different PCIe specs, it's mobo manufacturers rights what they'll implement. Bad idea.

Chuck

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Because: the legislature is interested in what's sensible; they have no need to change it every year. They're out for a practical policy to improve air quality, not mess things up.

You must have little experience with CARB and SCAQMD. They're unregulated agencies that do what they want, when they want.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: 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.

You really think Democrats would let the automakers fail? Government will mandate stricter standards and give them money to help meet these standards.

Also, the DOE loaned the automakers billions last year to invest in more efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: sactoking
This is a terrible idea. It puts an incredible strain on the auto manufacturers and opens the door very widely for extortion by the states/politicians.

I understand that it's "50 regulations- 1 vehicle"; they manufacture to the toughest requirements. But, by having state standards and not a federal mandate, what's to stop CA/CARB/SCAQMD from changing their regulation EVERY YEAR, or more often than that? Or, what's to stop a state like Montana from saying "Hey Honda, you know California's regulations? Well, we're going to make ours 10 times harder for no real reason unless you pay us one gajillion dollars!".

Imagine if, at your job, you had to report to 50 different people who may or may not have a cohesive idea of what it is you do. That's what Obama is asking the auto makers to do. I'm usually for states' rights, but this is such a logistical cluster that it's ridiculous.

Obama is not asking any such thing.

He is proposing letting States do as they will.

If any State wants to demand that automakers clean up their act; let them.

Right, he is asking automakers to adhere to 50 potentially divergent systems.

No, he is allowing States to set their own regulations.

It's between the states and the automakers.

Obama is not forcing the automakers to do anything.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: sactoking
This is a terrible idea. It puts an incredible strain on the auto manufacturers and opens the door very widely for extortion by the states/politicians.

I understand that it's "50 regulations- 1 vehicle"; they manufacture to the toughest requirements. But, by having state standards and not a federal mandate, what's to stop CA/CARB/SCAQMD from changing their regulation EVERY YEAR, or more often than that? Or, what's to stop a state like Montana from saying "Hey Honda, you know California's regulations? Well, we're going to make ours 10 times harder for no real reason unless you pay us one gajillion dollars!".

Imagine if, at your job, you had to report to 50 different people who may or may not have a cohesive idea of what it is you do. That's what Obama is asking the auto makers to do. I'm usually for states' rights, but this is such a logistical cluster that it's ridiculous.

THIS.

It is utterly stupid. This makes cars more expensive. This also makes used cars more expensive. Soon, you will not be able to buy a car from another state or even take your car to another state (you think not - try taking a gun you own from one state to California.)

In the end, it will hurt the folks that cannot afford to buy a used car too... unintended consequences are not a strong suit of the current administration.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: sactoking
This is a terrible idea. It puts an incredible strain on the auto manufacturers and opens the door very widely for extortion by the states/politicians.

I understand that it's "50 regulations- 1 vehicle"; they manufacture to the toughest requirements. But, by having state standards and not a federal mandate, what's to stop CA/CARB/SCAQMD from changing their regulation EVERY YEAR, or more often than that? Or, what's to stop a state like Montana from saying "Hey Honda, you know California's regulations? Well, we're going to make ours 10 times harder for no real reason unless you pay us one gajillion dollars!".

Imagine if, at your job, you had to report to 50 different people who may or may not have a cohesive idea of what it is you do. That's what Obama is asking the auto makers to do. I'm usually for states' rights, but this is such a logistical cluster that it's ridiculous.

THIS.

It is utterly stupid. This makes cars more expensive. This also makes used cars more expensive. Soon, you will not be able to buy a car from another state or even take your car to another state (you think not - try taking a gun you own from one state to California.)

In the end, it will hurt the folks that cannot afford to buy a used car too... unintended consequences are not a strong suit of the current administration.

So did air bags, seat belts, anti-lock disc brakes and safety crumple zones/crash testing.

I want safer cars and cleaner air for myself and my kids and if the automakers cannot provide that along with affordable products, perhaps they don't deserve the taxpayers' bailout money.

Somehow I don't think Toyota or Honda would have much trouble providing this; If Detroit can't compete, should we pay for their incompetence?

 

[nixium]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: sactoking
This is a terrible idea. It puts an incredible strain on the auto manufacturers and opens the door very widely for extortion by the states/politicians.

I understand that it's "50 regulations- 1 vehicle"; they manufacture to the toughest requirements. But, by having state standards and not a federal mandate, what's to stop CA/CARB/SCAQMD from changing their regulation EVERY YEAR, or more often than that? Or, what's to stop a state like Montana from saying "Hey Honda, you know California's regulations? Well, we're going to make ours 10 times harder for no real reason unless you pay us one gajillion dollars!".

Imagine if, at your job, you had to report to 50 different people who may or may not have a cohesive idea of what it is you do. That's what Obama is asking the auto makers to do. I'm usually for states' rights, but this is such a logistical cluster that it's ridiculous.

THIS.

It is utterly stupid. This makes cars more expensive. This also makes used cars more expensive. Soon, you will not be able to buy a car from another state or even take your car to another state (you think not - try taking a gun you own from one state to California.)

In the end, it will hurt the folks that cannot afford to buy a used car too... unintended consequences are not a strong suit of the current administration.

Why would the state do something like this? The gajillion dollars would have to be compared against the loss of sales tax for sales of that particular automobile series, and the displeasure of their tax payers.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: nixium

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: sactoking
This is a terrible idea. It puts an incredible strain on the auto manufacturers and opens the door very widely for extortion by the states/politicians.

I understand that it's "50 regulations- 1 vehicle"; they manufacture to the toughest requirements. But, by having state standards and not a federal mandate, what's to stop CA/CARB/SCAQMD from changing their regulation EVERY YEAR, or more often than that? Or, what's to stop a state like Montana from saying "Hey Honda, you know California's regulations? Well, we're going to make ours 10 times harder for no real reason unless you pay us one gajillion dollars!".

Imagine if, at your job, you had to report to 50 different people who may or may not have a cohesive idea of what it is you do. That's what Obama is asking the auto makers to do. I'm usually for states' rights, but this is such a logistical cluster that it's ridiculous.

THIS.

It is utterly stupid. This makes cars more expensive. This also makes used cars more expensive. Soon, you will not be able to buy a car from another state or even take your car to another state (you think not - try taking a gun you own from one state to California.)

In the end, it will hurt the folks that cannot afford to buy a used car too... unintended consequences are not a strong suit of the current administration.

Why would the state do something like this? The gajillion dollars would have to be compared against the loss of sales tax for sales of that particular automobile series, and the displeasure of their tax payers.

Because when the state is CA, and you have CARB, they don't care. Their only priority is to drive their agenda, and that agenda is whatever their Masters - elected and electorate - demand.

Which is fine in principle.

What's not fine is when you have Masters that are tree huggers first, Realitiers second. Because then CARB becomes an unstoppable Nazi that the auto makers must appease due to their potential sales (65M CA's) - regardless of the cost to appease them.

Where does this cost go?

To all of us.

Where does the affect of what can't be met by cost go (read: vehicles that perform like we'd expect them to)?

To all of us.

Essentially what this ruling did was for CARB to set auto pollution policy in the whole of the US.

Super. :disgust:

Chuck

 

[Moonbeam]

People are tired of cars killing their children. The car companies lobby for lax rules and cheep ass bastards that think only of themselves do too, so welcome to real democracy where the will of the people who love their children rule.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
People are tired of cars killing their children. The car companies lobby for lax rules and cheep ass bastards that think only of themselves do too, so welcome to real democracy where the will of the people who love their children rule.

Cars kill children? That's a new one...you have bad Transformers out there in CA do you?

Chuck

 

[ElFenix]

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. 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.

they just passed the new cafe bill last year!

Originally posted by: 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.

then why do i still see an option for a motor with lower HP and CA emissions over at carsdirect on various models?



anyway, it's not 50 different standards, it's 2. there is the federal standard and the CARB standard. the CARB standard may be adopted by any other state, and 13 have chosen to do so.

 

[Thump553]

Everyone acts like this is something new, it's been that way since the seventies. Until GWB tried to sabotage the law, there has been two standards-the stricter (CA, most New England states, etc) one and the weaker national standard. It was workable and certainly is not what doomed the US auto industry to collapse.

Those of us in states with the stricter standard pay an upcharge on the price sticker to cover that expense. But it's worth it-a major study was released last week indicating cleaner air has added an average of six months more life to all of us.