Trump inventing another lie to weaken auto emmission standards

[HomerJS]

Then again lying is like breathing to these scumbags. Currently California's stricter fuel standards are leading the way on fuel efficiency. Trump and his trolls are rolling out some bullshit report trying to convince a bunch of suckers they are looking our for people's safety.

The Trump administration says people would drive more and be exposed to increased risk if their cars get better gas mileage, an argument intended to justify freezing Obama-era toughening of fuel standards.

David Zuby, chief research officer at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said he's doubtful about the administration's estimate of lives saved because other factors could affect traffic deaths, such as automakers agreeing to make automatic emergency braking standard on all models before 2022. "They're making assumptions about stuff that may or may not be the same," he said.

https://phys.org/news/2018-07-riskier-fuel-standards-tougher.html

 

[woolfe9998]

There is some evidence that people drive more when cars are more fuel efficient. Which is why I favor a gas tax. Because it will decrease driving, decrease traffic congestion, and decrease emissions. I realize it will never fly, of course, but I would support it if it was ever proposed.

 

[sandorski]

lol

 

[Meghan54]

There is some evidence that people drive more when cars are more fuel efficient. Which is why I favor a gas tax. Because it will decrease driving, decrease traffic congestion, and decrease emissions. I realize it will never fly, of course, but I would support it if it was ever proposed.

Do you mean increasing the Federal gas tax that's already in place? Or leave it up to the states to increase theirs?

Hint: We already have gas taxes at both the Federal and state levels....probably in some states there are local/city/municipality gas taxes added in, too.

 

[shortylickens]

There is some evidence that people drive more when cars are more fuel efficient. Which is why I favor a gas tax. Because it will decrease driving, decrease traffic congestion, and decrease emissions. I realize it will never fly, of course, but I would support it if it was ever proposed.

That only punishes people who NEED their cars for work and dont go joy riding just because its a little cheaper.

 

[Indus]

How long till these mileage standards are only for cars? You know the next thing is to have it for planes so plane tickets are $150000 each so the rich can have their safe space on all business class planes.

 

[Jhhnn]

Or, you know, people will just buy less gas to live their lives as usual. Can't have that.

 

[K1052]

I fully expect the Feds to lose this argument in court so I guess automakers will get to decide if they'd like to produce lower MPG models for the non-CARB states as well as compliant vehicles or simply abide by the original plan to increase efficiency. They wanted to avoid a split market again but went ahead and asked the Trump admin for changes anyway...oops.

 

[VRAMdemon]

So..The EPA is advocating against stiffer mileage requirements for new cars by arguing that people will drive less if their vehicles get fewer miles per gallon, lowering the risk of crashes. Am I reading this right? obviously that sounds incredibly stupid.

 

[pauldun170]

This is so stupid that I did a search to make sure it wasn't an Onion article that accidentally got picked up by news outlets.

 

[pauldun170]

So..The EPA is advocating against stiffer mileage requirements for new cars by arguing that people will drive less if their vehicles get fewer miles per gallon, lowering the risk of crashes. Am I reading this right? obviously that sounds incredibly stupid.

This is not "EPA". EPA There are career people with "education" and "experience" working out of the EPA who are just trying to do their jobs without crying. No career EPA person could possible come up with this sort of nonsense. Only an idiot could come up with this.
This is nonsense from Scott Pruitt being shat out of his blowhole

 

[SMOGZINN]

Whoa! This changes everything!
If we pollute more rivers people will swim less and there will be less drowning!
More smog means less pedestrians and therefore less auto-pedestrian accidents! Air pollution saves lives!
Why are we so hard on asbestos? Don't they know it stops fires and therefor less people burn to death?

Isn't it grand that there are no secondary costs to anything?

 

[tweaker2]

Small wonder that the Repubs in the legislature like Trump so much. He's doing all their dirty work for them. Every time Trump barfs up an unpopular proposal or executive order he must get flowers and gifts from those shitheads for taking the heat off of them. And the kicker here is that Trump really doesn't mind doing it because his supporters will praise every dirty edict he commands the masses to obey.

Besides, he gets the attention he so craves and it really doesn't matter if it makes him look the fool that the is because all he has to do is walk things back and claim he's solved another problem that the Democrats left for him to deal with. Easy peasy nice and neaty, on to the next problem he'll create and solve.

He will go down in history as THE most popular president ever bar none just because he says so, like the good little dictator he is. I'm just wondering why there aren't any statues of him being commissioned yet. Meh, there must be millions of little ones of him in every Trump household and probably millions more voodoo dolls of him stuck full of pins.

 

[woolfe9998]

Do you mean increasing the Federal gas tax that's already in place? Or leave it up to the states to increase theirs?

Hint: We already have gas taxes at both the Federal and state levels....probably in some states there are local/city/municipality gas taxes added in, too.

Didn't realize there was already a federal one. I know we have one in CA which they are trying to repeal right now. Yes I would favor increasing either.

I'd honestly prefer a federal tax credit for purchasing plug-in hybrids. A large increase in MPG, say from 20 to 80, I assume wouldn't result in a proportionate increase in driving since few people have any reason to drive 4x what they currently drive. We'll see a better return on investment by accelerating the adoption of hybrids than by raising CAFE standards for non-hybrids.

 

[soundforbjt]

Small wonder that the Repubs in the legislature like Trump so much. He's doing all their dirty work for them. Every time Trump barfs up an unpopular proposal or executive order he must get flowers and gifts from those shitheads for taking the heat off of them. And the kicker here is that Trump really doesn't mind doing it because his supporters will praise every dirty edict he commands the masses to obey.

Besides, he gets the attention he so craves and it really doesn't matter if it makes him look the fool that the is because all he has to do is walk things back and claim he's solved another problem that the Democrats left for him to deal with. Easy peasy nice and neaty, on to the next problem he'll create and solve.

He will go down in history as THE most popular president ever bar none just because he says so, like the good little dictator he is. I'm just wondering why there aren't any statues of him being commissioned yet. Meh, there must be millions of little ones of him in every Trump household and probably millions more voodoo dolls of him stuck full of pins.

I'm waiting for him to want his picture on currency.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I'm waiting for him to want his picture on currency.

The US could invent an official IOU slip, call it the Negative $1. I'd be okay with his picture on that.

 

[dainthomas]

Only an idiot could come up with this.
This is nonsense from Scott Pruitt being shat out of his blowhole

Or the new less-corrupt science denier Wheeler.

 

[dank69]

From the "if employers have more money they'll hire more people" line of thought.

 

[tweaker2]

I'm waiting for him to want his picture on currency.

I'm thinking his face is more likely to end up on a ruble as a hero of Mother Russia.

 

[Zorba]

There is some evidence that people drive more when cars are more fuel efficient. Which is why I favor a gas tax. Because it will decrease driving, decrease traffic congestion, and decrease emissions. I realize it will never fly, of course, but I would support it if it was ever proposed.

There already is a gas tax.

I support a tax that is based on mileage and vehicle weight for funding infrastructure. I would still support a gas tax to pay for climate change damage as well.

 

[Zorba]

That only punishes people who NEED their cars for work and dont go joy riding just because its a little cheaper.

Fuel taxes help pay for public transportation, fyi.