Jump to content

Trump will seek to revoke California’s authority to regulate auto emissions


Liberty
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-23/trump-is-said-to-seek-repeal-of-california-s-smog-fighting-power

 

As part of the effort, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose revoking the Clean Air Act waiver granted to California that has allowed the state to regulate carbon emissions from vehicle tailpipes and force carmakers to sell electric vehicles in the state in higher numbers, according to three people familiar with the plan.

 

The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will likewise assert that California is barred from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from autos under the 1975 law that established the first federal fuel-efficiency requirements, the people said.

 

No lobbies left behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a thread about "Dirty Money" on netflix and now this? How is this not political?

 

I don't want to discuss the politics of preventing a state from doing better than other states when it comes to the environmental or clean tech, I want to point out the environmental and scientific repercusions.

 

And the Dirty Money episode is about the business life of Trump, not his politics. You should watch it.

 

The fact that you don't want to hear it doesn't make it political. Nobody's forcing you to click.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care for Trump but this is political. You could say the same thing about most of his events. "Oh, this isn't political, it's about North Korea." "Oh, this isn't political, it's about free trade" As you said in the first post "no lobbies left behind" really??? not political???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care for Trump but this is political. You could say the same thing about most of his events. "Oh, this isn't political, it's about North Korea." "Oh, this isn't political, it's about free trade" As you said in the first post "no lobbies left behind" really??? not political???

 

Inverse. You could also say that almost everything is political in some way. Should everything be on the poltics forum?

 

What matters in the end is what we're talking about, and I'm talking about how this is a bad thing for the competitiveness of the US and californian companies from a technological standpoint, and how it's bad for the environment for all of us, and a stupid decision from a scientific point of view.

 

On top of that you could argue it's bad for states rights and shows an overreaching central government and all that, but whatever, that's not my point here.. You're the one who made it about politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care for Trump but this is political. You could say the same thing about most of his events. "Oh, this isn't political, it's about North Korea." "Oh, this isn't political, it's about free trade" As you said in the first post "no lobbies left behind" really??? not political???

it's bad for the environment for all of us, and a stupid decision from a scientific point of view.

 

I'm not sure this is so clearly stupid from a scientific point of view.  If you believe that at some point in the next 5-10 years EVs will dominate the industry without regulatory intervention (which I do), does it really make sense to force the auto industry (i.e., consumers via pass through of costs) to spend $10s (maybe $100s) of billions of dollars rushing so the 80MM cars produced from 2020-2025 are marginally more efficient?  Without trying to get too deep into politics/ethics, meat consumption causes just as much, if not more, pollution as all cars.  It's MUCH cheaper to regulate meat consumption than fuel consumption.  I don't see anyone advocating for that... or calling the lack of regulation "clearly stupid from a scientific point of view."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberty, I don't think you are that naive or not smart enough to think that this kind of post will elicit political discussions regardless of your intent... especially given the track record of this forum  ;D

 

Of course, you are free to place your post in whichever section you prefer, but I think you already know the consequences. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care for Trump but this is political. You could say the same thing about most of his events. "Oh, this isn't political, it's about North Korea." "Oh, this isn't political, it's about free trade" As you said in the first post "no lobbies left behind" really??? not political???

it's bad for the environment for all of us, and a stupid decision from a scientific point of view.

 

I'm not sure this is so clearly stupid from a scientific point of view.  If you believe that at some point in the next 5-10 years EVs will dominate the industry without regulatory intervention (which I do), does it really make sense to force the auto industry (i.e., consumers via pass through of costs) to spend $10s (maybe $100s) of billions of dollars rushing so the 80MM cars produced from 2020-2025 are marginally more efficient?  Without trying to get too deep into politics/ethics, meat consumption causes just as much, if not more, pollution as all cars.  It's MUCH cheaper to regulate meat consumption than fuel consumption.  I don't see anyone advocating for that... or calling the lack of regulation "clearly stupid from a scientific point of view."

 

It's stupid because it slows the rate at which EVs pass the threshold at which they become so evidently superior to ICE that the transition starts to happen much faster. Investments/support during that early phase moves that point forward and will make a big difference when it comes to carbon emissions and pollution.

 

If there was no time element to global warming, then sure, take your time, we know EVs are the future. But in this case, there's some urgency, and moves that obviously slow the transition down will just make the problem bigger and harder to deal with later.

 

It's also stupid because of the massive double-standard used to justify it: The oil & gas & coal industry received massive direct and indirect subsidies for decades, to the tune of probably hundreds of billions of dollars if you include military protection and such, but hey, if you want to help push EVs a little so that the transition takes place at a higher velocity (and that the US stays ahead when it comes to EVs and other clean techs rather than fall behind), that's too much... At least if they removed all current fossil fuel subsidies the playing field would be a bit more even, but even that isn't being discussed.

 

Also, as far as air quality is concerned, there are quite good scientific basis for reducing particulate matter. If California wants to do better than other states, why should it be forced to be kept down. There are also lots of other places that follow California's lead on these matters or that adopt technologies developed there, so attacking it will have far reaching impacts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberals care about states rights?  :o

 

I didn't make the topic. ;)

 

You know anything about me?

 

You chose to take it in that direction.

 

I know that you show your feelings by how many anti-Trump posts you make.

 

Yeah. What has that to do with state rights? And why do you always try so hard to make everything into a political debate? We already know you're an ideologue and that you judge everything based on "sides" and "tribes" rather than thinking things through, no need to prove it again and again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are anti-CO2 and want it shut down quicker, this is a gift from Trump. Why?

 

Because regulating lower carbon emissions from ICE has lead to dramatic improvement in fuel consumption. This in turn lower cost to consumers and lower cost of oil.

 

This slows down the adoption of EV's and hybrids.

 

My point about lower energy costs for Californians is around the really strict refining laws around petroleum products sold in California.

 

Cardboard

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are anti-CO2 and want it shut down quicker, this is a gift from Trump. Why?

 

Because regulating lower carbon emissions from ICE has lead to dramatic improvement in fuel consumption. This in turn lower cost to consumers and lower cost of oil.

 

This slows down the adoption of EV's and hybrids.

 

My point about lower energy costs for Californians is around the really strict refining laws around petroleum products sold in California.

 

Cardboard

 

I'm not saying there can't be indirect benefits, but it looks like the costs will outweigh the benefits. An even better approach is to keep tightening CAFE standards to push for ICE innovation while reducing oil support and helping EV develop as fast as possible through the early adopter phase, and allow states that want to do more to experiment.  But Trump is also saying that he wants to reduce CAFE standards and thinks global warming is a hoax... basically anything the coal and auto lobbyists tell him (do you think he could even understand a book or scientist explaining these things to him?).

 

There are historical graphs that show fuel economy improvements over time, and it's quite clear that without CAFE standards pushing for more, there's very little that happens. Decades of stagnation when standards remained the same, followed by rapid improvement when standards tightened. I think one of the successful roles of goverment is pushing forward safety and environmental technology by creating level playing fields (everybody has to meet the same thing). If catalytic converters were optional, or you could save money by having your house dump its toilets straight in the river rather than pay for a water treatment plant, few would pay up for them, but everybody would pay the price (tragedy of the commons-style). Same for fuel economy. If you can dump your pollution out in the air and water at no cost (externalized), those who try to be cleaner will always be penalized against those who don't care. It's a classic market failure.

 

Ideally we'd tax "bads" (toxins, greenhouse gas) instead of "goods" (like labor and capital) and align incentives that way, but we're pretty far from that system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberals are usually known to want centralized government and to reduce states rights (when it fits their ideology anyway).

 

I'm not really trying to turn it political when it has a foundation in politics. Sanj created the politics board for discussions like these. I find it a bit of a waste of time and I don't want it leaking over here. Since he owns the site, I'll let him be the judge on where it belongs.

 

I don't think things through? Perhaps you're right but neither do the liberals (if they did they wouldn't have lost to one of the least popular presidential candidates in history). Thanks for the insult, by the way.

 

Here's a little bit about me and my "tribe."

 

I voted for Obama in 2008, did not vote in 2012 or 2016. Since we're talking about environmental issues, I'm a fairly big environmentalist. I recycle most things and I eat organic food.

 

I believe I've stated it before but I probably would have voted for Clinton in 2016 if I had to vote. However, after reading things like this, I don't see how people could want Clinton:

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-middle-america-looking-backwards-lost-election-donald-trump/

 

And liberals will continue to keep insulting us and wonder why we backwards folks don't vote for them.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberals are usually known to want centralized government and to reduce states rights (when it fits their ideology anyway).

 

I'm not really trying to turn it political when it has a foundation in politics. Sanj created the politics board for discussions like these. I find it a bit of a waste of time and I don't want it leaking over here. Since he owns the site, I'll let him be the judge on where it belongs.

 

I don't think things through? Perhaps you're right but neither do the liberals (if they did they wouldn't have lost to one of the least popular presidential candidates in history). Thanks for the insult, by the way.

 

Here's a little bit about me and my "tribe."

 

I voted for Obama in 2008, did not vote in 2012 or 2016. Since we're talking about environmental issues, I'm a fairly big environmentalist. I recycle most things and I eat organic food.

 

I believe I've stated it before but I probably would have voted for Clinton in 2016 if I had to vote. However, after reading things like this, I don't see how people could want Clinton:

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-middle-america-looking-backwards-lost-election-donald-trump/

 

And liberals will continue to keep insulting us and wonder why we backwards folks don't vote for them.

 

Congrats on a more nuanced post than usual! It's kind of 50/50 with the "liberals this" and "liberals that", but at least you've shown some thoughtfulness here, so kudos.

 

Personally, I'm an independent, and I look at things issue by issue, on the merits. So I don't really care if people who agree with me on one issue disagree with me on a different issue. Everybody ends up thinking that I'm "on the other side" because of this (some lefty friends think I'm on the right, some friends on the right think I'm on the left, etc), but I've gotten used to it.

 

I think the central government is well positioned to put a floor below which it shouldn't be permissible to go for some things like for human rights, but that it shouldn't ever prevent states who want to do better in that area or in other areas, like the environment. What's the point of having 50 states if the democratically elected government of one can't decide that they want to reduce pollution or CO2 emissions or have even cleaner water or whatever?

 

Does stricter environmental rules increase the price of some things? Indeed. Life's all trade offs. You get what you pay for a lot of the time. But in this particular case, I don't think people look at the costs properly. Clean power will be cheaper (the multi-decade trend is clear) than dirty power if it already isn't if you properly account for the externalized costs of pollution, and EVs will be cheaper than ICEs at some point in the next few years if you account maintenance and fuel cost, so making these things happen faster might cost a bit more up front, but will save people money over time as well as improve their lives and the lives of their kids by allowing them to live on a planet in better shape and with less costly global warming related costs down the line (even if just stronger hurricanes for coastal communities).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'm not saying there can't be indirect benefits..."

 

"There are historical graphs that show fuel economy improvements over time, and it's quite clear that without CAFE standards pushing for more, there's very little that happens. Decades of stagnation when standards remained the same, followed by rapid improvement when standards tightened."

 

You tell me that it is indirect and now you pretty much bring the conclusion that it is direct. Do you simply like arguing or what?

 

Cardboard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'm not saying there can't be indirect benefits..."

 

"There are historical graphs that show fuel economy improvements over time, and it's quite clear that without CAFE standards pushing for more, there's very little that happens. Decades of stagnation when standards remained the same, followed by rapid improvement when standards tightened."

 

You tell me that it is indirect and now you pretty much bring the conclusion that it is direct. Do you simply like arguing or what?

 

Cardboard

 

You misunderstood what I said. I'm saying that even if there are indirect benefits to letting ICEs stay at lower efficiencies because it makes them less competitive with EVs, it's far from the best way to go about things and the downsides very likely negate those benefits because the operating cost of ICEs isn't a top priority for auto buyers and lower EV sales in the short term make the scale investments that will dramatically lower the cost of EVs and improve their performance less feasible, so they'll delay the transition non-linearly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberals are usually known to want centralized government and to reduce states rights (when it fits their ideology anyway).

 

I'm not really trying to turn it political when it has a foundation in politics. Sanj created the politics board for discussions like these. I find it a bit of a waste of time and I don't want it leaking over here. Since he owns the site, I'll let him be the judge on where it belongs.

 

I don't think things through? Perhaps you're right but neither do the liberals (if they did they wouldn't have lost to one of the least popular presidential candidates in history). Thanks for the insult, by the way.

 

Here's a little bit about me and my "tribe."

 

I voted for Obama in 2008, did not vote in 2012 or 2016. Since we're talking about environmental issues, I'm a fairly big environmentalist. I recycle most things and I eat organic food.

 

I believe I've stated it before but I probably would have voted for Clinton in 2016 if I had to vote. However, after reading things like this, I don't see how people could want Clinton:

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-middle-america-looking-backwards-lost-election-donald-trump/

 

And liberals will continue to keep insulting us and wonder why we backwards folks don't vote for them.

 

Congrats on a more nuanced post than usual! It's kind of 50/50 with the "liberals this" and "liberals that", but at least you've shown some thoughtfulness here, so kudos.

 

Personally, I'm an independent, and I look at things issue by issue, on the merits. So I don't really care if people who agree with me on one issue disagree with me on a different issue. Everybody ends up thinking that I'm "on the other side" because of this (some lefty friends think I'm on the right, some friends on the right think I'm on the left, etc), but I've gotten used to it.

 

I think the central government is well positioned to put a floor below which it shouldn't be permissible to go for some things like for human rights, but that it shouldn't ever prevent states who want to do better in that area or in other areas, like the environment. What's the point of having 50 states if the democratically elected government of one can't decide that they want to reduce pollution or CO2 emissions or have even cleaner water or whatever?

 

 

I agree. I think states should be allowed to make those changes in addition to other things (whether or not I agree with them). However, the government (regardless of political party) shouldn't force states to fall into its ideology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberals are usually known to want centralized government and to reduce states rights (when it fits their ideology anyway).

 

I'm not really trying to turn it political when it has a foundation in politics. Sanj created the politics board for discussions like these. I find it a bit of a waste of time and I don't want it leaking over here. Since he owns the site, I'll let him be the judge on where it belongs.

 

I don't think things through? Perhaps you're right but neither do the liberals (if they did they wouldn't have lost to one of the least popular presidential candidates in history). Thanks for the insult, by the way.

 

Here's a little bit about me and my "tribe."

 

I voted for Obama in 2008, did not vote in 2012 or 2016. Since we're talking about environmental issues, I'm a fairly big environmentalist. I recycle most things and I eat organic food.

 

I believe I've stated it before but I probably would have voted for Clinton in 2016 if I had to vote. However, after reading things like this, I don't see how people could want Clinton:

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-middle-america-looking-backwards-lost-election-donald-trump/

 

And liberals will continue to keep insulting us and wonder why we backwards folks don't vote for them.

 

Congrats on a more nuanced post than usual! It's kind of 50/50 with the "liberals this" and "liberals that", but at least you've shown some thoughtfulness here, so kudos.

 

Personally, I'm an independent, and I look at things issue by issue, on the merits. So I don't really care if people who agree with me on one issue disagree with me on a different issue. Everybody ends up thinking that I'm "on the other side" because of this (some lefty friends think I'm on the right, some friends on the right think I'm on the left, etc), but I've gotten used to it.

 

I think the central government is well positioned to put a floor below which it shouldn't be permissible to go for some things like for human rights, but that it shouldn't ever prevent states who want to do better in that area or in other areas, like the environment. What's the point of having 50 states if the democratically elected government of one can't decide that they want to reduce pollution or CO2 emissions or have even cleaner water or whatever?

 

 

I agree. I think states should be allowed to make those changes in addition to other things (whether or not I agree with them). However, the government (regardless of political party) shouldn't force states to fall into its ideology.

 

I disagree. The design of both the US and Canada constitutions was to enable free trade between states/provinces. All interstate barriers should be eliminated and this is an interstate barrier to trade. The federal government should have one standard for products that can cross state boundaries. Period.

 

Almost all improvements in everything including air quality are totally reliant on GDP. And the fact that the US is the biggest and most long-standing free trade zone in human history has a lot to do with its success. Screwing with that through environmental regulations and product regulations at the state level is hugely short-sighted and will be detrimental to both the environment and the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost all improvements in everything including air quality are totally reliant on GDP. And the fact that the US is the biggest and most long-standing free trade zone in human history has a lot to do with its success. Screwing with that through environmental regulations and product regulations at the state level is hugely short-sighted and will be detrimental to both the environment and the economy.

 

Not true. It's correlated with GDP, but it's mostly enacted through environmental regulations because market forces tend to be very weak on environmental issues, too few price signals and too many costs externalized to others in very diffuse ways, below the threshold of triggering reactions but still doing lots of damage in aggregate. When you're very poor, environmental issues seem a luxury, so of course there's less focus on those. But a hypothetical wealthy country like the US with no environmental regulations would have huge incentives to do worse than its doing now. Can save some money on water treatment? Can sell cars without catalytic converters? Can build power plants without strict PM emission limits? Can dispose of coal fly ash full of mercury however you want? Can incinerate trash as cheaply as possible? Can reduce the number of expensive water and soil tests? Can run diesel engines as long a you want without emission tests? Can buy cheaper fuel that has lead or extra sulfur in it? etc, etc, etc.

 

No, basically people who value the environment end up putting pressure on politicians so that they pass laws to protect the environment for everyone, because otherwise you have a huge free rider and tragedy of the commons problem. California has a right to have stricter standards if it wants, and it'll deal with the consequences both ways. It might miss on some trade, but it has also gained by being a leader in these technologies and having others adopt its standards...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost all improvements in everything including air quality are totally reliant on GDP. And the fact that the US is the biggest and most long-standing free trade zone in human history has a lot to do with its success. Screwing with that through environmental regulations and product regulations at the state level is hugely short-sighted and will be detrimental to both the environment and the economy.

 

Not true. It's correlated with GDP, but it's mostly enacted through environmental regulations because market forces tend to be very weak on environmental issues, too few price signals and too many costs externalized to others in very diffuse ways, below the threshold of triggering reactions but still doing lots of damage in aggregate. When you're very poor, environmental issues seem a luxury, so of course there's less focus on those. But a hypothetical wealthy country like the US with no environmental regulations would have huge incentives to do worse than its doing now. Can save some money on water treatment? Can sell cars without catalytic converters? Can build power plants without strict PM emission limits? Can dispose of coal fly ash full of mercury however you want? Can incinerate trash as cheaply as possible? Can reduce the number of expensive water and soil tests? Can run diesel engines as long a you want without emission tests? Can buy cheaper fuel that has lead or extra sulfur in it? etc, etc, etc.

 

No, basically people who value the environment end up putting pressure on politicians so that they pass laws to protect the environment for everyone, because otherwise you have a huge free rider and tragedy of the commons problem. California has a right to have stricter standards if it wants, and it'll deal with the consequences both ways. It might miss on some trade, but it has also gained by being a leader in these technologies and having others adopt its standards...

 

California has no right to prevent interstate trade. That is the design of the US.

 

I also strongly disagree about the role of regulation. Japan has no strong environmental movement and yet its environment is indistinguishable from the US. On the other hand Germany has an extremely strong Green movement (much stronger than the US) and yet its air quality is worse.

 

Also your argument fails to explain the most massive improvements in environmental quality that occurred of the last few hundred years:

 

1) The change from wood as a fuel (very very dirty) to coal as a fuel (much cleaner) to gasoline/natural gas (much much cleaner)

2) Stopping the use of horses as a mode of transportation and switching to cars which basically reduced the shit in cities by an order of magnitude

 

The modern environmental movement and the regulatory state to accompany it only began in the 1970's but cities and the country were vastly dirtier during the 19th century. So what is your explanation of the progress that occurred from 1870 to 1970 and do you really believe that the progress since the 1970's comes close to what happened from the 1930 to the 1950's?

 

Fracking is definitely responsible for improvement in air quality since its caused the elimination of coal and replacement with natural gas and yet liberal politicians in California want to ban it. Is this going to improve the environment?

 

Regulations have very limited utility...the clean air act is an example of one that worked. But many are counterproductive and even make the environment worse...e.g. biofuel subsidies.

 

Most environmental improvement is driven by advancing living standards and technological improvements which are inhibited by having more regulations and interstate barriers.

 

And I haven't even mentioned how the environmental movement killed NUCLEAR POWER for a generation which would completed the energy density transition to cleaner forms of power (wood -> coal -> natural gas -> nuclear). This alone vitiates your whole argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...