• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to Let States Restrict Emissions Standards

Family Guy

Banned
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
676
Reaction score
206
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
More campaign promises being kept by President Obama! This is a good one and one that let's states decide what is right for their specific air quality needs. More Bush anti-science anti-environmental retardation wiped out with one swipe of the pen.

Obama to Let States Restrict Emissions Standards

By JOHN M. BRODER and PETER BAKER - The New York Times
Published: January 25, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Monday will direct federal regulators to move swiftly to grant California and 13 other states the right to set strict automobile emissions and fuel efficiency standards, two administration officials said Sunday evening.

The directive makes good on an Obama campaign pledge and marks a sharp reversal from Bush administration policy. Granting California and the other states the right to regulate tailpipe emissions is one of the most dramatic actions Mr. Obama can take to quickly put his stamp on environmental policy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/us/politics/26calif.html?_r=1&hp
 
To let states, right? So basically, if they happen to not want to, they don't have to set standards?

There are already Federally set standards that every state has to meet, but this new thing lets them set it higher if they wish, while Bush didn't, so people still usd oil.
 
I completely agree with this. Frankly, the Federal standards are insufficient and if individual states want to enact stricter standards, it is entirely within their Constitutional rights to do so. Bush was wrong on this one.
 
This sounds like a win for the State's rights crowd.
 
This sounds like a lose for everyone.

This is going to raise the cost of new vehicles... damn, more screw the poor to make the rich feel good about saving the earth... GOOD JOB!

While I'm all for states rights... this is gonna raise the cost of cars for everyone.
 
This sounds like a lose for everyone.

This is going to raise the cost of new vehicles... damn, more screw the poor to make the rich feel good about saving the earth... GOOD JOB!

While I'm all for states rights... this is gonna raise the cost of cars for everyone.

And make the air more breathable for EVERYONE.
 
To let states, right? So basically, if they happen to not want to, they don't have to set standards?

Sure, they could try that but what would be the point of 1/2 of the US auto markets have the higher standards? It ends up being the states pushing the US gov't forward instead of vice versa.
 
This sounds like a lose for everyone.

This is going to raise the cost of new vehicles... damn, more screw the poor to make the rich feel good about saving the earth... GOOD JOB!

While I'm all for states rights... this is gonna raise the cost of cars for everyone.

Sounds like you are for State's rights as long as a democrat didn't suggest the policy. Very transparent.

"Let the automaker's fail. NO BAILOUT!" <-- apparently a conservative viewpoint
"States shouldn't have the right to raise MPG standards, that's big brother's job!" <-- apparently ALSO a conservative viewpoint.

Go figure.
 
This is great for states who want to raise their standards. However, I worry that those mid western states whose pollution is killing upstate New York's lakes, streams, trees, wildlife, etc. will choose to not raise their own standards because it might cost their polluting businesses some money.

It seems to me this is one of those that belongs in the Feds bucket.

We shall see what we shall see.
 
There are already Federally set standards that every state has to meet, but this new thing lets them set it higher if they wish, while Bush didn't, so people still usd oil.
Nothing "new" about this. California and some western states set their own standards years ago, probably before Bush, but he did nothing to stop them...
"Still use oil" ?
What else is there, coal ?
nuclear ?
McDonald's cooking grease ?...which some Mercedes owners use..
 
To let states, right? So basically, if they happen to not want to, they don't have to set standards?
No it's not that way. Either states adopt the minimum standards as set by the federal government or an enhanced version a la California.
 
This sounds like a lose for everyone.

This is going to raise the cost of new vehicles... damn, more screw the poor to make the rich feel good about saving the earth... GOOD JOB!

While I'm all for states rights... this is gonna raise the cost of cars for everyone.
HUH? You're against cleaner air and stricter MPG requirements? So you're pro-pollution and pro oil addiction? WOW!
 
Nothing "new" about this. California and some western states set their own standards years ago, probably before Bush, but he did nothing to stop them...
"Still use oil" ?
What else is there, coal ?
nuclear ?
McDonald's cooking grease ?...which some Mercedes owners use..
Actually Bush stopped states from setting higher standards than the Federal ones which is what President Obama has reversed.

The bottom line is that Bush did nothing for the environment unless his oil buddies could make money on it then he was Mr. Green (actually very green as in MONEY)!
 
This sounds like a lose for everyone.

This is going to raise the cost of new vehicles... damn, more screw the poor to make the rich feel good about saving the earth... GOOD JOB!

While I'm all for states rights... this is gonna raise the cost of cars for everyone.

You are the most anti-innovation person I have ever met in my entire life.

Increasing these standards, especially when they relate to fuel economy is the future. Are people buying cars with low MPG? The whole notion that letting car manufactures build cars with low CAFE standards as a way to help them is just insane. It's like saying that we're going to allow car manufactures to build vehicles without safety features to save costs. What whackjob is doing to buy a car without seat belts, airbags, hazard lights, etc? By forcing firms to abide to such regulation you force them to innovate. Those innovates can be sold and licensed out to generate huge sums of money. Do you know just how much money defense contractors make from purely licensing? Know how they got those patents? By massive govenrment contracts mandating the specific requirements for their projects.

The top selling cars outside of trucks are all cars with great fuel mileage. They also happen to have relatively low emissions. There's a correlation here.

And the poor aren't those buying cars. Navy made an idiotic statement in the past how no one used the mass transit in Seattle. Someone responded with data showing that ridership was somewhere around 25% of the entire city population. Fewer cars creates incentives to build mass transit. And mass transit is often electricity based. That means fewer imports of oil from dictators around the world. Now, I don't know about YOU, but I'd rather have my money go towards my state government rather then the Jack***es in Iran. Maybe you like funding the guys trying to murder all of us.

Plus the notion that this will raise costs to unacceptable levels isn't supported by history. Catalytic converters cost nowhere near what Detroit claimed they were and Honda in a move of brilliance redesigned its engines to do without the converter to meet the standards and then licensed that engine out to make billions.

Why are you so hateful towards innovation?
 
MrVicchio wrote.
Quote
(This is going to raise the cost of new vehicles... )

You may well be correct, but what you should have said.
This is going to raise the cost of new US manufactured vehicles...
 
No it's not that way. Either states adopt the minimum standards as set by the federal government or an enhanced version a la California.

Ahhh. thanks for the explanation. That's a horse of a different color. :2wave:
 
HUH? You're against cleaner air and stricter MPG requirements? So you're pro-pollution and pro oil addiction? WOW!

This is the most asanine post I've seen in weeks. This is like saying because you're for gitmo closing and for constitutional rights to those suspected of being terrorists that means you're pro-terrorist attacks and pro-muslim rule of the world. Or its like saying since you're for this then you're pro-nanny state? You're pro-government controling your life? You're pro-socialism. :roll

This isn't debate, its drivel.

I happen to agree with Lud, this is a win for state rights. I in no way shape or form want my state FORCING automakeres, and thus the public, to have to buy cars with higher fuel standards if they don't want to do it and I will vote against people in my state that push for it. But if a state wishes to pass such laws they should be free to do so.

If this was the federal government doing it I'd be extremely opposed to it.
 
This works in the favor of larger states in the end. In the age where what we do with the environment matters, Ford, Toyota and GM won't go after 400,000 people in some underpopulated state in America when they can go after Cali and NY. They'll go after the larger markets. And the larger markets tend to be the more environmentally conscious ones. Meaning they'll be more likely to create cars that pollute less because that's what the majority of market asks for.
 
Last edited:
Great. So now, Detroit most likely won't be able to sell it's cars in California. Way to stimulate that economy, Obama. Dumbass.

Detroit won't be able to sell it's cars in California? You're acting like Hyundai, Honda and Toyota don't have the market cornered in California as it is. Why would Detroit even attempt to sell it's cars in California anyway? It simply will not compete in the most environmentally conscious state in all America. In states that simply don't care because the majority of the population doesn't care? Sure. But you're acting like California is the perfect market for companies who are going under because they ignored everyone telling them that gas guzzlers weren't going to do good in the future.
 
Great. So now, Detroit most likely won't be able to sell it's cars in California. Way to stimulate that economy, Obama. Dumbass.

What this move is going to do is make it to where one state can basically set the standards for every single other state in the US.

In order to make money a company has to mass produce something. I'm sure that you've all noticed that specialty items cost more than mass produced items (generic). So if for example California set the standard that all automobiles must get 100mpg then in order to get the best possible market coverage and money the automakers will start mass producing auto's with that standard and selling them everywhere. Eventually it will get to the point where our current minimum wage is at. Most states will have it above federal. As a matter of fact most states won't even have to set regulations. Just one state will. I don't know about you but having one state that isn't federal (ie doesn't require as much effort or as strict a standards as the federal is held to, to enact a law/standard) start enacting standards that affect the whole country to be dangerous.

As a side note personally I consider much of the laws that California enacts to be a detriment to my privacy and freedom. You honestly couldn't pay me any amount of money to voluntarily go to California.
 
Back
Top Bottom