• 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

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.
The odd thing is that in other countries, countries that don't worship their cars like we do, have higher fuel efficiency and lower cost...
 
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.
California has been doing this for decades. Remember when catalytic converters first came out? I lived in CA for almost 20 years and there were have always been "california" cars. How about vehicle inspections? I don't know if every state requires them now or not but it used to be that people would drive across state lines to register their cars so because there was no inspection required...
 
The odd thing is that in other countries, countries that don't worship their cars like we do, have higher fuel efficiency and lower cost...

Do they really, please which ones? And examples of this "lower cost higher efficiency" please.
 
Do they really, please which ones? And examples of this "lower cost higher efficiency" please.

Well, right off the top of my head there's the fiat, which gets an average of 50miles/gallon. That makes my toyota corolla (at 30miles/gallon) an absolute gas hog by comparison.
 
It's gonna suck for people who have old P.O.S. cars that barely make the emissions requirements as is.

I can't imagine already being in that position and now being told that you can't use your car :shock:
 
The odd thing is that in other countries, countries that don't worship their cars like we do, have higher fuel efficiency and lower cost...
That is a crock. I would love to get a Vauxhall down here and can't because it won't pass any states emission or cafe standards, it has to be retrofitted which would basically invalidate the warranty, it is an English car BTW.
 
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.

So you are all for state rights, unless of course it hits you in the pocketbook!!!!
 
It's gonna suck for people who have old P.O.S. cars that barely make the emissions requirements as is.

I can't imagine already being in that position and now being told that you can't use your car :shock:
Who said you can't continue to drive older cars? We still have people driving cars that don't have seatbelts! Go ask another 3rd grader for a different idea. :roll:
 
That is a crock. I would love to get a Vauxhall down here and can't because it won't pass any states emission or cafe standards, it has to be retrofitted which would basically invalidate the warranty, it is an English car BTW.
What does that have to do with the discussion? No one said anything about importing a European car. :confused: Oh, I see, this was meant to show that European cars don't get better gas mileage. :roll:

The Vauxhall Agila gets 62.8mpg and has a list price of £7,631.05 which is about 10k US. (for the show model which is more expensive than the base model)
 
Who said you can't continue to drive older cars? We still have people driving cars that don't have seatbelts! Go ask another 3rd grader for a different idea. :roll:

If emissions tests get stricter then more of the ****tier (Cheap) cars will be illegal to drive in those areas.

Keep your personal attacks out of this thread and try to respond with some dignity please.
 
What does that have to do with the discussion? No one said anything about importing a European car. :confused: Oh, I see, this was meant to show that European cars don't get better gas mileage. :roll:

The Vauxhall Agila gets 62.8mpg and has a list price of £7,631.05 which is about 10k US. (for the show model which is more expensive than the base model)

No, it's meant to show that they won't pass the United States EMISSIONS requirements.

READ A POST IN IT'S ENTIRETY!
 
If emissions tests get stricter then more of the ****tier (Cheap) cars will be illegal to drive in those areas.

And that's bad? Furthermore by doing this we can force our own producers to innovate to meet the requirements and then sell those cars to other countries raising our exports and increasing our economy. Honda made billions off inventing a highly efficient engine that could meet emission standards without having to install a catalytic converter.
 
And that's bad? Furthermore by doing this we can force our own producers to innovate to meet the requirements and then sell those cars to other countries raising our exports and increasing our economy. Honda made billions off inventing a highly efficient engine that could meet emission standards without having to install a catalytic converter.

Of course in the long run it would be great.

Like I Said though, the people already in a ****ty position are just going to get dumped on even more.
 
Of course in the long run it would be great.

Like I Said though, the people already in a ****ty position are just going to get dumped on even more.

Then that increases incentives to create mass transit, something we really, really, really need.

People seem to have this odd notion that really poor people are buying cars. Where does that notion come from? :confused:

And you ignore the flip side. The less we innovate, the further our position in the world economy slips. Who's going to get dumped on even more when that piper comes to collect his money? Those already in a ****ty position.
 
Then that increases incentives to create mass transit, something we really, really, really need.

People seem to have this odd notion that really poor people are buying cars. Where does that notion come from? :confused:

And you ignore the flip side. The less we innovate, the further our position in the world economy slips. Who's going to get dumped on even more when that piper comes to collect his money? Those already in a ****ty position.

That doesnt stop me from feeling bad for people that can't afford to get another car.

I am ignoring nothing. I simply stated that I "Can't imagine how much that would suck" for them.
 
No, it's meant to show that they won't pass the United States EMISSIONS requirements.

READ A POST IN IT'S ENTIRETY!

As long as they put in a certain date, for vehicles that need to meet that restriction it shouldn't be a problem, especially if they make it coincide with the date the law takes effect(i.e. new emissions standards in 2009 only affects 2009 models and those going forward). But I always doubt the ability for common sense to find its way into legislation.

I know here in North Carolina, I had to get emission test for my 98 Dodge Durango, but not my 95 Cougar. In Wisconsin, I didn't get tested for either car ever, and pollution wasn't a problem. So with their less population in Wisco, they probably don't need emission standards other states need, as whatever models come out that meet those standards would suffice.
 
Well, right off the top of my head there's the fiat, which gets an average of 50miles/gallon. That makes my toyota corolla (at 30miles/gallon) an absolute gas hog by comparison.

And what are the drawbacks? Isn't that fiat a small compact car unable to pas US Highway safety regulations?
 
So you are all for state rights, unless of course it hits you in the pocketbook!!!!

I didn't say that. You're cute though when you try to be witty.

I can be for states rights and disagree with what a state does now can't I?
 
Allowing the States to set their own standards is fine if those standards are limited to residents of that state. I do not think that can be imposed on businesses or vacationing people who are only there temporarily or just passing through. It is not reasonable to expect every states' standards to be known to every person.

With that said, it is an issue better left to the States, and the federal government should stay out of it completely.

This is a +1 for Obama in my book.
 
Allowing the States to set their own standards is fine if those standards are limited to residents of that state. I do not think that can be imposed on businesses or vacationing people who are only there temporarily or just passing through. It is not reasonable to expect every states' standards to be known to every person.

With that said, it is an issue better left to the States, and the federal government should stay out of it completely.

This is a +1 for Obama in my book.

It would almost certainly only apply to vehicles that are registered in California.
 
Great. So now, Detroit most likely won't be able to sell it's cars in California. Way to stimulate that economy, Obama. Dumbass.

It isn't Obama forcing higher standards, it is the states. The states have this right. Frankly, even Detroit admits it needs to change the way it does things. This is one of those areas, and if California and other states see a need for stricter standards, they should enact them and provide more impetus to force Detroit to do what it needs to do.

The Japanese automakers can meet the standards. Why can't Detroit?
 
And what are the drawbacks? Isn't that fiat a small compact car unable to pas US Highway safety regulations?

Is it?

.........
 
It's gonna suck for people who have old P.O.S. cars that barely make the emissions requirements as is.

I can't imagine already being in that position and now being told that you can't use your car :shock:

Just be thankful you aren't in Singapore where you are not allowed to have a car older than three years old on the road.
 
Back
Top Bottom