• 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!

EPA expected to announce rollback of Obama-era mileage standards

PleasantValley said:
Thanks. You now just made the decision on my next vehicle even harder.

Dodge 3500 or a small Chevy gas sipper.
My genitalia chooses the Dodge 3500, but my brain and bank account chooses the small gas sipper.
Click to expand...

Since the Dodge is a truck, it is not subject to the same rules.
The smaller 1500's might be but I don't think the model you are talking about is listed as a passenger vehicle.
It's a heavy duty truck and unless I am mistaken, those don't have as strict a mileage requirement.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/au...-rollback-obama-era-mileage-standards-n861416

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce steps today that will roll back the strict, 54.5 mpg fuel economy rules set to phase in between now and 2025. The move would eliminate one of President Barack Obama's key climate change initiatives and set the White House on a collision course with states that have already pledged to follow the tighter regulations.

The Obama administration had been required to conduct a “mid-term review” of the fuel economy standards — and opted to keep them, shortly before President Donald Trump took office. But Trump quickly made it clear the EPA, led by pro-business Administrator Scott Pruitt, would reconsider that decision.
=========================================================================
I'm sure Trump is systematically rolling back most Obama environmental decisions out of either spite, malice or racism...or just a gift to the oil lobby so they can sell more gasoline.

California appears likely to seek a waiver.
Click to expand...

California EPA was already informed that their standards will be lowered whether they like it or not.
Air quality and fuel economy will no longer be forced to meet California standards.

Years ago, there used to be "49-state" cars and "California cars" and few if any met "50-state" air quality and fuel economy standards however by around 2010 or so, almost all cars just automatically were manufactured to be "50-state compliant" which was another way of saying that they all met California's stricter standards.
My wife's new Chrysler Pacifica minivan is a 50-state vehicle.

Trump's EPA as headed by Scott Pruitt intends to drastically roll back air quality and fuel economy standards and they will sue California if they attempt to fight it.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Typical POS Trump, fork him, when he's gone all this **** will go right back into place. You can't stop progress
Click to expand...


No, you can't stop what you call "progress", but you can slow it down. That alone is of benefit.
 
Deuce said:
I would argue it affects everyone who, you know, breathes.
Click to expand...

That would put you in the camp of the loonie left.

You are, I presume, his "victim" and by figuratively choking the life out of you he now owes you and your ilk something?

Why don't you come right out and say what he should do for you.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/au...-rollback-obama-era-mileage-standards-n861416

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce steps today that will roll back the strict, 54.5 mpg fuel economy rules set to phase in between now and 2025. The move would eliminate one of President Barack Obama's key climate change initiatives and set the White House on a collision course with states that have already pledged to follow the tighter regulations.

The Obama administration had been required to conduct a “mid-term review” of the fuel economy standards — and opted to keep them, shortly before President Donald Trump took office. But Trump quickly made it clear the EPA, led by pro-business Administrator Scott Pruitt, would reconsider that decision.
=========================================================================
I'm sure Trump is systematically rolling back most Obama environmental decisions out of either spite, malice or racism...or just a gift to the oil lobby so they can sell more gasoline.

California appears likely to seek a waiver.
Click to expand...

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.................the racism thingy again.

LMAO!
 
JacksinPA said:
How many blacks (other than crazy Ben Carson) are in the WH currently?
Click to expand...

Isn't this a racist statement?

He is under no obligation to meet yours or anyone else's melanin quotas. Of course a conservative black man must be crazy, yes?

How transparently awful your world appears to me. I would find hell a more enjoyable place to live.
 
Cardinal said:
So why did you bring it up? You said, "They are going to be below that national standard" after you mentioned the waiver, so clearly you had some opinion of what it meant.

Were you bluffing and just hoping nobody would press you on the issue?
Click to expand...
If you going to jump in the middle you should at least read the post I was responding to. Read the OP, Jack suggested that California would likely seek out a waiver and I asked why would they when their standards likely exceed the national ones.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Rogue Valley said:
We don't want our air to get too clean now do we (rhetorical), or further minimize CO[sub]2[/sub] greenhouse gas levels.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we do, if any of the mass of American boobs decide to actually think through an issue. Part of this remedial education starts with the knowledge that CAFE standards are generated by work of the NHTSA. While they provide extensive analytical review, they are tasked by the administration to look at factors and goals that may or may not have been looked at in prior administrations - choices that can affect outcome.

Frankly, I am not familiar with CAFE work after 2009 (the last time I investigated it) BUT the standards proposed (and passed) by the Obama administration back then is illustrative of how it works.

In a nutshell: under Bush the NHTSA in 2008 analyzed the recommended 35.5mpg in 2016 as the goal, with light Trucks to his 30mpg by 2016. The Obama Administration used the same analysis, but chose to propose another option, to increase the standard to 39mpg (there were four).

Using models, the NHTSA evaluates the safety, fuel efficiency, environmental benefits, and economic costs. In this evaluation there are tradeoffs; e.g. smaller cars mean better MPG but lower SAFETY.

The difference between the Bush proposal and the Obama proposal was not over methodology (they were identical) but over deciding what goal was "best". The Bush administration chose the economically most logical goal, that of maximization of social benefits over the social costs imposed by regulation (SB minus SC) from regulation.

The Obama administration chose to propose even tougher and more costly regulation, so tough that the social net benefit was eroded to the point zero return. TB=TC.

You might think of it this way, there is an inflection point where for every dollar of added regulation you are LOSING more than you are gaining. (EG losing jobs, consumer buying power, etc.).

In my view, the Obama administration choice was not based on the gain to social well being, but the quasi-religious and subjective belief that 'more fuel economy is always better'. But the net result of that policy was also predicted to be an additional loss of 37,000 jobs and microscopic benefit in the reduction of greenhouse gases:

Both options would reduce the global mean surface temperature by one-thousandth of one degree Celsius by 2030. The Obama option would reduce the global temperature by seven thousandths of a degree Celsius by the end of this century.
The effects on sea level are too small to measure by 2030. By 2100, the Obama proposal (technically, the TC=TB proxy) would reduce the sea-level rise by six hundredths of a centimeter. That’s 0.6 millimeters.
Click to expand...

https://keithhennessey.com/2009/05/19/understanding-the-presidents-cafe-announcement/

So as most economists and economically literate know, especially in regulatory economics, there can be too much of a good think.
 
Last edited:
JacksinPA said:
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/au...-rollback-obama-era-mileage-standards-n861416

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce steps today that will roll back the strict, 54.5 mpg fuel economy rules set to phase in between now and 2025. The move would eliminate one of President Barack Obama's key climate change initiatives and set the White House on a collision course with states that have already pledged to follow the tighter regulations.

The Obama administration had been required to conduct a “mid-term review” of the fuel economy standards — and opted to keep them, shortly before President Donald Trump took office. But Trump quickly made it clear the EPA, led by pro-business Administrator Scott Pruitt, would reconsider that decision.
=========================================================================
I'm sure Trump is systematically rolling back most Obama environmental decisions out of either spite, malice or racism...or just a gift to the oil lobby so they can sell more gasoline.

California appears likely to seek a waiver.
Click to expand...

Trumps rolling back Obama's EPA CAFE standards because he's " Racist " ? :lamo

No he's rollling them back because he ran on reducing Obama's burdensome economy killing and consumer taxing regulations.
CAFE standards are just another tax on consumers and if you wanted Obama's disastrous agenda to continue on after 2016, you people should have turned up to vote in the 6 blue states Trump flipped
 
maxparrish said:
Perhaps we do, if any of the mass of American boobs decide to actually think through an issue. Part of this remedial education starts with the knowledge that CAFE standards are generated by work of the NHTSA. While they provide extensive analytical review, they are tasked by the administration to look at factors and goals that may or may not have been looked at in prior administrations - choices that can affect outcome.

Frankly, I am not familiar with CAFE work after 2009 (the last time I investigated it) BUT the standards proposed (and passed) by the Obama administration back then is illustrative of how it works.

In a nutshell: under Bush the NHTSA in 2008 analyzed the recommended 35.5mpg in 2016 as the goal, with light Trucks to his 30mpg by 2016. The Obama Administration used the same analysis, but chose to propose another option, to increase the standard to 39mpg (there were four).

Using models, the NHTSA evaluates the safety, fuel efficiency, environmental benefits, and economic costs. In this evaluation there are tradeoffs; e.g. smaller cars mean better MGP but lower SAFETY.

The difference between the Bush proposal and the Obama proposal was not over methodology (they were identical) but over deciding what goal was "best". The Bush administration chose the economically most logical goal, that of maximization of social benefits over the social costs imposed by regulation (SB minus SC) from regulation.

The Obama administration chose to propose even tougher and more costly regulation, so tough that the social net benefit was eroded to the point zero return. TB=TC.

You might think of it this way, there is an inflection point where for every dollar of added regulation you are LOSING more than you are gaining. (EG losing jobs, consumer buying power, etc.).

In my view, the Obama administration choice was not based on the gain to social well being, but the quasi-religious and subjective belief that 'more economy is always better'. But the net result of that policy was also predicted to be an additional loss of 37,000 jobs and microscopic benefit in the reduction of greenhouse gases:



https://keithhennessey.com/2009/05/19/understanding-the-presidents-cafe-announcement/

So as most economists and economically literate know, especially in regulatory economics, there can be too much of a good think.
Click to expand...


What do you think of when you think of German auto engineering (BMW, AUDI, Mercedes?)

What do you think of German engineering building cars that meet government specs?

Hint: you get the socialist's favorite "car" the Trabant (Trabbie), only 5 years wages (paid in advance) to be put on the 2 year waiting list to get one of these "beauties"

Final QA for a German government designed car, watch and laugh....

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom