• 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!

Trump: Administration Is Revoking California Emissions Waiver

Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
Newsom is defying the order.
Click to expand...

Is he? The last news I saw is the opposite. Regardless, auto manufacturers would be foolish to lower emissions standards. The next Democratic administration is just going to return them.
 
year2late said:
OK, so why the theatrics then???
Click to expand...

Because the California state government routinely opposes many policies of the Trump administration, circuit courts there often rule against Trump policies, Trump often states that California lets illegals vote and that's why he lost the popular vote to Hillary and the citizens of that state are largely Democrats.

So, anything he can do to annoy, harass or frustrate California looks good to his base and makes our snowflake-in-chief feel better.

That was the long way to say that the theatrics are there to get Trump votes from his base and to make him feel better about himself.
 
year2late said:
Trump: Administration Is Revoking California Emissions Waiver - WSJ

The waiver was to improve air quality. It has been in place for decades.

He clearly is trying to gain favor with the oil industry.

So much for states rights.

Other article if you can't access WSJ

Trump fight on California auto emissions could outlast presidency - Reuters
Click to expand...

1. It hasn't been in place for decades. it was granted under the obama administration.
2. it was a waver which means it can be revoked.
3. CA doesn't have much of a fight.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I am not arguing that. I don't agree with the action.

My sole point was to counter the claim the Federal government could not revoke what it granted.

I agree that emissions need to be controlled.
Click to expand...

They are changing the standards from i think 45 mpg to 37 mpg.
for fleet mpg.

i am sure the states after that can set their own standards if they wish but
the old rules would no longer apply.
 
Felis Leo said:
It's almost as if he does not hew to any conservative principles except when it happens to coincide with what he wants.

He seems to view conservatism the way Turkey's Erdogan views democracy. A streetcar that you take for a bit and when you come to your stop, you get off.
Click to expand...


Trump is a modern day Archie Bunker. He knows no more about the world around him than the loudmouth on the next barstool.

He has no world view at all. Nothing beyond the simple jingoistic prejudices that are common amongst his fans.

Which is one of the many reasons he cuts such a pathetic figure on the world stage.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I am not arguing that. I don't agree with the action.

My sole point was to counter the claim the Federal government could not revoke what it granted.

I agree that emissions need to be controlled.
Click to expand...
I don't dispute that the federal government can't do that. My point was that there is no precedent for the federal government not allowing a state to set emission standards for itself. Before these CA rules, LA has smog alerts, where it was unsafe to breathe the air. That's been gone for decades. So now, the ignoramus in chief thinks we all would be better getting rid of very successful regulations?

Another point is that he seems to take actions that hurt states that didn't vote for him. CA is a prime example.
 
MTAtech said:
So much for that conservative principle of states rights. No administration has ever revoked a state’s authority to regulate its own air quality in the past.
Click to expand...

You dont agree with the principle of states rights so you should be happy about this.
 
ElChupacabra said:
If this administration wants a national standard, then just follow the California example because it sets higher goals already agreed to by some of the largest auto manufacturers. And I agree that this will change little in terms of the long term planning auto makers have been making in this area. There's a demand for more efficient vehicles and there's a savings to the cost of ownership over the long term.
Click to expand...
The auto makers go along with it because California is the largest market. So what we have is kook fringe California lawmakers essentially setting the standard for the rest of the country. Now they cant and thats a good thing for the rights of the other 49 states.
 
Fletch said:
You dont agree with the principle of states rights so you should be happy about this.
Click to expand...
You shouldn't tell other people what they believe in. I believe in federalism and the words that are in the 10th Amendment.

What I mostly believe in is that policy should be formed by careful analysis and weighing costs and benefits. Policy shouldn't be made through ignorance, brashly for the sake of being brash or by shooting from the hip -- which is what we have.
 
Fletch said:
The auto makers go along with it because California is the largest market. So what we have is kook fringe California lawmakers essentially setting the standard for the rest of the country. Now they cant and thats a good thing for the rights of the other 49 states.
Click to expand...
Why can't it be good? CA needs higher standards because smog gets trapped by the mountains. I really don't mind having a vehicle that gets better emissions than the federal government decides. Moreover, I don't mind automakers saving money by adhering to one standard, than two or more.

In essence, this policy change makes little or no sense. Defending it makes less sense.

Revoking the waiver makes cars more expensive, not cheaper.
Let's cut to the chase: this wasn't done on rational grounds. He's against anything Obama and anything liberals want, no matter how sensible.
 
MTAtech said:
Why can't it be good? CA needs higher standards because smog gets trapped by the mountains. I really don't mind having a vehicle that gets better emissions than the federal government decides. Moreover, I don't mind automakers saving money by adhering to one standard, than two or more.

In essence, this policy change makes little or no sense. Defending it makes less sense.

Revoking the waiver makes cars more expensive, not cheaper.
Let's cut to the chase: this wasn't done on rational grounds. He's against anything Obama and anything liberals want, no matter how sensible.
Click to expand...

You agree because 'you dont mind.' Thats not the proper standard. California, because of its size, gets to set the standard for everyone else in the nation. They shouldnt have that power and now they dont.
 
Fletch said:
You agree because 'you dont mind.' Thats not the proper standard. California, because of its size, gets to set the standard for everyone else in the nation. They shouldnt have that power and now they dont.
Click to expand...

That's the same with Texas and school textbooks. Are you going after them too, or is it because Calidirnia is more liberal?
 
Fletch said:
The auto makers go along with it because California is the largest market. So what we have is kook fringe California lawmakers essentially setting the standard for the rest of the country. Now they cant and thats a good thing for the rights of the other 49 states.
Click to expand...

The auti mskers are also trying to keep their products competitive in the rest of the world. Because i guess for some reason they want to sell cars. God only knows why....

But now the DoJ is going after them for doing this. Free enterprise and capitalism are now dirty words to the right.
 
MTAtech said:
You shouldn't tell other people what they believe in. I believe in federalism and the words that are in the 10th Amendment.

What I mostly believe in is that policy should be formed by careful analysis and weighing costs and benefits. Policy shouldn't be made through ignorance, brashly for the sake of being brash or by shooting from the hip -- which is what we have.
Click to expand...

I dont really believe you. If Texas republicans were making laws that impacted the entire nation that you didnt like, youd be throwing the states rights issue right under the bus.
 
rocket88 said:
That's the same with Texas and school textbooks. Are you going after them too, or is it because Calidirnia is more liberal?
Click to expand...

Link to it and Ill check it out.
 
Felis Leo said:
It's almost as if he does not hew to any conservative principles except when it happens to coincide with what he wants.

He seems to view conservatism the way Turkey's Erdogan views democracy. A streetcar that you take for a bit and when you come to your stop, you get off.
Click to expand...

I'd agree that he doesn't hew to conservative principles, but it seems tgat the only principle of the Republican party anymore is Trump is God.
 
Paul Krugman argues this is about regulation rage.
Regulation rage has a couple of distinctive features. One is its disproportionality, in which fairly mild restrictions set off volcanic anger. The other is the sheer pettiness of many of the ragers’ complaints. Trump, by his own account, dislikes modern light bulbs because they make him look orange — which isn’t even true. (He does indeed look orange, but it’s probably because of his addiction to artificial tanning and excessive use of bronzer.)Oh, and do people remember Trump’s opposition to regulations that protect the ozone layer because, he claimed, his hair spraywasn’t working as well as it used to?
Click to expand...
 
year2late said:
Trump: Administration Is Revoking California Emissions Waiver - WSJ

The waiver was to improve air quality. It has been in place for decades.

He clearly is trying to gain favor with the oil industry.

So much for states rights.

Other article if you can't access WSJ

Trump fight on California auto emissions could outlast presidency - Reuters
Click to expand...
It's very expensive for the auto industry to have two standards for emissions. Its about building less expensive cars. If Californians are worried they should just buy electric vehicles.
 
Last edited:
SLC said:
It's very expensive for the auto industry to have two standards for emissions. Its about building less expensive cars. If Californians are worried the should just buy electric vehicles.
Click to expand...

That's why they build most cars to adhere to California standards. But Trump has the DoJ going after them for that.
 
SLC said:
So California makes my car more expensive . No thanks.
Click to expand...

I guess you like spending a ton of money on gas.

I can't wait for smog to be a problem in LA again. Of corse that will be because of Democrats....
 
rocket88 said:
I guess you like spending a ton of money on gas.

I can't wait for smog to be a problem in LA again. Of corse that will be because of Democrats....
Click to expand...
I don't buy gas. Californians could buy electric vehicles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom