Trump: Administration Is Revoking California Emissions Waiver

Fletch said:

Which means 37 havent. And I do drive a 'coal roller' because I am pro-global warming. A warmer planet is a better planet and someday you or your offspring will thank me for all I have done to make the world a better place.

Click to expand...

So if states are going to a higher standard voluntarily, others can choose to stick with lower fuel efficiency vehicles until that market dries out. Free markets, yeah?


As for a "warmer planet is a better planet", that all depends on the consequences. I don't worry about the planet; it will be just fine no matter what we do to it. What concerns me are the actions we take to make it less hospitable for us.

ElChupacabra said:

So if states are going to a higher standard voluntarily, others can choose to stick with lower fuel efficiency vehicles until that market dries out. Free markets, yeah?

Click to expand...

Automakers cannot accommodate one standard for California and another for everyone else. Since California is the largest market, their demands carry the day with auto makers thus nullifying the national standard. I think we can see now why they got that exemption.

Fletch said:

Those are the types of question only a person seeking to empower the state would ask.

Click to expand...

We have a state. What's its purpose if not to serve the interests of the people. I don't seek to empower the state but to serve the people. Very often we're best served when the state gets the hell out of the way entirely. Very often, we're best served by the state exercising power. Only ideologues argue it's either/or and I have no patience for that nonsense.

You dont empower someone by giving them something that isnt theirs and isnt yours to give. What you have done is made them a dependent.

Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, you're just splitting hairs here. If they don't get medical care, they are DEAD. That's empowering, or more empowering than making them dependent? Besides, for someone poor it's not a question of being dependent but on whom. If not government then charity.

Because there is a problem in LA doesnt mean they have the right to decide how everyone else in the country should live. If they want higher standards, they can get them through congress like everyone else has to.

Click to expand...

Yes, of course, you're a proponent of states' rights, which means they need to ask Uncle Fed's permission to exercise these 'rights.'

You use using both the word freedom and empower incorrectly as your comments have nothing to do with either. Turning power over to the state to 'solve' all these problems is empowering the state. That should be obvious. Unless, of course, you believe that central planning and central control is truly the way to freedom and individual empowerment.

Click to expand...

Correct, to some extent. But it's not an either/or proposition for rational people. Take pollution. We KNOW, it's in the historical record, that there were cities here in the U.S. choked with smog, couldn't see a quarter mile many days, toxic rivers, 1000s of what we now call Superfund sites and more. The people were helpless to stop that. LA as we speak is choked with pollution on bad days, and there are lots of them. This isn't a question - it's fact. So if you don't "empower" the state to solve it, how does it get solved? Magic? Wishes? We pray to Ayn Rand?

We know what DID solve most of our pollution problems and it's the STATE. So damn right "central control" is sometimes necessary and sometimes EMPOWERS both the state and individuals who without the added cost of dealing with sickness caused by dirty air, or being DEAD, can better pursue their lives without bearing costs of pollution imposed on them by others and that they cannot impact individually. That's one reason WHY we have government.

Besides, your argument is what exactly? You don't argue that we shouldn't have the state involved in regulating pollution, you just don't like how CA goes about it, so want to force CA to live under rules imposed by the Feds. So it's not a states' rights argument, and it's not a personal empowerment argument. It's a "I DON'T LIKE HOW CA DID IT" argument.

Fletch said:

Automakers cannot accommodate one standard for California and another for everyone else. Since California is the largest market, their demands carry the day with auto makers thus nullifying the national standard. I think we can see now why they got that exemption.

Click to expand...

So the principle is - States' rights, unless the state is a big one, then to hell with states' rights?

Fletch said:

Automakers cannot accommodate one standard for California and another for everyone else. Since California is the largest market, their demands carry the day with auto makers thus nullifying the national standard. I think we can see now why they got that exemption.

Click to expand...

For a long time there were two standards; CA and 49 state cars. CA began emission standards in 1966, the country followed sometime later. In the early 1980’s there were 49 state cars and CA cars. That continued for many years.....

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...

If California fails on the waiver, why couldn’t it accomplish the same result by threatening a pollution tax on owners of higher polluting cars to help pay the cost of dealing with the environmental damage. It would kill the market in the bud for them. One way or another Trump will lose on this, as is his custom.

JasperL said:

OK, so you're a fan of Big Government from Washington. That's OK, just don't pretend you care about "states' rights" in some other context. What you're arguing in effect is that because CA is so big they don't get to enjoy "states' rights" but I presume a smaller state like Wyoming or Tennessee should have "states' rights" properly denied CA. Where's the principle in that, other than "states' rights" when you like the outcome? If not, then save us Big brother!!

Click to expand...

Oh stop.

At least try to make a rational argument.

We already have government regulation through the EPA. California wants to be above the US Government and the rest of the country.

Is this where I should claim you are for singular totalitarian regimes that don't answer to the people?

All citizens have a say in what the Federal Government does via the elected politicians they send to Washington.

What say do citizens have in North Carolina over regulations Progressives set in California that effect them? What recourse do they have?

And the one issue you keep sprinting away from, why should California have rights that no other state has?

rocket88 said:

Are you saying that no Chevys have been sold in California in the past 50 years? Being as they clearly have, or seems automakers can afford it.

Click to expand...

Your reply make zero sense. You are obviously trying to engage on a topic from an emotional/ideological standpoint, rather than an informed/rational standpoint.

Given the volume of vehicles purchased in California, auto makers build to that standard alone, whether those standards make sense, or not.

Those California standards add costs that people all across the country must pay as well.

Do you support a single state having more power than the Federal Government?

ocean515 said:

Your reply make zero sense. You are obviously trying to engage on a topic from an emotional/ideological standpoint, rather than an informed/rational standpoint.

Given the volume of vehicles purchased in California, auto makers build to that standard alone, whether those standards make sense, or not.

Those California standards add costs that people all across the country must pay as well.

Do you support a single state having more power than the Federal Government?

Click to expand...

You said auto makers couldn't afford to meet California standards. The past 50 years prove that to be false.

It's federal overreach. Which is exsctly what you'd be screaming if Obama tried this.

Do you support smog? That was the result in the past. Simply put, the GOP suppirts unlimited pollution and using as much energy as humanly possible (but not reneewable energy, that causes cancer).

rocket88 said:

You said auto makers couldn't afford to meet California standards. The past 50 years prove that to be false.

It's federal overreach. Which is exsctly what you'd be screaming if Obama tried this.

Do you support smog? That was the result in the past. Simply put, the GOP suppirts unlimited pollution and using as much energy as humanly possible (but not reneewable energy, that causes cancer).

Click to expand...

No, I did not say automakers could not afford to build to California standards. That would make no sense.

Automakers can't afford to build cars that meet California standards, and then cars that meet the standards for the rest of the country.

What they do is build cars that meet the higher California standards, period. The rest of the country can only buy those cars, and must pay the higher prices for them.

And your lame "do you support smog" BS further erases any reason to consider your uninformed opinion.

Do you support a single state dictating what the country must do?

ocean515 said:

No, I did not say automakers could not afford to build to California standards. That would make no sense.

Automakers can't afford to build cars that meet California standards, and then cars that meet the standards for the rest of the country.

What they do is build cars that meet the higher California standards, period. The rest of the country can only buy those cars, and must pay the higher prices for them.

And your lame "do you support smog" BS further erases any reason to consider your uninformed opinion.

Do you support a single state dictating what the country must do?

Click to expand...

I support a state making it's own regulations and i support businesses doing what makes the most sense from a business standpoint.

You're all on this kool-aid fest that the price of cars will go way down. It will have no such effect because automakers are continuing to make cars tge way they've been doing it. All it will do is stifle innovation and make Americans turn to imports again.

rocket88 said:

I support a state making it's own regulations and i support businesses doing what makes the most sense from a business standpoint.

You're all on this kool-aid fest that the price of cars will go way down. It will have no such effect because automakers are continuing to make cars tge way they've been doing it. All it will do is stifle innovation and make Americans turn to imports again.

Click to expand...

So you support a single state dictating National Policy, and forcing everyone across the Nation to live by it, with no ability to do anything about it.

What if California decided to eliminate all EPA standards. Would you support that?

ocean515 said:

Oh stop.

At least try to make a rational argument.

We already have government regulation through the EPA. California wants to be above the US Government and the rest of the country.

Is this where I should claim you are for singular totalitarian regimes that don't answer to the people?

All citizens have a say in what the Federal Government does via the elected politicians they send to Washington.

What say do citizens have in North Carolina over regulations Progressives set in California that effect them? What recourse do they have?

And the one issue you keep sprinting away from, why should California have rights that no other state has?

Click to expand...

I've not been sprinting away from anything. They either have the right to set pollution standards in a state with serious pollution problems - you have seen it - or they don't. If you want Big Brother to demand CA abide by lower standards, or prohibit them from setting higher standards, that's fine but it's an argument for Big Brother, not states' rights. It's an argument that states' rights are a bedrock principle unless and until you don't like the outcome, and then Big Brother should step in and fix this policy problem by forcing 50 states to a single standard.

JasperL said:

I've not been sprinting away from anything. They either have the right to set pollution standards in a state with serious pollution problems - you have seen it - or they don't. If you want Big Brother to demand CA abide by lower standards, or prohibit them from setting higher standards, that's fine but it's an argument for Big Brother, not states' rights. It's an argument that states' rights are a bedrock principle unless and until you don't like the outcome, and then Big Brother should step in and fix this policy problem by forcing 50 states to a single standard.

Click to expand...

There is no proof that California's higher standards have accomplished anything the Federal Standards would not have achieved by themselves.

California is forcing the citizens of other states to be penalized by their actions, with no recourse.

What of the rights of other states? Apparently, you don't care about them.

ocean515 said:

There is no proof that California's higher standards have accomplished anything the Federal Standards would not have achieved by themselves.

California is forcing the citizens of other states to be penalized by their actions, with no recourse.

What of the rights of other states? Apparently, you don't care about them.

Click to expand...

Wyoming or Tennessee can do what they want. If the care makers decide to only make CA-compliant cars, that's not a problem caused by CA (and the other states that join those standards) but by the automakers.

And your question about effectiveness is pretty silly - did standards that forced lower emissions than federal requirements actually work to lower emissions? The only argument they didn't is automakers would have without prompting or regulations voluntarily met CA standards in the absence of them. That seems....unlikely, but it's a hypothetical. And it's also policy.

So your argument is you don't like how 'states' rights' turned out in this case, so to hell with states' rights, SAVE US BIG BROTHER!!! I WANT DIRTIER AIR IN CA!!

JasperL said:

Wyoming or Tennessee can do what they want. If the care makers decide to only make CA-compliant cars, that's not a problem caused by CA (and the other states that join those standards) but by the automakers.

And your question about effectiveness is pretty silly - did standards that forced lower emissions than federal requirements actually work to lower emissions? The only argument they didn't is automakers would have without prompting or regulations voluntarily met CA standards in the absence of them. That seems....unlikely, but it's a hypothetical. And it's also policy.

So your argument is you don't like how 'states' rights' turned out in this case, so to hell with states' rights, SAVE US BIG BROTHER!!! I WANT DIRTIER AIR IN CA!!

Click to expand...

No, that is not my argument.

I don't like a single state dictating what the rest of the citizens of the nation must abide by.

Perhaps a totalitarian approach is something you are comfortable with, since it seems that is where you are taking your argument.

The American Auto Industry is a vital component of the US Economy. Keeping it viable, and their workers employed is important.

A single standard set by the Federal Government is an important part of that objective.

That protects all states rights, not just the one state that thinks it can rule the country.

ocean515 said:

So you support a single state dictating National Policy, and forcing everyone across the Nation to live by it, with no ability to do anything about it.

What if California decided to eliminate all EPA standards. Would you support that?

Click to expand...

No state is forcing anything on you. There's no laws stopping any automakers from making 2 different versions. They don't choose to, which makes sense.

Are you laboring under the misconception that this means the 57 Chevy Bel Air will make a comeback at 1500 dollars again?

rocket88 said:

No state is forcing anything on you. There's no laws stopping any automakers from making 2 different versions. They don't choose to, which makes sense.

Are you laboring under the misconception that this means the 57 Chevy Bel Air will make a comeback at 1500 dollars again?

Click to expand...

Right. Only the laws of economics, which the Progressives ruling California are on record claiming they will exploit to force the Nation to bend to their will.

JasperL said:

I've not been sprinting away from anything. They either have the right to set pollution standards in a state with serious pollution problems - you have seen it - or they don't. If you want Big Brother to demand CA abide by lower standards, or prohibit them from setting higher standards, that's fine but it's an argument for Big Brother, not states' rights. It's an argument that states' rights are a bedrock principle unless and until you don't like the outcome, and then Big Brother should step in and fix this policy problem by forcing 50 states to a single standard.

Click to expand...

This is what I wrote in a similar thread.

This is a federal authority under interstate commerce. The Clean Air Act allowed California to make its own rules. However, it required a waiver from the EPA, which they got under Obama. Trump revoked that waiver but failed to provide scientific and technical data supporting their action, as required by law. So, off to court. My guess is that the courts will order an injunction that stays the revocation until after Trump leaves office, presuming he doesn’t declare he’s a dictator for life.

The other issue is whether the standard the EPA sets is an absolute standard or a minimum standard. California and the 14 states that are setting their standards to California’s can argue that the intent of the Clean Air Act was to set a minimum standard that states can naturally exceed.

Trump's transition from con-artist into Captain Planet super-villain is going pretty smoothly.

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...

Did anyone see McConnell's wife the secretary of transportation grinning from ear to ear with glee as she socked it to the state of California on this? At least McConnell is a little more subtle as he sticks the knife in your back and turns it. She doesn't hold back her hatefulness.

GDViking said:

Now it's time for cultists who hate "big Gubbimnt" to come and tell us what a thing it is for trump to take aw state rights and increase our pollution.

Trump is hands down the worst thing to happen to a clean america in my lifetime...

Click to expand...

You're not going to hear squat except praise.

EnigmaO01 said:

Did anyone see McConnell's wife the secretary of transportation grinning from ear to ear with glee as she socked it to the state of California on this? At least McConnell is a little more subtle as he sticks the knife in your back and turns it. She doesn't hold back her hatefulness.

Click to expand...

She has to go too. She's a corrupt swamp creature, as the NY Times reported recently.

For the Chao Family, Deep Ties to the World’s 2 Largest EconomiesForemost Group, the New York-based shipping company founded by Mr. Chao in 1964, landed its first big contract with the United States government, shipping rice to Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War.

Now, it builds most of its ships in state-owned shipyards in China, with some financed by Chinese government loans. In at least two instances, those Chinese-backed, Chinese-built ships entered long-term contracts to deliver iron ore for a state-owned steel maker.

More than 70 percent of Foremost’s freight goes to China, and most of that is iron ore, according to recent shipping data.
...
The Trump administration has left little doubt that the federal government is willing to use its clout to boost certain American industrial sectors, including coal and steel. Those efforts have not extended to the maritime industry under Ms. Chao’s leadership.

The Transportation Department budget during her tenure has repeatedly called for cuts for programs intended to support the depressed system of American-flagged ships. The agency budget has also called for scaling back plans to replace up to five academy ships to train a new generation of American mariners.

Click to expand...

Wasn't her father basically a mafia Don?