By on April 11, 2018

Now that the Environmental Protection Agency has officially confirmed its intent to roll back Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, the opposition has kicked things into high gear, mobilizing for the coming battle.

In one corner you have the White House and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt seeking lowered emission mandates. They claim the Obama administration created unfeasible fueling regulations, noting that the public regularly opts for less-efficient trucks and SUVs and largely ignores the purchase of electric vehicles. In the other corner you have a handful of Senate Democrats, environmental groups, and a bunch of blue states led by California lawmakers. They all say the preexisting rules are not only feasible, but essential for the good of the nation.

If you’re wondering which side of the highly partisan issue is correct, we’d argue it has almost everything to do with your point of view. Both sides can make a fairly strong case, and will do just that as the battle heats up. Fortunately, this may not end up being a legitimate civil war — if the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is to be believed. 

Initially, California said it would never consider CAFE rollbacks and would retain the strict fuel economy mandates solidified in 2011, regardless of what the federal government decided. However, as Pruitt’s announcement drew closer, it began to soften — saying there was room for compromise as long as California could keep its sovereignty. The EPA has not yet established a benchmark for the new rules and CARB chair Mary Nichols has said there is hope in that.

“Reason could prevail,” Nichols said at New Energy Finance’s Future of Energy Summit in New York. “There’s a way to get to success, unless your goal is to roll over California and not allow us to have any standards.”

Nichols said she’s willing to adjust California’s existing regulations to make them easier for automakers to comply with, but noted the state will refuse to abandon its overall emissions-reduction goals. However, most of the suggestions involve offering companies more pollution credits (for putting EVs on the road) or encouraging car-sharing models. Nichols also said automakers may not be held responsible for the pollution of power plants that provide energy to electric cars. But there’s been no mention of softening overall targets.

California Governor Jerry Brown is likely to back whatever the CARB comes up with, as they are frequently of one mind. Thus far, the state has only conducted informal talks with officials from the White House, EPA and NHTSA about the future of the fuel economy rules. But those discussions have not been entirely to California’s liking.

“They are not promising to do what we want,” Nichols said. “What they are saying is, ‘We’re going to propose a range of options, and we want you to like one of them.'”

Meanwhile, a half-dozen Senate Democrats have announced their complete opposition to any attempt to scale back fuel efficiency standards. The group criticized automakers for reneging on their earlier commitment to build cleaner cars after agreeing to the Obama-era rules. “And we will block any attempt to rescind California’s waiver. We will fight it if they try to put it in the budget, in any omnibus, or any other must-pass bill,” Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts explained to the press.

Markey is introducing the , which reaffirms the validity of the previously established fuel economy standards for vehicles of model years 2017 through 2021 and 2022 through 2025. The proposal suggests those targets would be advantageous for cash-strapped consumers and help drive innovation in the industry. Markey and his supporters also claim the act would be beneficial to America’s environmental health and national security — by minimizing the need for imported oil.

While a Republican-led Senate is unlikely to support the Gas Money Saved Act, the Democrats supporting the bill still see value in fighting for their cause and stopping what they see as hypocritical behavior on the part of the auto industry. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island and supporter of the proposed legislation, accused American automakers of “” to renege on standards they previously agreed to uphold.

“You can’t say on your website that you’re serious about clean energy, clean transportation and climate change, and then work through your trade association to undo a promise you made to the American people,” he said.

Recommended

145 Comments on “America’s Gas War Begins...”


  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Christ on a bike, in a Federalist system: state < fedgov. Start throwing some of those f**kers in jail or face usurpation. There are 20,000+ Federal statutes, and we all commit about three felonies a day. Not hard. These jag offs are not too big to jail.

    mic.com/articles/86797/8-ways-we-regularly-commit-felonies-without-realizing-it#.2Fui1oRQx

    • 0 avatar
      Astigmatism

      Filing a lawsuit against the EPA is a jailable offense now?

      My my, how the party of Constitutional freedoms, states’ rights and limited government has changed since my youth.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        Suing whomever you want is as American as Baseball and Apple Pie. It is up to the courts to decide if your lawsuit is worth a DANG or not. If it gets thrown out “prima facie” that’s the fault of the people/organization suing.

        • 0 avatar
          stingray65

          Suing is as American as Apple Pie, but governments suing government is just make work for lawyers paid for by taxpayers on both sides. Neither side has any personal skin in the game. In such cases, if the side bringing the lawsuit ends up losing side, they should be forced to pay court costs of both sides out of their own salaries and assets. Taxpayers should not be on the hook for frivolous lawsuits.

          • 0 avatar

            Loser pays is the ultimate wet dream of corporate America.

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            “Loser pays is the ultimate wet dream of corporate America”

            Along with everyone else whose stuck having to produce something of value for a living. Rather than simply shaking down those who do.

      • 0 avatar
        chuckrs

        Big fan of states rights. If California wants to set its own standards for air quality, fine. But if they want to compel the rest of the country to follow those standards, the hell with them and the lawsuit they rode in on.
        New England states have adopted California air quality standards, but some of the non-automotive ones are inappropriate. New England is not the LA basin and we have different issues. The confederacy of dunces in my state legislature are too busy fund raising and getting re-elected to bother with tailoring some of the CA regs appropriately.
        But hey, in less than 4 weeks the moving van will load up our possessions and we’ll vote with our feet.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        The entire drama that is this ridiculous thing is to what I refer.

        However:

        “This is becoming the new normal: in recent years, it has mostly been liberal states using their authority to counteract federal policy. In addition to same-sex marriage, Democratic states have embarked on a campaign of states’ rights, contradicting or threatening to contradict federal policy on marijuana decriminalization, environmental regulations, sanctuary cities, the border wall and a host of other issues. Likewise, state-level mobilization recently led to a wave of Democratic victories in states from New Jersey to Montana. Liberal campaigners should therefore embrace this new role, and take the lessons of the past to heart—just because the Republican Party currently controls most of the levers of federal power does not mean that a left-wing policy agenda cannot be realized.”

        http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/i-believe-in-states-rights-do-you/

        Oh ok so its not “the party of Constitutional freedoms, states’ rights and limited government” pushing this these days.

        “Politicians from California and other blue states plan to resist Mr Trump using three main tools: legislation, litigation and circumvention.

        Start with legislation. On December 5th California’s lawmakers introduced a package of laws to impede mass deportation. One bill would create a programme to fund legal representation for immigrants in deportation hearings. Andrew Cuomo, the governor of New York, announced earlier this month that he would launch a similar fund. A recent national study found that immigrants with legal counsel were five-and-a-half times more likely to avoid deportation than if they represented themselves. Yet only 14% of detained immigrants in deportation proceedings had lawyers. Gun control, health care and environmental policy are other areas where Democrat-dominated states might focus in the coming years, says John Hudak, a fellow at the Brookings Institution.”

        economist.com/news/united-states/21715039-americas-most-progressive-state-set-lead-new-fight-against-federal

        Whereas Romney argued for states’ rights with Obamacare:

        ““I’m going to get rid of the cloud of Obamacare and get us back to personal responsibility and states’ rights as it relates to health care,” said Romney, who has defended the plan he imposed in Massachusetts but has also said that states, and not the federal government, should regulate healthcare coverage.”

        http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/26/news/la-pn-romney-tells-virginians-healthcare-is-states-rights-issue-20120626

        and Brookings argues:

        “The Affordable Care Act is an experiment in federalism — or so it would appear at first glance. On October 1st, health insurance exchanges began enrollment across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. States can choose to manage the exchanges themselves, partner with the federal government or hand the task over entirely to the federal government. ”

        brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/DroppJackman-and-JackmanACA-Experment-in-Federalism102213

        In 2015, the Obama EPA was pushing “cooperative federalism.” when it was in power:

        “In August 2015, President Obama and the Environmental
        Protection Agency presented the Clean Power Plan,
        a plan aimed at reducing carbon pollution from power
        plants.1
        According to the EPA, the Clean Power Plan is “fair,
        flexible and designed to strengthen the fast-growing trend
        toward cleaner and lower-polluting American energy” by
        providing “strong but achievable standards for power plants,
        and customized goals for states to cut the carbon pollution
        that is driving climate change.”2
        This plan sets mandates
        from the federal government to be implemented by each
        state.3
        States are required to create plans that regulate power
        plants in their borders such that they achieve CO2 performance
        rates set by the federal government in an approach
        called “cooperative federalism.”4 ”

        I emphasize:

        “This plan sets mandates from the federal government to be implemented by each state”

        http://10294-presscdn-0-68.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Clean-Power-Plan

        Yet suddenly, “states’ rights” matter? We’re going to sue the EPA? What happened to “cooperative federalism”? Where was this sudden nobility during Obamacare?

        Uh huh.

        I say do not pass go, do not collect $200, and head directly to Jail hypocritical statist f**kwads.

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          lol everything old is new again.

          https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/06/south-carolina-lawmakers-again-consider-seceding-from-us/

          Never forget what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

          • 0 avatar
            stingray65

            There is a big difference between suing/threatening succession over maintaining Constitutionally protected rights (2nd Amendment or the right to not be forced to buy health insurance), and suing/threatening succession over changing fuel economy regulations or immigration laws that are not in the Bill of Rights.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            I wasn’t aware health insurance was in the Bill of Rights.

          • 0 avatar
            stingray65

            The Bill of Rights does not grant government the right to force citizens to make a private purchase, which is what Obamacare did. It was taken to the Supreme Court, and Roberts twisted the mandate into a tax so that it would be Constitutional, even though the bill itself did not mention tax.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            ROBERTS, THAT BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL! (shakes fist at sky)/s

        • 0 avatar
          xtoyota

          Who is 28-Cars-Later ????
          Within a few minutes of this article, he comes up with all these facts and writes this article …
          Seems strange to me …. who does he work for ??
          What political group ????

          • 0 avatar
            redapple

            xtoyota

            good catch. Yeah, really. How could an average guy:
            1- come up with all that data that fast.
            2-be that well versed on the topic.

            Unless they are employed doing this.

            Soros employee likely !!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @xtoyota

            Clearly, he is See Eye Aye pushing an agenda. /s

            Startpage is your friend, Logic is your guide, Rhetoric is your prose. I work for no one but myself. Oh and Kim Jong-il (he likes to play poker with Elvis on our island).

            @Dan

            I was thinking more along the lines of, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The President is a better man than I in this case, after about two weeks of this non-sense certain unelected technocrats would waking up to a horse’s head.

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            xtoyota,

            As hard as this may be to believe, there is a group of highly knowledgeable people whose knowledge is broad and deep in particular areas. These people are enthusiasts on particular subjects. For example, this website.

            Even more interesting is that people can have more than one area of interest where they become knowledgeable.

            In a world where most people have Kardashian levels of attention, this is likely a surprise to realize.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            jkross22,
            Or they are in the spectrum.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Leave it to Marxists to condemn informed citizens when all else fails. If only the Constitution had a specific clause that forbade states from making their own regulations in restraint of trade…

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          28-Cars-Later,
          So, why doesn’t the US find the best possible public help system in the world and emulate it?

          We have public health in Australia and as a product of GDP we pay the same amount of tax as a the US. So, it isn’t impossible with the amount of tax you guys pay to have a public health system.

          We also have the second most expensive system in the world. The system must be working as we have the second highest life expectancy, with one of the lowest infant mortalities globally.

          Ever hear of empathy, mate? Looking after another?

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Trading one’s freedom for the ability to take from another isn’t within the character of good people.

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      28-Cars-Later, the Clean Air Act allows California to create more stringent air pollution requirements than the nation. The problem is that a court ruling added carbon dioxide as a pollutant that the EPA and CARB can attempt to regulate. This means that CARB can legally make regulations that force auto manufacturers to try to plan for both CAFE and a separate California/CARB state requirement all while car customers choose to buy vehicles that don’t meet either target. The feds are considering stopping at the turbocharged four cylinder and 8+ gear ratio step while California wants to continue the forced march toward gas-electric hybrids.

  • avatar
    Land Ark

    Car makers would do well to continue to treat it all as if the mandates were to remain since regardless of the outcome in the immediate, this administration will not be in power forever.

    Continue working to that goal, even if the products you put out in the meantime don’t meet it.

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      Yes of course they should continue to invest in money losing vehicles that no one wants to buy unless they get big subsidies from taxpayers. Those pension funds holding GM and Ford stock are just too damn rich, they don’t need any dividends or stock appreciate from profits.

    • 0 avatar
      HahnZahn

      Someone I read once stated it more or less as “carmakers are able to see farther than their own noses.” I think it’d be stupid of them not to continue engineering toward the CAFE standards. California is the largest state, and we’re gonna have a huge influence on the market, regardless of CAFE or CARB. And when this admin is gone, they’ll be a new one that gets environmental protection back on track.

      • 0 avatar
        IBx1

        If y’all are the largest state and have a huge influence on the market, why are the Focus and Fiesta and Cruze being chopped in favor of Escapes and Equinoxes?

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          California is the land of 3/4 ton diesel trucks used for commuting to parking lots that only have compact car spaces. They’ll fall into the ocean under the weight of their delusions.

    • 0 avatar
      GaryR

      Also, let’s pretend there are no environmental impacts and we aren’t going to run out of oil. Are we not better off due to more fuel efficient cars? Oil still costs money and I have to put less in my newer cars to go the same distance. They are faster and accelerate faster.

      • 0 avatar
        stingray65

        More efficient cars just means people drive more, which is called direct rebound effects. And if they don’t drive more, they spend the money they save on gas on other stuff like an extra jet powered vacation or jumbo big screen TV or a lake cabin with boat, electric sauna and hottub, etc., which is called indirect rebound effects. Cars, TVs, Fridges, etc. use less than half the energy of those from 30+ years ago, but per capita energy consumption has barely changed because we use the savings to consumer more stuff that uses energy.

        • 0 avatar
          Astigmatism

          “More efficient cars just means people drive more.”

          I can’t speak for you, stingray, but I’ve never gotten to my house at the end of the day, realized I’ve only burned a half-gallon of gas on my commute, and decided to keep going until I burn the rest of that gallon like I used to in my old SUV.

          • 0 avatar
            Rick T.

            No. It’s a thing when more miles are driven when it’s cheaper to drive. Even the government says so:

            https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-906-january-4-2016-vmt-and-price-gasoline-typically-move-opposition

          • 0 avatar
            stingray65

            I see from your name you have a vision problem, so please read my statement again. There are both direct and indirect rebound effects – one or both usually take care of any efficiency gains by allowing more consumption that uses fuel and creates emissions.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        “Also, let’s pretend there are no environmental impacts and we aren’t going to run out of oil. Are we not better off due to more fuel efficient cars? Oil still costs money and I have to put less in my newer cars to go the same distance. They are faster and accelerate faster.”

        Obmama regulated cars are short lived compared to the ones that were being made when CAFE started ratcheting up. Even if you pride yourself on being paid $400K to teach one class at Harvard while laughing behind the backs of your supporters who believe that you care about the high cost of education like Elizabeth Warren, you’d be looking pretty dumb for claiming cars that have to be scrapped in half the time are good for the environment or energy consumption. Direct injected engines are also poisoning us with particulate emissions, which I’m sure isn’t breaking environmentalists’ hearts one bit. Sorry if I’m not stupid enough to believe that the cost of disposable transmissions and head gasket replacements will be made up by saving a few percent on gasoline. Are you?

      • 0 avatar
        rpn453

        Efficient cars have always been available. Almost nobody drives the most efficient vehicle they can because it’s rarely a priority.

        CAFE is a demand for technology to alleviate the guilt of our gluttony, without personal sacrifice. It encourages us to consume additional energy and resources to create luxury products that use a little bit less energy and resources to operate than their predecessors.

        The people who truly care about the environment simply live well below their means. They know you can’t buy your way out of the machine. That’s what fuels it.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      CAFE 2025 says: Stop serving your customers and make cars they probably won’t want.

      That’s why it’s being changed. The assumption of $4 gasoline was faulty, and assuming a product mix skewing slowly back towards passenger cars was equally faulty. That’s why the Congressional review was included in the law so Congress can fix problems caused by faulty assumptions.

  • avatar
    285exp

    If they are serious about reducing fossil fuel use and encouraging adoption of electric cars, they should just tax the @#%! out of gasoline. That would encourage less driving, purchase of more fuel efficient vehicles, ride sharing and use of public transport, and makes the economics of electric cars more favorable.

    Then the rest of the country doesn’t have to pay for their virtue signaling and can buy cars more suited to their wants.

    • 0 avatar
      junkandfrunk

      CA is averaging $3.53 a gallon, and the rest of the nation is averaging $2.66. New gas taxes by Governor Moonbeam the fake news “refinery shut downs” are eventually going to drive it back over $4.00 a gallon there but the people will not stop driving. Transit ridership is down across the board because it is a state of limousine liberals. For thee, not for me should be the state motto.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        I gassed up this morning at $2.399/gal RegUnl. And that tends to be high for my area, close to several refineries.

        A gas war would drive it down to ~$2.159 where it usually lingers.

        • 0 avatar
          dukeisduke

          Prices are up a little bit now because of the refineries’ switchover from winter to summer blends (less volatile blends), it always goes up in the runup to Memorial Day, after which it usually goes back down.

          I wish there were more refineries – it’s been what, almost 40 years since the first new one was built? I’m not including upgrades and expansions.

        • 0 avatar
          dima

          Lucky you to pay such a low price. Here I fill up for 1,60 Swiss frank per liter of 98. In Switzerland and rest of EU they TAX the hell out of gas. I think this is what works. Want to pay less, buy smaller or more efficient car.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Swiss tax rates are very different (although cost of living is high). Taxes are higher in Europe proper, but European cost of living varies, in some places I would wager it is less than the US for a better standard of living (Czechia springs to mind).

            Much like you, our true tax burden is difficult to quantify because many are hidden or not obvious.

      • 0 avatar
        285exp

        Prices are $6-8 a gallon in those countries on the other side of the pond, those places that people think we should be modeling our other social and economic policies after. Jack it up to those levels and see what happens.

    • 0 avatar
      MrIcky

      The most effective way to stop fossil fuel use would be to let it run out as quickly as possible. People are incredibly inventive when they have to be. Taxing as a way to modify behavior is abhorent to my psyche.

      • 0 avatar
        stingray65

        The problem for the greenies, however, is that we keep finding more of the stuff – damn oil and gas seems to be buried everywhere.

        • 0 avatar
          brandloyalty

          We do keep finding more of the stuff. But it’s lower quality stuff that takes more energy to get and refine for use. And then it has the same impact anyway. Should we use it up to the point where we’re processing coal to gas up our pickups? You know your car engine can run on worse air than you can survive breathing.

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            If “we” don’t use it up in our clean burning engines, “they” (those whose kids die from lack of fuel to have supplies shipped to them) will burn it in much less clean burning ones……

            As long as someone, somewhere, values oil higher in their fuel tank than under ground, oil will be moved from under ground to their fuel tanks.

            IOW, “clean air” is quite a luxurious thing to concern oneself with, in the big scheme of global things.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        “The most effective way to stop fossil fuel use would be to let it run out as quickly as possible.”

        Well that would put a serious dent in uses other than fuel not the least of which are medical (some medicines are derived from petroleum) and of course plastics.

        Besides Audi IIRC has already developed synthetic gasoline so using up all of the decaying plant and dino juice would just make synthetic fuel more viable.

      • 0 avatar
        dima

        Not advisable. Oil is used for more than gas. It is a raw material for plastics and other things that we use to make other items. Burning it is just a waste of wonderful building block for our economies.

        • 0 avatar
          MrIcky

          I am no greenie- but any real greenie will tell you plastics are the problem too.

          Just a few examples- a city size drift of plastic in the middle of the ocean. plastics contributing to species extinction. plastics choking, blocking stomachs of little sea creatures. US plastic recyclables were being loaded into containers then shipped to China until China said they didn’t want all of that crap- now they are only taking selected plastic and the rest we don’t know what to do with…

          Again, the fastest way to fix the issue is to run out of oil. Alternates will be found for everything.

          • 0 avatar
            Roader

            Are we really “choking the ocean with plastic”? Tracing the creation of an eco-myth:

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/24/are-we-really-choking-the-ocean-with-plastic-tracing-the-creation-of-an-eco-myth/

    • 0 avatar
      IBx1

      “makes the economics of electric cars more favorable”

      If your right leg is broken, break the left leg so that the right leg no longer hurts more than the left.

      • 0 avatar
        285exp

        Well, now they’re paying the mostly higher income people to help them buy electric cars. By the time (if ever) Tesla gets around to building sub $50k Model 3s, the tax breaks will be phased out. When people start having to pay full book for these things, you’re going to need to have a compelling argument that they’re going to be saving enough money to make it worth paying the extra money over an equivalent ICE vehicle.

        So, what’s the choice? Force the automakers to build cars that the state wants their customer to buy, whether they want to or not, or force the customers to make an economic decision to buy the cars the state wants them to buy. As long as gas is cheap, they’ll keep buying less fuel efficient vehicles or keep hanging on to their old, even less fuel efficient cars, because it makes no economic sense to pay a lot of money to save a little.

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      285exp, we’re facing a diminishing returns problem. The transition to electronic multiport fuel injection and transmissions with an overdrive ratio was a huge step forward that made cars better as they became more fuel efficient. Adding additional gear ratios to the transmission and switching to electric power steering yields smaller fuel economy improvements. It’s not completely obvious if the transition to smaller turbocharged engines is helping real world fuel economy that much, but they do well on the EPA test cycle and the low-end torque is nice. The problem is the next step, hybrids, adds a lot of cost and extra hardware and the cost of gasoline saved doesn’t pay for the cost of the hardware. You’re correct that California has the authority to raise their gasoline taxes to make hybrids and electric cars more desirable, but that’s the kind of move that causes politicians to get voted out of office.

      • 0 avatar
        285exp

        George B,

        Exactly. Let the California politicians make the hard call to force their subjects to curtail their excessive gasoline use and buy those electric and hybrid cars. They want to make the rest of us buy the cars that they want to force the automakers to make, and for us to help subsidize the development and production of them through our having to pay extra to buy those cars.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      “…just tax the @#%! out of gasoline…”

      The easiest (duct tape, zip-tie) solution is usually the worst, long term.

      Europe did exactly what you said, and look how that clusterfuk turned out.

      Most Americans are responsible with their fuel use, doing doing the right thing, so let’s kick them in the teeth too, just for existing.

      And many with bigger rigs may have it as their sole vehicle, one that can do it all. Many families are economizing in that sense.

      You see them on the freeway and assume they’re on a long commute in a lifted Tahoe.

      Above all, we don’t need to be treated like children in need of a spanking. Those actually abusing “cheap fuel” are an extreme minority, but they’re highly visible and make a lot of noise.

      Or should we all suffer, forced to drive something we hate, probably at great expense, move closer to work (ghetto usually), limit travel, enjoyment, just for a few idiots?

      • 0 avatar
        dima

        How is a tax on gas turned Europe into clusterfuk? It is clusterfuk but not because of gas taxes but due to boarderline communist politics, and complexity of population.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          Maybe you haven’t heard of the pending European citywide bans of diesels? Nor the ongoing European health disaster brought on by diesel exhaust? The “rethinking” surrounding the push towards diesel cars, and the over taxation of fuel isn’t just about visibility on smoggy days.

          • 0 avatar
            dima

            I hear about it and know quiet well what it is. First they will ban cars from city center with diesels less then euro 5. Second, diesel fuel was not taxed to the same level as petrol. that is why diesels were such popular choice. Up to the resent times, cost of diesel was 20 to 30 % less then petrol*. OK?
            * subject to country law.

      • 0 avatar
        285exp

        DenverMike,

        I didn’t say anything about increasing the gas tax in the rest of the country, California is the one demanding that the Obama fuel economy regulations stay in effect, let them take the lead in saving the planet. I’m sure the citizens of California will be full agreement with me.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          You’re right but with the overtaxing of fuel, the same holds true. Simple “solution”, disastrous effects.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            Is imposing unrealistic regulations to force the manufactures to build vehicles that customers aren’t demanding a better solution? At least we can confine the damage to the state that wants them. High fuel prices will make them change their habits, their vehicles, or their politicians. Win!

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            The European mess just and example. But yes the CA/2025 thing sounds much worse, maybe an $12 a gallon “equivalent”.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      Less driving = less economic productivity (generally).

      No one wants vehicle miles traveled to decline, in fact, CAFE generally creates the conditions for Jevon’s paradox. The feds generally want us to drive more.

      Maybe someday that will change if the administrators in urban America decide to deal with issues like real estate scarcity, rather than finding new ways to be corrupt while raising taxes.

      • 0 avatar
        dima

        DenverMike, why you calling this a European mess? Perhaps it is from your point of view, but here, no end of the world. People just shifted to petrol based cars or euro 5 and 6 diesels. The one who has money buys V8, the one who want to save, buys 5 liter per 100 km cars. Simple.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          dima,
          The guy you are chatting with DenverMike considers the EU a huge market for full size US pickups. This is the level you are interacting with. He’s good to have fun with.

          He claims to have been to Spain over 36 times and thinks large US pickups would sell in large numbers.

          Here’s how he views the EU;

          http://www.abandonthecube.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/europe-by-usa.jpg

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    You know what? I’m sitting this one out.

    I’m sick of commenting on anything political and it ending up in a food fight.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      It doesn’t have to end up in a food fight, if you don’t let it. Take the high road. Stay on the high ground.

      But if you have a point of view, interpretation or tenet of beliefs, you should be read. You may find you’re not the Lone Ranger.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Appreciate the respectful response…and that’s rare.

        But too often, it ends up in some kind of stupid personal attack, and you know what? That crap’s so much the norm that people don’t even know they’re doing it anymore. I’m probably guilty too. It’s just the way we’ve become. And it’s really, really, really awful.

        I’m sticking to cars.

    • 0 avatar
      PandaBear

      Smart man.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      Reluctance to engage is probably related to a political position that is increasingly feeble. Paradoxically, after CAFE is altered, you’ll have a much stronger hand.

      Who could disagree with CAFE 2016? No one. Not even people who hated to footprint regulations. It was innocuous, morally upstanding, patriotic, and The-Right-Thing-To-Do®

      CAFE 2025 is a different beast. It will damage the US in its quest to make us stronger. It’s the legislative equivalent of rhabdomyolysis.

      • 0 avatar
        ttacgreg

        How does a more fuel efficient vehicle fleet make “us (less) stronger”?

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          ttacgreg,
          Don’t worry, I call it TW5 logic. He’s got to be a conspiracy theorist.

          He’s gets hold of a false piece of information and builds a story on it. Then he actually believes in it.

          He doesn’t use fact or data, just Fox and Friends.

        • 0 avatar
          TW5

          @ttacgreg

          Food is nutrition. How can it make you fat? Exercise is healthy. How can it kill you?

          Fuel-efficiency is good. How can it destabilize your economy? It’s quite simple. It’s overreaching in its scope. It puts financial strain on consumers and industry, neither of whom have a cost justification for the R&D or the new equipment that will be fitted to vehicles. It has disproportionate impact on manufacturers, without establishing a justification other than “saving the planet”.

          Certain people refer to these natural paradoxes as conspiracy theories perpetrated against mankind. I trust you are not one of these people.

  • avatar
    thenerdishere

    As a parent and grandparent, I want the best possible air quality for my children and grandchildren. Therefore I use my new-car purchases to reward automakers that value fuel efficiency, though it is one new car purchase every 4 or 5 years.

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      Good for you. Free markets should allow people to choose the type of vehicle that best fits their needs and supports their values and lifestyle. If there is a profitable segment out there, the automakers will be happy to supply the vehicles people are willing to pay money for.

      The problem for the left is always that there are too many deplorables and clingers that constantly refuse to make the correct choice, so that is when they think government should force everyone to do the left thing. And as they take their limousines and private jets to climate conferences and environmental workshops, the left can feel proud that they are doing all they can to correct the creation mistakes of the God they don’t believe exists.

      • 0 avatar
        ttacgreg

        Let free markets be free? Will this lead us to utopian goodness? Is everyone in pursuit of profit some how inherently altruistic and socially responsible?
        There are countless examples of businesses doing irresponsible, destructive, and lethal things in the name of profit.
        I am all for privately owned enterprise, it is the engine of prosperity, however like fire, nuclear reactors, and any powerful force, if left uncontrolled, people are gonna get hurt and die.

    • 0 avatar
      SaulTigh

      As someone without kids, who doesn’t much care about yours, and thinks this is all going to end in bloody civil war anyway, I’d like to enjoy some cheap gas end enjoy some American V8 rumble.

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    CAFE won’t matter if (or when?) gas prices skyrocket again – market forces will force the industry to build or import more efficient vehicles to sell, as the consumers will demand it, to reduce their fuel bills.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      I believe that in the past gas prices were kept artificially high, by the American gov’t through administrative and legislative means.

      Now that America has become an oil exporter, all of a sudden the real value of oil is coming to the gas pumps. CA is just trying to raise revenue to pay for their deficits, and they are welcome to it.

      I was born in Huntington Beach, CA, but I’ll never be going there again. People in CA deserve everything they get, because they voted for it.

      • 0 avatar
        eunos

        Now wait a minute – this is the fakest of fake news. “Now that America has become an oil exporter” is a very misleading statement. We do export oil, but we import far more.

        According to the EIA, in 2017 we imported 10.1 million barrels per day, and exported 6.3 million barrels per day. So, on the net, we are a net importer of 3.8 million barrels per day.

        Which is better than it was, but we are by no means a net oil exporter.

        Why do we export oil just to import more of it? From my understanding, it has to do with some disconnect between the type of oil that we’re producing, vs. the type of oil that U.S. refiners are optimized to work with.

        • 0 avatar
          ernest

          We are on track to be a net exporter of oil and gas in five years.

          https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/US-To-Become-Net-Oil-And-Gas-Exporter-In-5-Years.html

          I’m thinking the EPA’s hand is stronger than California is willing to admit. Why? Because the initial reaction from the Green side was to try to get Pruitt fired or resign over travel and residential rental improprieties. That’s not the sign of strength.

          • 0 avatar
            brandloyalty

            The discovery of Pruitt’s indiscretions in his new position followed from him getting that position. So there is nothing strange about pointing out his excesses. The Green side opposed his appointment when it was first proposed, and has continued to oppose him for his views. To suggest anything strange or improper on the part of the Greens is to be uninformed at best.

          • 0 avatar
            ernest

            Not suggesting anything improper. I AM suggesting that there was no coincidence to the timing of the “Dump Pruitt” news flurry and the announcement of the revised EPA numbers. I am also suggesting that if the Green side felt they stood on stronger ground, they would have gone another route.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          It’s logistical fencing. The DOT limits how much fuel or oil can transported around the US, long distance. So some areas are forced to import.

      • 0 avatar
        dartman

        HDC: CA doesn’t have a budget deficit; the 2018-19 budget has a $19 billion dollar sur. (3x the entire budget of NM) CA has a $9 billion rainy day fund. Compare this to the rhetoric and nonsense coming out of DC with TRILLION dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Which government is more fiscally responsible? CA is not for everyone; taxes are high, but living is good, if you can afford it.

        • 0 avatar
          stingray65

          CA’s budget is so full of smoke and bullsh-t there is no way to say it is balanced. Worst roads in the country, dams that can’t hold water, and about $1 Trillion in unfunded pension liabilities, makes that $9 billion in rainy day funding look like a grain of sand.

        • 0 avatar
          ttacgreg

          And it should be noted which party is in power in those two respective governments.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        How were gas prices kept artificially high by the US government, what complete BS highdesertcat.

        Ever hear of OPEC? OPEC was a cartel controlling the oil market.

        Man you can come up with some real dribble.

      • 0 avatar
        dantes_inferno

        >People in CA deserve everything they get, because they voted for it.

        You mean The People’s Republic Of California.

  • avatar
    Caboose

    I love that Senator Markey thinks that EPA Rules & Regs. have to pass through any Congressional legislative process.

    From the EPA: “The Clean Air Act allows California to seek a waiver of the preemption which prohibits states from enacting emission standards for new motor vehicles. EPA must grant a waiver, however, before California’s rules may be enforced. When California files a waiver request, EPA publishes a notice for public hearing and written comment in the Federal Register. The written comment period remains open for a period of time after the public hearing. Once the comment period expires, EPA reviews the comments and the Administrator determines whether the requirements for obtaining a waiver have been met.”

    While the presumption is in favor of granting a waiver, there’s a lot of room for the Administration to maneuver.

  • avatar
    IBx1

    I love when politicians talk about the national security this and that about reducing foreign oil imports.

    We import a sliver of our oil, and of that sliver, almost all of it is from Canada. In case anyone was sleeping over the past 5 years, we’ve set up so many new wells with advancements in fracking that it’s just a matter of waiting for the price to climb to where it’s economical to open the taps. We have all the oil and gas we’ll ever need, so enough pandering to people who want to pretend like banning cars helps us fight terrorism.

    • 0 avatar
      IHateCars

      “According to the EIA, in 2017 we imported 10.1 million barrels per day, and exported 6.3 million barrels per day. So, on the net, we are a net importer of 3.8 million barrels per day.”

      Hardly a sliver….

      • 0 avatar
        ernest

        We imported 3.73 MMb/d of oil, and 3.18 MMb/d came from Canada. Mexico is actually a net importer of American petroleum products (???), and the balance (that .58 sliver- yes it really is) comes from the ME or Venezuela.

        https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6

  • avatar
    slavuta

    If environmentalist have a lot of free time why not go after GE for the disaster they created at Fukushima? That would be much worthier direction as hundreds of tons of radiation washes into ocean.

  • avatar
    ernest

    We are on track to be a net exporter of oil and gas in five years.

    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/US-To-Become-Net-Oil-And-Gas-Exporter-In-5-Years.html

    I’m thinking the EPA’s hand is stronger than California is willing to admit. Why? Because the initial reaction from the Green side was to try to get Pruitt fired or resign over travel and residential rental improprieties. That’s not the sign of strength.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      It worked against Price so they thought it was worth another try.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      ernest,
      The US should concentrate on commodity exports. The problem is the US, like China has done with steel and aluminium will flood (dump) the market with gas like it has done with crude reducing the price.

      But, why is it when someone else does this it’s dumping?

  • avatar
    brandloyalty

    Whatever you think of climate change and mileage requurements, farther down the road relaxing mileage requirements will cost US carmakers market share. Simple.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      It’s April 11th, not April 1st.

      Stringent mileage requirements that killed American sedans, though they were far more efficient than light trucks of the day, is exactly how the US manufacturers went straight to hell. They had to rebuild their companies from the ground up around light pickups because V6s, V8s, and body-on-frame vehicles were their core competence. The oil price crisis of 2008 would have wiped them out for good, if not for taxpayer intervention.

      CAFE 2025 will do the same if left in place. It attacks short-wheelbase body on frame trucks (offroaders basically), which have long been the domain of American manufacturers. It also creates an irrational preference to build and sell crew cab standard bed pickups. If the price of oil jumps, what do you suppose will happen to the American ATM machine in the pickup market?

      CAFE 2025 was designed to work assuming $4 gasoline and a fundamentally different product mix. It was designed to be changed, hence the provision for midterm Congressional review.

      Stop clinging.

    • 0 avatar
      Prado

      Not necessarily true. “US Carmakers” are all global corporations that will continue to compete in foreign markets. Heck, GM sells more cars in China than it does in the US. So if an important market requires a certain level of efficiency, competitive products for that market will be produced. I would actually consider it a ‘win’ for the US consumer if other countries took the lead on efficiency. Let their citizens pick up the tab for developing cutting edge technologies that currently are not cost effective.

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        You’re conflating CAFE 2025 with efficiency. The concepts are only coincidentally related. The purpose of CAFE 2025 is to mandate the “appropriate” fuel efficiency for each model/variant on sale in the United States. Naturally, some vehicles are more equal than others, and some manufacturers are more equal than others.

        Also, the promised fuel efficiency results were based upon sales mix projections that do not reflect reality. In fact, society is moving contrary to the projections, which means that CAFE 2025 would deliver considerably less than the 54.5/40 mpg number we were promised.

        We’re not going to subject the automobile market to a crazy moon mission that only gets us half way to the objective.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          Americans started moving away from “land yachts” since they had tail fins. The oil embargo didn’t hurt that trend.

          That’s when they became fashionably unacceptable, like huge bell-bottoms, pork chop sideburns, butterfly collars and such.

          CAFE only stepped in and hammered them when the sun was already setting on them.

          CAFE hasn’t shaped the car market, they follow close behind.

          Pickups were a much better “deal”, (not just the sticker price) socially acceptable, better utility, vs 20 linear ft of useless automotive expanse.

          Pickups were, and still are a “muscle cars” in many ways. And very little negative back for getting the straight “base” stripper edition. And they’re consider “sporty” by most.

          Except if you believe most around here, pickups are 80% owned for mall cruising, despite around 40% bought by fleet buyers and untold numbers wearing many hats.

          And also unmentioned is we lose about a million used pickups, export each year to Mexico and beyond, whether legally, not so legal, and stolen/embezzled, so “sales” don’t reflect the US fleet too much.

          Cars on the other hand, are stuck in the US until the wheels fall off. Pickups are around 1 in 8 new vehicles sold, but only about 1 in 20 on the road.

          California doesn’t care one bit who they put out of business, not even *themselves*.

          CA has its heart set on stuff that was pure Science Fiction, and it’s becoming clear CARB fabricated the whole 2025 CAFE nonsense.

          Awesome. CA will end up with old cars and trucks running around until their wheels fall off. And beyond. Not unlike Cuba.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      brandloyalty,
      Yup. It will cost even more in lost exports as well as the US will not even build large export SUVs ie, BMW and Mercedes Benz.

      If the US (Big 3) wants to augment manufacturing in the auto sector then it had better start producing quality product suitable to attract a customer. This means abolishing CAFE and implementing a new model attractive to external customers. A model exists, it’s called UNECE Vehicle Harmonisation.

      The Big 3 might end up with the same deal as the farmers will get from Trump. Handouts, oh, they do already. They will get even more.

  • avatar
    Kendahl

    I’m both amused and disgusted by swindlers like Massachusetts senator Ed Markey. His scheme for saving people from high gas costs is to force them into vehicles they won’t own long enough to recoup the higher initial price.

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      Massachusetts senator Ed Markey probably hasn’t driven a car since he was elected to public office. He is almost certainly one of those limousine liberals who rides in the back of black government issue Suburban to and from the airport. He probably also has a security detail that rides in two other Suburbans to protect him until that pesky 2nd Amendment can be overturned and we are all safe from gun violence.

      • 0 avatar
        el scotto

        Uh, how does one get one of these “black government issue Suburban(s)”with a driver and “a security detail that rides in two other Suburbans”? Try a staffer in a suit who’d really wants to drop his windbaggyness off at his residence. Most of the black suburbans aren’t armored. The black Suburban picking up the exalted poohbah at Reagan? Probably Uber Black. Also, you seem to have confused The Truth about Cars with the Truth about Guns. You’d be most welcome there. Crazy idea to leave you with: some people in limos, huge SUVs, whatever, while they’re being driven actually do WORK.

        • 0 avatar
          stingray65

          I never said they were armored. And the work bureaucrats might be doing in the backseat of their Suburban is probably related to how to tax and regulate more so the people don’t get into mischief such as buying a gun or Suburban of their own.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    Why is the rest of the world able to drive far more economical vehicles ….. and survive!

    Why is the US failing here.

    Its called protection of large vehicles.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      Why is the rest of the world relatively poor?

      • 0 avatar
        Duaney

        The rest of the world has bad governments, like communism, socialism, dictatorships. Their result is a bad economy. The American Republic, with the free enterprise system, works the best.

        • 0 avatar
          ttacgreg

          It looks to me like lots of other governments are as good or better than ours at many things, compared to how ours is being conducted by the many imbeciles that occupy the offices both state and Federal level. I would argue that China’s government is acting far more effectively for China’s future than the US government is for our own future. We are too preoccupied with the ideology that all government and all taxes are inherently evil somehow. Granted I absolutely would not want to live under a government like China’s, but if we on one hand say we are the best, and on the other hand cannot equal or exceed other governments out there, circumspection is needed. The concept that government can be intelligent and efficient, and can be a necessary and beneficial part a functioning society and nation appears non-existent in the USA, and it will be our downfall.
          I would argue that just about all USA citizens need learn about this mysterious thing known as the social contract. We are too busy living on an emotional level screaming and hating on each other rather than having pragmatic, mutually respectful, adult level discussion and compromises.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I agree.

            “At the same time, the US spent a lot of money on foreign conflicts. “In the past 30 years, America had 13 wars spending $14.2 trillion … no matter how good your strategy is you’re supposed to spend money on your own people,” Ma said. “The money goes to Wall Street. Then what happened? Year 2008. The financial crisis wiped out $19.2 trillion in US income … What if the money was spent on the Midwest of the United States, developing industry there?””

            independent.co.uk/news/world-0/alibaba-founder-jack-ma-has-a-brutal-theory-of-how-america-went-wrong-over-the-past-30-years-a7821396.html

            Cui bono?

          • 0 avatar
            Ar-Pharazon

            Personally, I would look at the net inflow/outflow of people to a country. Hmmmm… which country has the largest number of people trying to get in to live there? What countries have problems with people illegally trying to get in?

            I bet not China.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            At-Pharazon,
            https://www.npr.org/2014/10/29/359963625/dozens-of-countries-take-in-more-immigrants-per-capita-than-the-u-s

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @BAFO – If things were more equal, taxes, tariffs, incomes, etc, more of the world drive US size vehicles, most of which are midsize, and obviously dramatically less diesels.

      And no doubt more US vehicles would be exported.

    • 0 avatar
      ernest

      Or…

      the rest of the industrialized world follows the “taxation as a method to drive behavior modification” model. A large group of the American population views Government as the biggest part of the problem… not the solution.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        ernest,
        I think your view of the US as an industrialised society is why many in the US are erring, including Donnie Trump. The US is a post industrial society. Industrial societies produce electric jugs, air cons, consumer stuff including vehicle manufacture. But if you guys want to compete with the likes of Bangledesh, Mexico and China, you’ll end up with their standard of living.

        A post-industrial economy refers to a period of growth within an industrialized economy or nation in which the relative importance of manufacturing reduces and that of services, information, and research grows.[1] Such economies are often marked by:
        A declining manufacturing sector, resulting in de-industrialization.
        A large service sector.
        An increase in the amount of information technology, often leading to an “information age”. Information, knowledge, and creativity are the new raw materials of such an economy.
        The industry aspect of a post-industrial economy is sent into less developed nations which manufacture what is needed at lower costs (see outsourcing). This occurrence is typical of nations that industrialized in the past such as the United Kingdom (first industrialised nation), most of Western Europe and the United States.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-industrial_economy

        In sociology, the post-industrial society is the stage of society’s development when the service sector generates more wealth than the manufacturing sector of the economy.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-industrial_society

    • 0 avatar
      Duaney

      Many reasons. Most other countries have no emissions standards, so they can operate far more economical vehicles that have high emissions. Most other countries have socialism and most of their fuel costs are taxes, (Sweden), so they have to drive more economical vehicles. We have freedom of choice, since our fuel costs are low, people choose to drive large vehicles.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        That’s what BAFOs don’t understand. When given a natural choice, most global consumers would pick the midsize or bigger.

        Occasionally fast-food joints have the promotion, “ANY SIZE DRINK $1!”. Yeah here and there some chose the “small” or medium drink for the same price, but clearly they’re the minority.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        Duaney,
        What shell do you live in?

        The US is not the freest country in the world, even economically. The US is 18th in economic freedom. Just look at your vehicle market with the stupid import tariffs (straight from Trump’s mouth) on any pickup imported into the US.

        The US was once the leader in economic freedom and freedom of it’s people. Making changes here is a good start for MAGA.
        ……………………………………………………………….

        Watch the video, it’s only a few minutes long;

        https://www.heritage.org/index/about

        A chart showing the position of nations in relation to economic freedom.

        https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

        The interactive map is fun! The darker the green the freer the country.

        https://www.heritage.org/index/heatmap

        …………………………………………………….

        If you look at each link I have given you, you will realise all isn’t what you might assume in the big wide world away from the US. The US is pretty much average in many ways. You guys have a large population hiding many real facts. Dig in and do some research, you might even migrate to New Zealand or the Down Under.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          Those darn “standards”! I wish I was in Africa or Oz.

          Yeah we’re not so “free” when in comes to availability of unsafe, gross polluting, and defective autos..

          Damn it.

  • avatar
    TW5

    First, CAFE 2025 is unfeasible and ridiculous. It’s practically a postulate at this point, not a matter of opinion. If a person wants to drive a V8 family sedan, which has a higher fuel efficiency threshold than a fullsize truck, he should be allowed to drive the vehicle of his choice, even according to the underlying edicts within CAFE. Yet, the Obama administration disagreed. Obviously, they weren’t trying to save the planet as much as they were trying to foist hybrids and plug-ins on the public to satisfy DC donors. Disgraceful.

    Second, CAFE’s merits or lack thereof is not a matter of perspective. The correct side of the argument is the one that preserves choice and let’s people enter freely into buyer/seller contracts with the auto manufacturers. No one is being injured by people driving vehicles and burning oil. In fact, this is has been the key to mankind’s economic development, which is precisely why various factions want to alter control of transportation. They want to skim some money from an industry that is worth trillions of dollars.

    If people don’t believe the market is offering enough product choice, government can invest some money in developing products that it believes will be useful or generate positive externalities. If they can substantiate damages (real, not imagined climate models) then they can commence with the banning and regulation. Perhaps people would be more amenable to this arrangement had the Obama administration not already squandered tens of billions on corrupt alternative energy deals.

    The threshold for regulation is not “I can force you to achieve a better economic outcome than you can achieve on your own”. The one exception to this arrangement might be national security, but CAFE 2025 has little or nothing to do with that. If anything its putting American manufacturers in a precarious situation (again).

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Then implement the UNECE Vehicle Harmonisation model. Become a signatory! You will then produce cars in metric (joke) and not in rods, perches, links and furlongs.

      A common standard reduce costs and will facilitate trade and even improve vehicle exports. Even Ford wouldn’t be producing 3 Star safety rated Mustangs, whilst Ford’s Thai built Ranger is 5 Stars.

      And don’t give me the European BS as we use the system as well. It’s been designed to allow for flexibility.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @BAFO – Not a surprise Europe influences surrounding auto market’s “standards”. Yes they differ from US standards, to the point of comedy.

        Tell me how those standards are not designed specifically to technically ban US vehicles, non tariff?

        Keeping in mind US standards happened first, Europe did not even require catalytic converters until 1992.

        UNECE standards zig everywhere US standards “zag”…

        But with the man-made disaster Europe is now dealing with, I’ll bet (current not 2025) “CAFE” is starting to look damn good!

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    @TW5: I agree with much of what you say, however your contention that “No one is being injured by people driving vehicles and burning oil”, is incorrect on a number of levels.

    Traffic fatalities.
    Traffic congestion.
    Massive infrastructure costs (roads, sewers, street lights, etc)
    Possible emissions issues (currently not really a major issue)
    Creating economic powerhouses in nations that often are opposed to ‘our way of life’.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      Fair counterpoint.

      Traffic fatalities are remedied at the individual level, though, along with accidents. Congestion is the unfortunate result of the positive economic arrangement of driving. Similarly, rapid growth begets high interest rates and inflationary pressure (generally).

      Infrastructure and emissions are definitely societal concerns. I’d probably be less troubled by CAFE if they were spending more time on NOX or carbon monoxide, rather than CO2. Helping countries that hate us is a legitimate national security concern. Fair point.

      It’s important to remember Congress is empowered to shut down the augural standards (2022-2025). Fuel economy will continue getting more stringent along a similar glide path to CAFE 2016. After that, we’re on the pain train envisioned by the Obama admin. Mandates rise very rapidly.

      I’d prefer to have more practical regulations.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Arthur,
      I posted an interactive map the other day with road fatalities and the US did poorly for an developed society.

      It was at a similar level to many middle income nations in Asia, Sth America and Africa.

      So, not does the US injure people burning oil, it seems to do it better than many others.

      • 0 avatar
        285exp

        How’s the Australian auto industry doing these days BAFO?

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          Great. We design and engineer vehicles.

          Australia last year, proportionally had a better year than the US. This is great for employment.

          But assembling cars isn’t logical when you need to subsidise each one thousands of dollars like the US. The taxpayer deserves better.

  • avatar
    Duaney

    A short reminder, it’s proven that fuel economy standards results in more traffic fatalities and injuries. The proposed standards would have created some very flimsy cars with poor crash protections. If we have some patience, the natural progression of technology and competition, will produce increased fuel efficiency, without sacrificing safety. Unreasonable government mandates for fuel economy rushed into law, kill and maim people.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      This has been true of traditional CAFE arrangements, but the newer versions of the regs have footprint regulations to make cars bigger. The NHTSA is also forcing huge bundles of driver safety electronics on the public via CAFE credits.

      I doubt people will die from this round of CAFE; however, it still needs to be changed. It is a strange, dogmatic regulatory regime that allows certain indulgences and prohibits certain healthy decisions. Quintessential Obama policy.

  • avatar
    Robbie

    No constitutional discussion necessary. Republicans are annoyed with a prosperous and racially diverse state that voted against the dangerous clown. Therefore, they now try to force as much pollution into environmentally sensitive Southern California as possible.

  • avatar
    Kek

    Automakers will make cars upto CAFE standards. Its too complicated to have Cali and non Cali equipped models. Plus rest of the world needs or atleast where American car companies sell needs more FE vehicles.
    Hence EV surge in China, massive tax subsidies in Scandinavia, No entry for non EV or PHEV in polluting mode in London central areas etc.

    Diesel numbers in EU provide what legislation can do. If you look at the American population and then look at the raw materials it consumes, that is not sustainable. I am hoping to avoid a 3 row crossover, a bit sad that I use an efficient 2 row crossover – my next car in 3-4 years has to be more FE with a lot of miles driven.

    Finally, Pruitt and Carson should be in jail. Carson’s wife can then pick the furniture he gets in his cell.

  • avatar
    Ultraviolet Thunder

    It is odd that the folks who once supported Federal intervention in immigration by claiming enforcing laws was discriminatory during the past regime are also the very same people who want states to defy federal enforcement now that the political winds have shifted.

    And just as these very same people were shoving down our throats legislation for clean air on the arbitrary standards imposed in the 1970’s are now telling us that we can’t modify Federal standards but have to accept that state(s) overreach and specious environmental laws.

    I am a libertarian – I actually do believe in States rights to act on their own – whether by having their own mandates for healthcare insurance or in environmental laws, but I do not believe in Federal overreach – unless a power is clearly declared by the Constitution to be a FEDERAL POWER, the authority defaults to the states. It is this beautiful design that allows us 50 different petri dishes from which to sample solutions – be they healthcare insurance or environmental policies.

    However, since immigration is actually a Federal power because security of the borders is such a fundamental Federal Power for defense, we cannot have renegade states throwing up middle fingers to enforcing the federal laws.

    One can argue that pollution knows no boundary, but if we accept the premise that states can force the feds to go harsher, then why don’t we force India and China to cut their far worse emissions? Obviously the cost benefit of having the worst offenders cutting to our current standards is far greater in impact than us whining about adopting a more stringent standard ourselves.

    And since CAFE is NOT a power granted to the Feds but seized by it under a most board interpretation of the “General Welfare” clause, we also should not have imposed such standards. The fleet standards imposed several years ago were intentionally harsh – since it was unlawful to ban purchasing trucks and SUV’s, the next best way was to legislate the near impossibility of their sale by imposing arbitrary and impossible to reach mileage standards. And since the Feds think you can fiat technology once they pass harsher standards, we ended up with the malaise products of the 1970’s which tried to meet standards with technology not there yet (computerization).

    I thus am more than happy if California wants to be punitive and wants cleaner air or higher mileage standards; but I loathe thinking that they want to impose their arbitrary and capricious standards on the rest of us.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • geozinger: Fnck. I’ve lost lots of cars to the tinworm. I had a 97 Cavalier that I ran up to 265000 miles. The...
  • jh26036: Who is paying $55k for a CTR? Plenty are going before the $35k sticker.
  • JimZ: Since that’s not going to happen, why should I waste any time on your nonsensical what-if?
  • JimZ: Funny, Jim Hackett said basically the same thing yesterday and people were flinging crap left and right.
  • JimZ: That and the fact that they could run on gasoline, which was considered a useless waste product back in the...

New Car Research

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States