Trump strips California of power to set auto emission standards

[zenkai]

Source

The White House has stripped California of its right to set its own auto emissions standards and banned other states from setting similar rules.

The waiver allowed the state - America's most populous - to set stricter standards than the federal government.

President Trump says the move will cut car prices and the impact on emissions will be minimal.

But it is likely to spark a legal battle over states' rights.

"The Trump administration is revoking California's Federal Waiver on emissions in order to produce far less expensive cars for the consumer," Donald Trump tweeted on Wednesday.

"Automakers should seize this opportunity because without this alternative to California, you will be out of business."


California has already taken steps to block the administration's efforts.

"We will fight this latest attempt and defend our clean car standards," said Governor Gavin Newsom in a statement on Tuesday.

This is the latest in a series of standoffs between Mr Trump and California.
What do the rules mean?

California's ability to set its own rules dates back to the 1970s when Los Angeles was blanketed in choking smog.

The state was allowed to set tougher emission standards than the federal government as long as it could provide a compelling reason for why the waiver was needed. In 1977, other states were allowed to adopt California's stricter standards.

California's standards have largely become the de-facto standard nationwide because car manufacturers do not design different sets of vehicles to meet different standards in different states. The state lays claim to about 12% of all vehicle sales.

Emissions control methods first used in California, such as catalytic converters and regulations on oxides of nitrogen, have become commonplace throughout the US.

In July, under the waiver system, California conducted secret negotiations with Ford, Honda, Volkswagen and BMW of North America pledged to produce fleets that meet a standard of 50 miles per US gallon (4.7 litres per 100km), against the current 37 mpg level, by 2026.

Increased fuel efficiency means vehicles burn less petrol and emit fewer polluting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

So one can argue states rights and on the other hand one can argue what they do affects all states. There is always Federal oversight, thus why a state can't just make anything legal.

What are your thoughts?

[Draco-Onis]

Remember Trump supporters he isn't president for life so everything he does now a evil liberal will have the power to do as well. When the shoe is on the other foot you all can thank Trump for the national emergencies that take away your rights and the big bad federal guberment overriding your state laws. One can hope the supreme court is not that stupid as to rubber stamp this but then again they have been taken over by extremists.

[Edge-]

What are your thoughts?

That his "justification" makes zero sense and is fulled with lies and bullshit, and it's a purely punitive measure targeting California because he doesn't like the state.

Also, it just highlights that the Republican party has never actually been the party of states rights, no matter how much they claim to be. They're for states rights...as long as it's politically convenient for them.

[Thepersona]

So one can argue states rights and on the other hand one can argue what they do affects all states. There is always Federal oversight, thus why a state can't just make anything legal.

What are your thoughts?

Why this fucker wants to make cars less efficent?

[Edge-]

Why this fucker wants to make cars less efficent?

To totally own the libs. Duh.

[Draco-Onis]

Why this fucker wants to make cars less efficent?

Same reason he wants polluted water and bad light bulbs.

[Kujako]

Why this fucker wants to make cars less efficent?

Saudi oil families.

[Endus]

That his "justification" makes zero sense and is fulled with lies and bullshit, and it's a purely punitive measure targeting California because he doesn't like the state.

Also, it just highlights that the Republican party has never actually been the party of states rights, no matter how much they claim to be. They're for states rights...as long as it's politically convenient for them.

Let's also be clear; the only way California in any way affects other States, in this, is because car manufacturers will build to the highest standard they need to; they have little motivation to deliberately build a shittier engine and dedicate production capacity to producing it, alongside a better one, it increases costs for little gain.

And taking this away from California doesn't really change much. Canada already signed on to California's proposals; https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/can...ions-1.5190619
And we're not about to listen to Trump, king of the ratfuckers, in determining our emissions policies. So instead of abiding by California's emissions standards, Trump's put the car manufacturers in the position of abiding by Canada's. That'll play out super-awesome for him in the long run.

[Saucexorzski]

Bad move Mr Cheeto, your fucking with states rights.

- - - Updated - - -

So one can argue states rights and on the other hand one can argue what they do affects all states. There is always Federal oversight, thus why a state can't just make anything legal.

What are your thoughts?

This is government overreach at its finest. Using the excuse that cali car standards have an effect on all state nation wide ( which it does) and then banding them from exercising a state right would be like the fed coming in and banning guns in a state because guns form that state affect others. This was a stupid move that grows the federal power and violates states rights. I do not agree with it.

[Thekri]

Bad move Mr Cheeto, your fucking with states rights.

- - - Updated - - -



This is government overreach at its finest. Using the excuse that cali car standards have an effect on all state nation wide ( which it does) and then banding them from exercising a state right would be like the fed coming in and banning guns in a state because guns form that state affect others. This was a stupid move that grows the federal power and violates states rights. I do not agree with it.

Yep, and that is going to be the very first issue that this precedent is used on if/when the democrats get control of the White House. Because the availability of firearms is only as strict as the least strict gun laws in the nation, since we don't have checkpoints at state borders.

So good job Trump supporters, your president is undermining your fundamental rights again in a completely pointless and arbitrary fight with California, which he can't win, because car companies are going to have to follow the lower standards anyway for when this inevitably reverses.

[Stormspellz]

So one can argue states rights and on the other hand one can argue what they do affects all states. There is always Federal oversight, thus why a state can't just make anything legal.

What are your thoughts?

The auto makers know this is won't, hold past Trump so they will keep to their previous agreement and standards, and this is Trump again fighting only for a headline but no substance.

[Crissi]

I man by this logic, Fed's should regulate what goes into textbooks in Texas because they need to make so many that they often sell to other states using Texas's requirements.

:states rights" needs to be rewritten as "states rights, except for liberal states" because thats essentially the attitude here.

[PixelFox]

Seems like CA could simply enforce their standards indirectly such as by having a high state tax on vehicles that fail to meet mileage requirements, which would seem fully withing the state's rights.

[kaid]

So one can argue states rights and on the other hand one can argue what they do affects all states. There is always Federal oversight, thus why a state can't just make anything legal.

What are your thoughts?

I think it is pointless attempt to own the libs. Given the tighter and tighter emission standards worldwide and the fact that all car makers have to understand that the second a dem got back into the white house all the old waivers and rules would immediately go back into play there is no reason or incentive for them to redesign their cars to be less efficient for a 1-5 years only to have to go back to the old standards soon enough.

Also there are likely a number of options that CA can exercise in the licensing of cars for use to require higher emission standards anyway. Giving of car licenses is a state level function and each state has different requirements to keep your car licenced in that state. So it may very well be with the change it is possible to buy a car that does not reach the required efficiency standards but then not be able to actually get it licensed to drive in CA.

- - - Updated - - -

To totally own the libs. Duh.

You have some nice air quality there it would be a shame if anything were to happen to it.

[Rasulis]

This has nothing to do with the car companies. The car companies already shown that they have no problem meeting the EU-6 and China-6b emission standards and China's 2020 mileage requirement of 47 mpg. Keep in mind that GM is the fourth most popular brand in China and sells more cars in China than in the US. CA proposed standards are similar to EU-6 and China-6b with mileage requirement of 50 mpg by 2026.

The Trump's administration is picking an unnecessary fight over something that has almost 50 years precedent strictly out of spite. Not to mention that CA will the plaintiff and will be the one to pick the initial court district. The US government will have to fight this in the Supreme Court. There is no guarantee that Roberts, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will side with the DoJ. Meanwhile the car companies will face uncertainties about their manufacturing future. Dumb is dumb.

[Wyrt]

I look forward to Trump getting crushed in the courts by California again. Eat shit, Trump.

[Thepersona]

Same reason he wants polluted water and bad light bulbs.

I mean, posioned water i can get it (because that erases the obligation of paying the externalities for some companies)... but less efficent cars?

Car makers do not want that (and it would not be cheaper to re-tool entire factories for the gas guzzlers), consumers do not want that...

[Saucexorzski]

Yep, and that is going to be the very first issue that this precedent is used on if/when the democrats get control of the White House. Because the availability of firearms is only as strict as the least strict gun laws in the nation, since we don't have checkpoints at state borders.

So good job Trump supporters, your president is undermining your fundamental rights again in a completely pointless and arbitrary fight with California, which he can't win, because car companies are going to have to follow the lower standards anyway for when this inevitably reverses.

Yeah that was my first gut reaction to this poor decision which is why i went there. Granted i think the 2nd amendment will hold against that line of logic but it's yet another chain that will be used to tear down the 2nd amendment. Such a stupid move, but then again trump may be more anti gun than folks realize. Doesn't he have some gun bill coming up soon thought i read something about it being more restrictive than folks thought.

[ati87]

I mean, posioned water i can get it (because that erases the obligation of paying the externalities for some companies)... but less efficent cars?

Car makers do not want that (and it would not be cheaper to re-tool entire factories for the gas guzzlers), consumers do not want that...

Oil Companies do (Koch Brothers) since they have most to lose if we step away from oil.

[s_bushido]

I mean, posioned water i can get it (because that erases the obligation of paying the externalities for some companies)... but less efficent cars?

Car makers do not want that (and it would not be cheaper to re-tool entire factories for the gas guzzlers), consumers do not want that...

Car makers only don't want it because CA is such a large market/economy, and they want to be able to sell their stuff. If they could get away with lower standards (because they would presumably be easier/cheaper to meet), they would.

As for why Trump insists on pushing this? Something something petulant manchild something something. It would surprise me if the whole "global warming is a Chinese conspiracy to hurt US manufacturing" thing didn't play into it as well...