"I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
It's not, it's perfectly black and white.
California, a major car market, set higher standards. For-profit automakers, looking to maximize profits and reduce costs, use the highest standards as "the standard" so they aren't building multiple redundant plants to serve different states.
And a bunch of small states run by Very Capitalist People are very upset that capitalism is happening and that their largely tiny-ass states don't have the kind of financial muscle to challenge CA. They're so used to land getting a vote in politics that they forget that land doesn't get to vote in capitalist decisions.
And at the end of the day, the higher standards are a net-positive (or more accurately "less of a neg-negative") for the environment so it's even more hilarious that these states are crying about it.
And like I said above, Canada's federal emissions standards are also based off California's, using them as a template for best practice (why repeat the studies when the Californian analyses are available and hold up to the expectations we're holding too?). That's another ~35 million people worth of car-buying population to consider.
Here's a thought, red state morons; maybe you should increase minimum wages if you're concerned that basic needs like transportation are being priced too high for your working population. That's something you can fix all by yourselves, without having to whine about California like a bunch of petulant fuckin' toddlers.
You'll notice that it is a bunch of states that have an ideological bone to pick with California who are leading this charge, not the car manufacturers. The major manufacturers know that cities like LA and SF are simply not going to go back to being covered in smog, the residents won't allow it. If Cali can't restrict car emissions in it's cities, the next option they have is to restrict car use. This is the direction that a lot of major cities in Europe and Asia have gone, pushing mass transit or bikes as viable alternatives to car use, and that threatens the bottom line of manufacturers significantly more in the long run. It's very difficult and expensive to rebuild an infrastructure that supports alternate transportation, cities don't really want to spend the money if they don't have to, but if it gets built it won't go away any time soon.
As long as there is demand, the manufacturers will find a way to profit off of it. They're VERY good at that. They'll jump through whatever hoops they need to so long as it keeps the demand for their vehicles high.
That may have been right around the time when Cali first established the standards, or something. Price is Right is filmed in LA so pretty much any car they gave away would have to meet that standard, anyway. The Cali regulations don't force manufacturers to only produce to that standard; manufacturers choose to do so because building to two different standards costs them more money for basically no real gain.
You'll notice that you didn't mention the EPA once. It's just an "ideological bone to pick with California." It's an ideological bone to pick with the EPA. If California is well able to negotiate with vehicle manufacturers of cars in their state, and it's a very populous state, then why does the EPA need to give them a special dispensation? I thought this was a negotiated agreement, not law? The Clean Air Act is California's vehicle for imposing regulation, which is why they need preferential waivers. Why not pass a California state law about what kind of vehicles are allowed to drive in the state? Missouri doesn't get a say.
That's my bone to pick with you on ideology. You're ignoring something important, or approaching from the wrong direction. On to the narrow concerns and public concerns.
I don't give the manufacturers a holy calling to both maximize production and profit of vehicles and steward the quality of the air and carbon emissions. Each car manufacturer is only a small part of the whole. The car industry is only a small part of other harmful emissions. Take power production for instance. Take some forms of large scale manufacturing or extraction. They don't have the view nor interest to join with every other enterprise in the country or state to negotiate standards. That's the job of representative government answering to the people. I do expect a state like California to view smog as a particular blight and pass laws to safeguard air quality. This will run them against some interests of the car companies. If they're too stringent, or capricious, then manufacturers might choose to forget it and residents become angry with their representatives for outlawing the cars they wish to drive. That's the give or take. On the flip side, California has been remarkably inept in public transportation. The story is huge outlays of money every decade for projects running over in time and cost from estimates, and bogged down in lawsuits. The California high speed rail project is a good example.
"I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
Missouri got a say when the Clean Air Act was still a bill being debated in Congress. If they would like to legislatively push to amend the Clean Air Act so they can also seek a waiver to impose higher standards than what federal law requires, they are welcome to do so.
Again; this has fuck all to do with the CAA and everything to do with a bunch of red states not liking that capitalists prefer California as a baseline for the market. Hence why they are not trying to seek a repeal of the CAA but are instead specifically targeting California's waiver.
Last edited by Elegiac; 2022-05-14 at 06:12 PM.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
Hot take time.
They only like capitalism when it becomes a facile vehicle for "hurting the right people"; the instant it becomes something generally beneficial, they immediately switch tack and start passing regulations far in excess of anything a socialist would propose.
Same thing with states' rights. It's only a good thing when it lets them discriminate and abuse women and minorities, otherwise it's something they're perfectly happy using federal legislation and judicial rulings to quash.
"Capitalists" are essentially a modern outgrowth of the same Lost Cause bullshit that's been extant since the Civil War that has become so cloaked in euphemism that many of its own adherents may not consciously be aware of it. But they tell on themselves when they take inherently contradictory stances that boil down to viewing the government's only legitimate role as suppression of "the other".
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
It doesn't. And it hasn't. The EPA has given no such "special dispensation".
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa...dards-cars-and
Also, here's the relevant Clean Air Act section, on State standards; while California had a waiver applied since 2013, the potential for such waivers is explicitly detailed in 209(b)1 as part of the Clean Air Act. It is in no way "special dispensation"; it's exactly how the process was always expected and intended to work. Essentially, the purpose here was to give the EPA final say in determining whether State standards truly exceeded Federal standards in terms of protectiveness of public health and welfare; the EPA has to officially approve it pre-emptively rather than it functioning as a system where the State can pass regulation and then the EPA has to fight it in court.
Stop lying about the frickin' facts just because you find them politically inconvenient.
The Clean Air Act is a law. What the hell are you talking about?I thought this was a negotiated agreement, not law?
No, the Clean Air Act is the federal law. The ACC was California's Advanced Clean Cars program, which is what they sought the waiver for. And it wasn't a "preferential waiver"; again, the capacity to seek a waiver was explicitly laid out in the Clean Air Act as an option for States, with standards that had to be met to allow for such.The Clean Air Act is California's vehicle for imposing regulation, which is why they need preferential waivers.
That's literally what the ACC is. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/prog...-program/aboutWhy not pass a California state law about what kind of vehicles are allowed to drive in the state? Missouri doesn't get a say.
What the hell are you even talking about?
- - - Updated - - -
In short; they're fascists. Fascism always took a "third way" route with regards to economics, picking from capitalist or socialist (or other economic systems) as needed to inflict the suffering the fascist regime deems necessary on the subjugated minority. They don't give the least shit about economic principles, they're only concerned with the infliction of suffering on those they've scapegoated.
If a "capitalist" starts protesting capitalist economics because it's hurting the wrong people, it's because they're fascists, not "capitalists".
fascism as we know it only exists as the logical conclusion to capitalism's inevitable end. as resources and wealth are consolidated and becomes more scarce the one's who own all the wealth and resources will become increasingly willing to use laws and then violence to maintain their status. this is literally how you get Nazi's.
People shouldn't be able to walk/cycle to their local grociery store! Think of the local petrol station! They'd go out of buisness!
- - - Updated - - -
If you actually look into this I think you'll find that it's far more NIMBYs, federal laws and regulations, and lobbyist groups against a lot of these things getting in the way. Along with the fact that a lot of american drivers are hostile as fuck to non-cars on the right of way.
- Lars
The gray bit is California negotiating without force of law because the government cannot coerce private actors to do something it doesn’t have the power to do itself. Whether or not the judge will agree with the argument that the manufacturers were acting as proxies for the California state government is the unknown factor. As I said I don’t think that’s the case but it’s part of the basis of the suit.
- - - Updated - - -
I can’t think of a single entry level position (of which there are a lot of openings in my market) that pays anywhere near close to minimum wage. Most are at least double if not more. Does it mean zero jobs pay minimum wage? I don’t know for certain, but with the plethora of openings requiring zero education or experience while also offering benefits beyond the wage it’s not the state’s fault at that point that you’re not being paid more where I’m living and it’s hardly one of the expensive markets like New York or LA.
Maybe you’re calling for wages above and beyond more than double the current minimum, but anything less than that would have zero effect in many markets.
"Law and Order", lots of places have had that, Russia, North Korea, Saddam's Iraq.
Laws can be made to enforce order of cruelty and brutality.
Equality and Justice, that is how you have peace and a society that benefits all.