17 states push EPA to revoke California's ability to set its own vehicle emission sta

[solinari6]

Manufacturers don't want to have multiple production lines held to differing standards if they can avoid it, so they just produce to California's standards, since that means they'll exceed the standards everywhere else they want to sell the vehicles, and don't need to design two different engines for the same production vehicle.

Did they used to do that, though? I swear I remember people winning cars on The Price Is Right, and they would always mention the cars had "California Emissions".

[tehdang]

Slight nuance here, though I’m not sure it makes a difference, but California negotiated with the manufacturers and did not use force of law as I understand it. Which they’re perfectly allowed to do I believe as I can’t quite see how they’re acting as proxies of the state here. I mean even if California had no special treatment from the EPA, there would be nothing stopping manufacturers forming an industry trade group like IEEE to set their own standards above and beyond what is required by law.

It’s kinda gray sure, but the remedy here if the other states want the minimum standard set by the EPA to be the rule would be to pass laws to that effect. And as that seems like it would be more trouble than it’s worth enforcement-wise they’re going to Daddy to get Susie to stop doing something instead.

CA negotiating with manufacturers is fine. It's if they creep these forward even 5 years, or negotiate with the overt threat of regulatory law behind them. I haven't read evidence of either, so I don't really care if my state government and manufacturers do this.

[Edge-]

It’s kinda gray sure

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.

[Rasulis]

Did they used to do that, though? I swear I remember people winning cars on The Price Is Right, and they would always mention the cars had "California Emissions".

It used to be. However, other states have adopted the standards also. I think 17 states so far with combined around 40% of light vehicle sales in the US. So, it has become cheaper and easier for car manufacturers to stick to a single set of standards.

[Elegiac]

Remember kids.

When states want to pass regulations to facilitate the abuse of women and minorities:

The national government has no business making 1 giant decision for all 50 states, rather than the people's voice 50 times in 50 states. Each state makes the law, and bears responsibility for the outcomes.

When states want to pass environmental regulations in excess of federal law:

It's if they creep these forward even 5 years, or negotiate with the overt threat of regulatory law behind them.

[Endus]

It used to be. However, other states have adopted the standards also. I think 17 states so far with combined around 40% of light vehicle sales in the US. So, it has become cheaper and easier for car manufacturers to stick to a single set of standards.

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.

[Lynarii]

CA negotiating with manufacturers is fine. It's if they creep these forward even 5 years, or negotiate with the overt threat of regulatory law behind them. I haven't read evidence of either, so I don't really care if my state government and manufacturers do this.

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.

[Elegiac]

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.

Or like... actually spend money on public transportation and community walkability.

[Endus]

Did they used to do that, though? I swear I remember people winning cars on The Price Is Right, and they would always mention the cars had "California Emissions".

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.

[tehdang]

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.

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.

[Elegiac]

Missouri doesn't get a say.

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.

[uuuhname]

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 Clair 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.

but when markets don't do what I want them to do then that's bad and they shouldn't do that. I call myself a proud capitalist after all, that's how capitalism works.

[Edge-]

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.

I'm beginning to think that all these capitalists don't actually understand, or like, capitalism.

[gondrin]

I'm beginning to think that all these capitalists don't actually understand, or like, capitalism.

Or states rights people not understand what states rights means.

[Elegiac]

I'm beginning to think that all these capitalists don't actually understand, or like, capitalism.

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".

[Endus]

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?

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.

I thought this was a negotiated agreement, not law?

The Clean Air Act is a law. What the hell are you talking about?

The Clean Air Act is California's vehicle for imposing regulation, which is why they need preferential waivers.

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.

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 literally what the ACC is. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/prog...-program/about

What the hell are you even talking about?

- - - Updated - - -

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".

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".

[uuuhname]

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.

[Muzjhath]

Or like... actually spend money on public transportation and community walkability.

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 - - -

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.

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.

[D3thray]

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.

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 - - -

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.

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.

[D Luniz]

Alrighty, so lemme get this straight... current GOP mindset is:


1) federal should protect the interests of drivers, so that they aren't being strong-armed by laws in different states into buying cars that are more efficient than they care about.

2) federal law should not protect the rights of women, and states should be allowed to decide whether they're oppressed or not. And even then states that don't allow the oppression should ultimately still be subject to states that do, and allow those oppressive states to seek bounties or punish women for activities that happen in other states.


Do I have that about right?




This is more evidence of "California being such a powerhouse of a state that they don't have to give a fuck what the GOP think, say, or do" that pisses them off. Strongest economy in the country, running on a budget surplus, able to use its capitalistic soft power to determine policy the nation over, and it's run by liberals?! The GOP can't have other states seeing that!

no different they how they'll scream "one person, one vote" and the moment you go, "So lets get rid of the electoral college" it switches to " NOOOOO, then California and NY will run the country!!!"