CALIFORNIA and 13 other states have come to an agreement with foreign auto makers to observe pollution controls close to those mandated by Obama. States where Trump's rollbacks will go into effect, risk the legal consequences of generating pollution that spreads across state boundaries and may even spread globally via air currents in the upper atmosphere. If Trump's rollbacks violate the rights of states that mandate clean air, that establishes a clear case where federal regulations violate states' rights. This is a no-win position for Trump (just as most of them are), because if the Trump rollbacks go into effect, they may trigger tariffs on auto makers that maintain higher standards for clean air, while violating the rights of states that mandate clean air. Once again, Trump sets forth failed policies, that any literate, logical, cognitively intact person would see as counterproductive, destructive and clear evidence of profoundly impaired insight and judgment in Trump's regulations as well as, it appears, in his cognitive functioning.
18
As a resident of the progressive and magnificent state of California, my position is very firm on this matter. If an auto company does not fully support and fully comply with California standards for manufacture of all of their vehicles, I will never ever again purchase any vehicle made by that company, even if that specific vehicle does support California standards. No incentives provided by those who refuse to comply with good sense will ever win my business.
25
Republicans have been screaming about states' rights for decades to fight sensible regulations. Now that a state is attempting to take the lead in saving our planet, they want to revoke those rights. This is nothing but another attempt by an illegitimate president to undo the good done by his predecessor, and the hypocrisy party will support him until there is nothing left of this nation.
23
Is it really all about reversing Obama era victories? Or is there more going on here. Try tell the folks in Paris that climate change is NOT real, they are experience 105 degree (Fahrenheit) temperature records. Trump is a pox on the world stage.
16
The automakers are not stupid. They surely understand that, after Trump, we will go back to where the Obama standards would have taken us. So they might as well work to that standard anyway.
15
Nancy Pelosi might be correct, but the real shame is that the content of Robert Mueller’s testimony is being neglected.
Mr. Mueller’s testimony establishes that:
-The Mueller Report does not exonerate the president.
-The sole reason that a determination was not made with respect to whether the president has committed obstruction of justice is the Justice Department regulation that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted for a crime.
-The president can be investigated and indicted after he leaves office.
-The president was not responsive to investigators.
-Members of the Trump administration lied to investigators.
These are important findings that should be reported widely. Instead, the media is concentrating on Mr. Mueller’s delivery and whether Congress will consider impeachment.
Very sad.
19
The most progressive acts occur in the states that the far left describes as run by corporate Democrats. Moderates make the most progress, so in reality, they are the most progressive.
4
Perhaps the greatest climate reduction among states is the effort by New York State rather than California given that the latter emphasizes reduction in demand by increasing its mpg but happily receives the financial benefits by taxing extraction and by not leaving the remaining fossil fuels in the ground.
Who is able to make a strong argument that Paris Accords metrics, let alone the demands of science can be reached without major systemic changes on the global level?
One of the ways to systemically and globally to deal with both the supply and demand side of energy and to reach the necessary GHG reductions is to transform the unjust, unsustainable, and therefore, unstable international monetary system by basing it on the carbon standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person and a balance of payments that accounts for both financial and ecological credits and debts.
States an outstanding economist and climate specialist about this Tierra global governance system: “The further into the global warming area we go, the more physics and politics narrows our possible paths of action. Here’s a very cogent and well-argued account of one of the remaining possibilities.” Bill McKibben, May 17, 2011
6
It does not matter one iota what Trump thinks or wants, or the EPA. It is the consumer who will decide. We are the purchasers. We decide what we will buy and for what reasons. Not the EPA or the gas industry. We do. And if we want cars that will get 100 mpg, then you know they will make one that wil,l because we will buy it. Remember the Prius? People bought them and they bought a whole lot of them. And we know they are more expensive that other cars. So no matter what DC wants, it is the consumer, the purchaser, who can dictate to the market. Trump can not force an industry to produce a polluting car. He May allow one to be sold, at your peril to the purchaser. But he can not prevent a cleaner car from being sold.
8
Perhaps it's simply naivete, but I don't understand why automobile companies cannot simply adhere to the "Obama-era standards". Work as if those standards were their own, rather than something imposed on them.
If all cars were manufactured to that standard, there could be no fear of repercussion. Even Trump's cadre of Republican lawmakers would not try to make manufacturing more-efficient vehicles into criminal activity.
I think.
7
These 4 companies are the farthest behind in developing electric vehicles (EV) which all other automakers, led by Tesla, have already launched. For them it's all about keeping gasoline engines alive. Meanwhile Ford plans to double down on gas guzzling big pickup trucks to satisfy the needs of MAGA America.
3
Thanks for the list of companies; they're on my new list of four companies I'll buy my next car from. And I don't live in California. Any other companies want to join in and be considered for my next purchase? Hurry up! My Toyo has a lot of miles on it and is next up for replacement and they're not on the list right now....
14
Buy a Tesla instead. NO pollution, much better vehicle.
3
BREAKING NEWS:
Sanity prevails. Will it hold?
8
Extremely proud of my state for continuing to stand up against the idiotic economic and climate policies of the Trump administration. It seems even carmakers realize no be wants to Make America Great Again by going back to the smoggy and polluted 1970s. Three years after driving a battery electric I’m trill trying to figure out why anyone is still buying gas burners.
9
The planet is burning in Europe on Thursday. It is burning in the Pacific Northwest on Friday.
To most Americans, this is another example of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Where is our march on Washington?
12
World wide automobile manufacturers to side for clean air over a wild man President and out of touch GOP to continue to pollute our country and the world should send a strong message to the evil White House. Climate change is real and we want to save our climate and you need to step down and let the people of the world and California save the climate . Thank God there is a Democratic Governor in Ca . If it was another corrupt GOP we would be in serious trouble with more pollution. Mr President the world does not want your big cars and more pollution. Get it!
5
The automakers know what the troglodytes refuse to admit, the time when come when another administration will reimpose the clean air and emission standards that the president and his minions cavalierly dismiss.
5
President Gavin Newsom.. Just trying it out for future reference. He's been a mayor, a lt governor, and now governor - he has the chops.
10
So let’s see if I get this. California has the right to protect its citizens under agreements consequential of the Clean Air Act to set mileage and other emissions standards. Those standards have largely worked in California and we are immensely better off for it, not just in terms of improved air quality but also reduced cost of fuel consumption. Trump hates California. Trump hates that California preferred Obama over him. Trump wants to punish California and Californians by making our air quality worse and our expenses higher. Trump’s lackeys are suggesting that if automobile manufacturers want to enter an agreement with California and other states, the federal government will levy punitive tariffs, presumably on the basis of a national security emergency.
So there we have it, at last. California and other Blue states represent a national security threat to the USA. Cleaner air represents a national security threat to the USA. Lower cost represents a national security threat to the USA. Not being stupid represents a national security threat to the USA. Who knew? Well, at least the first three.
That should make for some interesting litigation.
12
So Trump is destroying the federal government department by department on behalf of the GOP to allow for more power in state and local governments, but now he's also trying to remove state's rights if those states are blue states and want to uphold anything that feels Obama-ish (read: morally upright) to Trump?
Somebody make it stop.
Please. Just end this charade.
7
California can drag this nation kicking and screaming into the future if it has to, the fifth biggest world economy, our taxes keeping the pathetic, taker red southern states afloat, now it looks like we'll have to bring this nation back into reality where climate change is an ongoing crisis.
9
The Trump administration really is a conglomeration of the worst human beings alive. Actively rolling back regulations with the goal of increasing pollution is just sick. The people behind this should be held criminally responsible for their depraved indifference to human life, but it's even worse than that -they actively want to make the world a worse place. Hopefully, this is only the first step. All gas-guzzling personal vehicles should be replaced by electric vehicles. The real compromise for environmentalists must be on accepting the use of nuclear energy to make up the need for greater electrical generation. It's better to take the risks/pollution related to nuclear than to continue to destroy the world's atmosphere.
5
I was about ten years old when my family drove to the Shriner's Hospital near Pasadena The smog made my eyes burn, I could see a layer of dirty air that got worse as we got closer to the LA area.
3
Does any body has any idea what Trump administration actually thinking?
But also Today in another instance, A fake seal represented Trump in an event which he participated.
It is all about one thing. almost everybody in Trump administration gave up doing something positive ( Wilbur Ross to Stephen Miller ) Instead main motto is plunder this ship while sinking.
Otherwise who is in sane mind offer emission deregulation.
Trump administration this side is so dark , it can only be compared El Chapo's narco business.
I hope we can survive until he leaves WH.
2
Hi from New Zealand. The USA is famous for providing practical solutions to problems. My fellow New World country is the same. New Zealand is not perfect. How is the USA comingacross?
1
Actually, the entire world is against dj blump when it comes to this.
2
Mar-a-Lago will be under water one day.
7
The only losers here, aside from Trump, are the refining industry and those in the medical world who treat diseases linked
to emissions.
2
As long as the American male continues to depend on big trucks, RV’s and other gas guzzlers to prove their masculinity to themselves, the Country will virtually make no progress on stopping the ravages of global warming. To them, there’s nothing like looking out at the huge tires in the driveway and knowing that...”Yep, I’m a real man.”
5
Trump will probably be miserable with the projected outcome of a SCOTUS battle over pollution controls. The State he loves to hate will put the wood to his plans for very relaxed mileage limits. Bravo California and the car companies for flouting the Feds.
1
I've never cared for Gavin Newsom, but if he stands up to Trump on this I might have to reconsider. A little.
1
America, you can:
OR have backward policies (and give more money to the oil lobby)
OR have progressive turned-to-the-future policies.
1
I noticed GM, Chrysler, Mercedes, Toyota, Hyundai and Nissan stayed away as of now. Not surprised as 45 has scared their daylights...But, as so many of 45's sick rewrites of scientific proof, this too will pass because we will defeat him in 2020.
1
Trump and his cronies want to roll back regulations that reduce tail pipe emissions which results in dirtier and more polluted air. But this is the pro-life party, right?
5
Pressured by Green activists in the 1970´s, California in America and Germany in Europe, regulated auto industry technology on their own to fight horrible smog, leaded gasoline, acid rain. And the whole world followed suit. We are all rooting for California to succeed once again, this time against the raging nihilists in Trump´s Environmental Destruction Agency.
2
Many comments discuss that Trump wants to roll back anything Obama did.
The reality is that Obama wanted to make America's future better.
Trump wants to wants to make himself richer by selling it off to his friends and donors.
4
Its a joke. A pipedream. We aren't close to the 54mpg requirement now. We're at about 24.7. It's unrealistic to assume that this rate of mpg running on gas will more than double in 15 years. I'm sure there will be many exceptions and credits as the 51-54mpg gets closer. Theyll tinker with the rate by giving credits if its a hybrid, count cars that no one buys and use all electrics in an automakers fleet as a setoff. Or, no more new SUV's and trucks for the middle class in California. Don't expect that you will average 50mpg or even 40 mpg in a truck running gas. That's ridiculous. It's all marketing and big business politics.
12
Your statement s are incorrect. We just bought a large hybrid sedan. It gets 45 mpg. The technology is there to meet these requirements, which is one reason why the automakers, including Ford, have agreed to them.
52
Canada will support California's standards in spite of the threat of tariffs. When this nightmare is over remember who your friends were.
5
A lot of people, the smartest people, say the President has remaining government scientists designing beautiful clean-coal burning cars.
5
Other states laugh at California, only to turn around follow its lead a few years later. Proud to live here!
3
"car buyers increasingly prefer sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks that tend to have much lower fuel economy than sedans."
Good grief …
3
Smart move by Ford, Volkswagen, Honda and BMW, and to the State of California.
These companies will find that there is a significant market for cars that increase gas mileage while at the same time reduce pollution and provide for increased protection of human health and the environment. They can advertise these benefits, and a large portion of America will consider that as they buy their next car.
Going against Trump and his 'regulatory relief' approaches will reap significant profits for these company's stockholders and owners. Kudos to them.
7
"Necessity is the mother of invention." As has already been proven, making pollution- reducing fuel efficiency a legal requirement has resulted in cars are far more efficient than even ten years ago. Trump will not be able to stop this progress towards a cleaner, healthier environment.
4
Of course, lower auto emission standards does not just lower pollution, it also lowers gasoline consumption. Oil is not an infinite resource, though many of us act as if it is. It is sad that many Americans, once the financial crisis passed, went right back to their gas guzzlers. While they may have the money to fill up those enormous tanks and drive low mileage vehicles, there is little thought to the air we all breathe or to the resource they use up. Future generations will not thank them.
5
This story reveals a lie perpetuated by the Trump administration and the Republicans that protecting the environment and fighting climate change hurt businesses and the economy. It also shows that government and business can work together to address this critical issue.
9
It's really rather simple; Trump and the Republicans are military. The military is the biggest user of fossil fuels in the world. The Republicans allowed fuels exports to expand production so any future military conflict would be able to utilize the already ramped up production. It has nothing to do with cars.
2
the military considers climate change to be the greatest threat to American national security, in spite of Trump
3
On the one hand, I am pleased as a Californian that this is happening. Kudos that these car companies see the need to accommodate to such needs for the future wellbeing of our world, let alone their industry.
On the other hand, I must admit that I also wish no loosening of the standards was made. Our society really need to eliminate, not just substantially reduce, the reliance on fossil fuels ASAP.
7
While I applaud this move by CA four automakers, I much prefer my solution: living where I have no need of a car, because public transportation is more than adequate. When (rarely) I do need a car, I rent one.....
Car culture is dying, the internal combustion engine is a dinosaur, freeways and highways need to go back to fields and forests.
Everywhere in the world (but the US, of course) trains are the future.....and the future arrived in the 1960’s
7
No a rebuke but a confirmation that States are better equipped to deal with regulation, rather than at the federal level.
4
@Chris Stewart
The federal government is perfectly capable of regulation as long as a certain political party isn't actively sabotaging said regulations. In the states where said political party is in power, regulations are similarly being sabotaged.
8
Smokestack and groundwater pollution do not respect state boundaries . While the States can mitigate the EPA must regulate .
6
Hi Chris - California is well equipped to handle regulation because it, as a single state, represents one of the largest economies in the world. Nearly every other state would have incredible difficulty regulating the industry individually. This got done because California is such a powerful player. The federal government is far better at such regulation because it has way more bargaining/enforcement power with the car industry than, say, Massachusetts. Or any state that’s smaller in population than California. Which is every other state.
4
What can be learned from California?
As a young Marine Second Lieutenant (and Chicago native) fresh out of the Naval Academy in 1979, I eagerly awaited my first duty station on the West Coast, lovely El Toro Air Station. I went running on a July day only to notice the sky was brown and the air actually tasted bad and my lungs were burning like my winter runs in Chicago. Today I've been teaching in SoCal for over 25 years and the air quality, while not perfect, is far, far better. And if my lungs still burn, well... I'm not that Second Lieutenant anymore.
So cleaner air, better fuel economy AND the car companies are happy to sign on? Am I missing anything else?
12
Exactly, when I lived in LA in 1966, there were days that you couldn’t see further than a block down the street before the air became a dirty yellow wall. In the 1980s, I was there on a trip and was pleasantly surprised at how much the air quality had improved.
7
I want to do my part for the environment and I'm a visiting nurse. Why would I want to spend more money on gasoline? just show me the companies who make fuel efficient cars so I can decide.
12
Regardless if you believe in climate change or not it’s just good policy raising the mileage standards, lowering emissions and switching to cleaner renewable energy.
We have everything to gain and nothing to lose by doing so.
20
It is still mind-blowing that the President of the United States goes out of his way to make the world less healthy and more dangerous. And that he is enabled and supported by people who call themselves conservatives, but have proved to be radicals of the right wing who don’t care about conserving our environment or our Constitution.
37
It's going to be amusing to watch the Republicans suddenly abandon state's rights and free market capitalism to argue against this emissions agreement.
30
@bryan Indeed. The GOP have been preaching less federal oversight and power to the states.
But, those GOP politicians will grovel at Trump's feet, as usual, and we will see expensive court battles.
14
Although it’s impossible to tally the comments, I’d say that the ones I’ve read are 20:1 in favor of this more stringent regulation. But for all those in favor (and I am one of them) how many of you own a truck or SUV? There is a reason why Ford has abandoned building sedans, and it’s related to the cognitive dissonance of the American public that wants to save the world while denying themselves nothing.
21
@Ockham9 - I posted some links in an earlier comment - Ford is previewing an all-electric F-150, they've laid off a lot of staff involved in design of internal combustion power trains, they've invested half a billion in Rivian, designer of electric luxury-pickup and SUV, and they've now partnered with VW on electric design.
The Rivian investment (Amazon invested, too) is interesting because the company is taking the sensible approach of aiming first for the luxury buyer, which is how a lot of consumer products get their early manufacturing practice paid for - lowering costs and allowing lower-cost products to emerge.
The other part that's interesting is their "skateboard" approach - beyond the GM approach of building a few cars off one chassis - they view the interchangable part as the entire chassis/motors/battery/wheels. Then you put the body on top, and the body is where you can embellish or differentiate. EVs are so much simpler mechanically that it invites this new view.
And if people love bigger vehicles, but those are lighter, powered by more and more renewable electricity sources, and cost less from a maintenance standpoint - plus don't pollute?
I'm fine with not trying to fit everyone into a sub-compact given all the pluses.
10
@Ockham9
I drive a Chevy Sonic but can understand why people do purchase larger vehicles. It is not easy to find a vehicle large enough to haul stuff to your home (like home improvement materials, yard mulch and soil, larger tools, furniture) to rent or a delivery service that does not cost a lot of $$ for each trip. I was even considering purchasing an old minivan for our needs.
1
this quote gets to the heart of so much: "the cognitive dissonance of the American public that wants to save the world while denying themselves nothing."
1
Please identify the manufacturers who do not sign on and whose car models perform consistently worse then the CA standard of 51 mpg.
Those who uphold the standard show have a marque of excellence on their windscreen
9
@Arthur Y Chan - if you or someone really care about car mileage when buying a new car, I'm quite sure it's published.
The information is there, just most people don't make that a high priority when buying.
FIRST, @Madeline Conant & @Dave in Eugen OR, thank you for giving credit where it is due and thank you California for not only will your deal help the US, it puts pressure on the car makers to do better across the planet.
NEXT, For any left in doubt that Climate Change is fully upon us, you need but to go outside in any country after 11AM and you will find every street filled with evidence. As an old man, I remember when it was safe for kids to play outside at 2PM. Sending kids outside today after 12noon may be a death sentence for them and that is no exaggeration.
LAST, As we prepare for the 2020 elections, if you value being able to breathe, you may want to think hard about where the people are coming from when you decide to vote. None of the people supporting things that would allow you to be able to breathe well are coming from the GOP. The GOP can't seem to care whether you live or die, satisfying big Oil seems their only priority.
It really is your life or keeping the GOP in the WH and Senate.
11
@WorldPeace2017 - what exactly is the death sentence that begins at noon?
Interesting, corporations with a social conscience when it comes to our environment (they probably also have taken surveys that indicate their customers understand and support emissions control) compared to a President that is a climate change denier. They have drawn a line when it comes to not participating in Trump's fantasy world. Too bad Trump's Republican Party will not do the same.
11
Regardless of what automobile manufacturers and California negotiate, as consumers, we have much greater effect on the carbon our vehicles emit. I am amazed by the number and size of preferred vehicles on the road. Huge trucks with 4-wheel drive and expensive detailing that indicate these vehicles were never going to be used for anything more taxing than going to the store. SUVs that really are trucks masquerading as passenger vehicles. Continuing to buy these wasteful vehicles blunts the effects of even the most ambitious CAFE standards. If you aren’t a contractor or a rancher, you don’t need such a wasteful car. Consider a right-sized sedan or EV.
17
@Ockham9 - I was able to talk a friend down from buying a honking-big truck a few years ago, just by asking why, when he had been mostly driving a Mitsubishi.
He said he had a boat he put out on the lake in summer. I asked how often he planned to yank it out of the water every year. He bought another car and borrows a truck from friends twice a year.
3
@b fagan
New trucks are so so expensive. However, they are one of the few vehicles that have a fairly decent retained resale value. My husband works in construction as an electrician. He does not drive a truck but there is not a month that goes by that he does not miss his long ago sold Chevy S10 for one job or another whether it is personal or professional. He drives an Impala.
1
I have huge dogs that don't fit in a small car. I plan my trips out though, so I use as little gas as possible
1
Win-win! This will have Global effects - for the better - as the US leads the Fuel Economy - and (non CO2) emissions game for cars and light trucks.
3
So let me break this down. Trump wants to lower mileage standards. At the same time he complains that car companies can’t sell cars in other markets like the EU and China. Gas is very expensive in the EU and China wants to go electric.
So how does lowering mileage standards makes the auto industry more competitive in the EU or China?
19
@Steven
Are you seriously trying to find logic in anything Trump does?
He reflexively reverses anything Obama has done.
4
Automakers and California are planning for the future that Californians and a major share of rest of the Americans want.
Trump and his Conservatives are doing what Conservatives do - working hard to drag America back to the good ole days of the 1920s. Just think what happened during the two decades after the Roaring Twenties ended at the end of 1929.
19
This is not so complicated or laudable.
Trumps days are numbered, so are the days of the climate-change deniers. The automakers are preparing for what they conceive the american future. And it just looks like they believe more in AOC than in the GOP.
20
Trump's EPA puppet called it a PR stunt. I do not agree. Thank heaven for California! We in Colorado agree though we are a smaller market. A ray of hope!
32
This is insane. If the Trump administration lowers fuel efficiency standards to 37 mpg but if the auto manufacturers are confident of exceeding that standard mileage, what is stopping them producing vehicles that give 51 mpg?
Much ado about nothing.
5
EPA wants “one national standard that will provide certainty and relief for American consumers.” Relief from what — breathing? heat stroke? lower fuel prices?
18
@1954Stratocaster - not so sure CA has low fuel prices. Keep it real.
Ahhh, Trump and Potterville
Say no more...
Props to California.
Thank you.
21
Just look at those pictures. A disease spread across the condemned earth.
And if say China, with a control economy, went to put a stop to it, no doubt you'd want to go to war with China, trade or worse.
5
Trump is destructive and insane. He should be in jail. Trying to weaken pollution standards is tantamount to an attack on the planet and on us.
18
I will only buy a car from a state that has strict emission standards and only from a manufacturer that adheres to those standards.
27
Free market only works when the people have good science common sense and good conscience and they manage to elect a government that represents their values. Just free market alone is not enough. Look at some other states.
8
It is well Americans are waking up, albeit slowly and too late, to climate change. This was forecast 40 years ago. Does anyone at this late date think they can significantly slow the process let alone reverse it. Atmospheric CO2 accumulation has now been found to be increasing not linearly but parabolically. The oceans are now saturated with carbon dioxide to the point that the bicarbonate balance has shifted- a major “sink” for atmospheric carbon dioxide. The increase of deforestation has severely diminished the biospheres ability to recycle carbon dioxide. How long can the ocean algae live in an acidic environment before dying- a major route of oxygen production. Major scientists themselves have become pessimistic and talk of a “runaway train”. How does this country think seven billion people will be able to transition from oil and gas? How long can modern western civilization, which has been built on fossil fuels, maintain itself without them? Global warming, melting arctic and Antarctic ice and sea level rise and natural disasters are only the manifestations of the underlying disturbance of the byproducts of fossil fuels. How much of humankind and the animal kingdom will survive is anyone’s guess. There was a time when this delemma might have been prevented. That time has long since passed. The buseness class closed it long ago. I wonder how they think their progeny will escape the future.
10
Allan Bahoric, MD : You ask the questions that should have been top of mind for our nation's leaders at least 20 years ago, or better yet 40, as you say. We are in extremely unfortunate circumstances now, because the answer is: only time will tell. But it definitely does not look good for the stability of biological systems, and the human economic systems that ultimately rely on them. At this point mitigation seems all we can hope for. Time to strap in, bumpy ride ahead.
4
Humans are at least for now a global force like gravity. The earth will attempt a rebound and rebalance.
We are in the new natural called the anthropocene epoch. It will be short-lived, snuffed out by the coming plasti-necrotic division.
It will be a thin layer in the geology, filled with unnatural isotopes of carbon and trace elements impossible in this solar system, yet from our nuclear weapons testing, elevated isotopes of water from the spiking energy releasing sequestered ice and permafrost, a drastic die off of invertebrates and vertebrates alike, and highly refined hydrocarbons pressed into into rock and water at the subduction zones making some strange new strata; a curious puzzle to be solved.
Some future geologists will conclude we got hit by some rogue extra-solar flyby, since earth could not have produced a hideous intelligence that could and would simultaneously make this stuff and destroy the world with it.
5
Yep. If we had have listened way back when Jimmy Carter was warning us about it, we may have had a chance. But he was ridiculed unmercifully and ignored. I’m pretty sure that is already too late for the human race to avoid extinction. Too bad they’re going to take the more intelligent species with them...the ones that are smart enough to know not to destroy the environment they depend on for life.
3
This is a positive, but by now, gas cars should get at least 75 mpg, be in decline, or they should be being replaced by electric cars being recharged with solar power.
18
Maybe this has been suggested earlier in the comments, but why can’t the automakers just decide to do the right thing and keep the stricter standards, regardless of what Trump does? Does something stop them from making cars with lower emissions than are required?
17
Profit. They have to "maximize shareholder value", and you don't do that by doing that type of thing.
7
People won't buy them. If they did, auto producers would sell them. The government must force us to stop buying SUV's and pick up trucks. Auto companies need to be told what they may build and sell. We must be forced to buy much smaller cars to reach the mpg rate proscribed. We are weak and lame!
1
Just spent a month in Oakland CA. For all its regulations, laws, restrictions, and its notions about freedom for all, etc. California continues to be a bastion and beacn of sanity and freedom in the face of this out of control rogue regime. I ate in a taqueria on Mission Street in SF...there were fliers in the windows, telling the working immigrant community how to deal with ICE, and not surrender to this cruel regime's policies.
25
Having lived in SF for three decades, did you miss the homelessness, filth and dysfunction in a small city of fewer than 900,000 people and it’s eye-watering spending of over a billion dollars per month? Are you aware that San Francisco shields repeat violent felons from ICE in addition to alerting other on how to avoid deportation?
I think it is great that the states and automakers are stepping up to the challenge and pushing for progress. I don’t understand, however, why I keep seeing the line that having stricter standards in part of the US (and now Canada) would force automakers to make two distinct lines of cars. Couldn’t they just have a single line of cars that meet the strictest requirements?
12
I'm getting tired of all this winning.
14
Trump's drastically lower standards will increase CO2 emissions.
What are flooded Nebraska and Hurricaned Louisiana and Hurricained Texas thinking when they support Trump?
PS- 104 degrees today in Paris.
18
Finally, something this day to make me smile.
16
“This voluntary framework is a PR stunt that does nothing to further the one national standard that will provide certainty and relief for American consumers.”
Hmmm...is this the EPA really speaking or a lobbyist for the fuel industry?
I would have expected a response more like “We are happy the industry is self regulating towards a higher standard that will reduce pollution and fuel consumption - we appreciate their willingness to lead on this issue!”
15
Automakers are engineering and manufacturing companies. If they go for cheap, easy profits without pushing forward with clean technology, they will suffer in international markets. They can also get into a bind like Boeing is in right now, stuck retrofitting an obsolete product. Trump offers the Anti-Stem, quick easy money path towards bankruptcy. Thankfully our automakers are skipping the bait.
18
@Phil Ludmer
You have got the point. Right on!
4
Happy to see all of the support for less emissions.. gives me a tiny bit of hope that we can turn this ship around.
13
Which 13 other states are joining California in this effort?
7
The deal “has no impact on E.P.A.’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act,” wrote Michael Abboud, an E.P.A. spokesman, in an email. “This voluntary framework is a PR stunt that does nothing to further the one national standard that will provide certainty and relief for American consumers.”
Economics:
It looks like car makers are responding to what consumers want.(cars that have cleaner emissions)
Politics:
States rights are a bedrock of conservative values. That means California has the right to set its own standards (as established decades ago via an agreement with the Federal Government).Let's see if these values are jettisoned for a Federal power grab. which is what Republicans often accuse Democrats of.
18
Could not agree more. IMO, our greatest threat isn't an embicilic POTUS, a politicized SCOTUS, an obsequious GOP, or a braindead electorate -- it's an imperious Judicial Department the power it gives the Executive. Thank God for State Constitutions. Come after those, and I'll support an 18th c. reading of the 2nd Amendment.
3
It was 107 degrees F in Paris today.
Thank you California!
19
This is a huge win in the efforts to slow Global Warming!!
The power to set auto efficiency standards moved from Trump to California.
Winners: "The Climate"
Losers: Oil Interests.
The rest of the world watches the US closely. Climate activists other countries will be emboldened to push for efficiency boosting regulations, now that they see de facto sanity starting to return to US climate policies.
6
Actually, it is big oil that stands to win either way. It’s a hard pill to swallow but it’s true. If oil is priced low they sell more product but make less profit per unit; if priced high they sell less but make more profit per unit. No matter which direction we go, they’re going to open the big bottle of Victory Champagne and toast to themselves. Now, if you were a lazy couch potato which direction would you desire to go? That’s right, less product, more profit. The fact that you want less CO2 is irrelevant, you’re just a tool to create a desired outcome.
This is utter insanity. Demanding higher auto emissions is like signing a law saying children aren't allowed to wear seatbelts.
This is an example of the price we'll pay for every day Trump isn't removed from office.
Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat majority couldn't be more of a disappointment.
7
@Jan
It is remarkable that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat majority of 1/2 the legislative branch of the government or (1/6 the leadership) can even function no less be expected to be some kind of superhero. Are we not abdicating our responsibility as citizens and voters by expecting someone else to save us?
2
Good news but you really are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as far as the bigger picture is concerned. In decades to come future generations will wonder how we could be so blind to our actions.
7
Trump does not do these things in the national interest, he does them for personal gain and out of spite for Obama. In the end he is just a petty little man in love with himself.
20
It's frankly insane that the EPA is fighting to loosen emission standards, and goes so far as to call California's actions a "PR stunt."
And because our country has indeed gone insane, I almost expect a group of deep red states to band together and adopt looser emission standards, barring high fuel efficiency cars from within their states. You know, to spite the libs.
15
Those Obama regulations kept Ford turning out sedans and their scuttling was the motivation that closed Youngstown.
3
Perhaps we should be upset that tobacco farmers could do better if we loosened up regulations on cigarettes? Really?
5
The future depends on what we do in the present.
_Mahatma Gandhi
10
California!!!! If California would it be a country, it would have been the best country in the world!!!
13
@RBR. Except that very few of us could afford to live there. I left Santa Cruz 40 years ago because it became unaffordable.
Carmakers know they will get left in the dust if they allow the dumb market, a.k.a. the Trump influenced US market, to alter their international strategy. Trump may as well be demanding that they manufacture cars that run on coal.
7
An EPA spokesman said “This voluntary framework is a PR stunt that does nothing to further the one national standard that will provide certainty and relief for American consumers.” Exactly what certainty and what relief does he think the American consumer needs? No one other than the administration opposes cleaner air and more efficient automobiles. We finally have the auto industry agreeing to make their cars more efficient and instead of our federal government celebrating that they don’t have to beat industry up to do the right thing, the Fake President and his Fake EPA Director and Fake spokesman promote a Fake narrative about Fake certainty and Fake relief for Fake consumers. Thank you for another real news story written by real journalists who work for a real newspaper.
13
This story shows that we are simply beyond insanity with these wackos in control of the federal government. The vast majority of citizens, the vast majority of scientists, and even the auto industry itself all realize that we have to improve emissions. Yet, the Trumpsters are actively rolling back standards to force worse emissions. I used to think the Russkies were running Trumpsterville, working to detroy the U.S. Now, it must be aliens from a different planet, working to destroy the entire human race. I think you've seen a movie or two with a similar plot. Eliminate the human race so the aliens can move in and inhabit the earth. Lucky for them, they don't have to breath oxygen....
7
Now how about companies, people and societies get together and remove racism and inequality the same way! progress comes from the grassroot levels!
2
Right now 38 centigrades, in some areas reached 40. Global warming is a reality, unless you are a Republican in the USA. Trump’s policies are driven by his racist hate for President Obama. The birther movement that he “created” and pushed, has lead him to the White House. Any questions?
7
Trump you’re such a loser! Clean air coming right up. Thanks Cali and enlightened auto executives.
6
It's not a blow to anything. It's the market--the one Bernie hates so much--working.
Whatever Sacramento dictates, citizens have to buy. Done deal. That's Gavin's Grand Collective at work. Nothing new here in Lenin's West Coast playground.
These four auto companies clearly realize that climate change is real and *much* high gas taxes are inevitable as one way to reduce CO2 emissions.
Consumers will not be buying gas guzzlers, regardless of Trump’s lowered standards— and these companies know it.
5
Good work, California, and thank you. Republicans will have to explain why this exercise of states' rights is bad and "big government" solutions sent down from Washington are good.
32
I think tomorrow I'll fly my prized flag of California. May the voters of this beautiful state ensure a better future for all Americans. Today: reduced auto emissions; tomorrow: space-age mass transit, catch up to France and Japan and then whiz past them!
18
Fantastic! Canada is also going to follow California standards, along with a lot of other States in the U.S. There will be lots of very fuel-efficient cars on offer very soon. Thanks to Ford, BMW, Honda, and Volkswagen for leading the way in working out a deal with California. The planet, and all our lungs, thank you.
30
This is one more reason to love this state. My home!
28
Excellent move by several car companies, a predictable wisdom as to what may occur once the current vulgar bully leaves office, and California's will and courage to hold them to higher standards, and minimize the harm to the environment.
23
Does it really surprise anyone that automobile manufacturers can see what the future more clearly than Donald Trump?!?!
35
Everyone really does know that he's an idiot. US companies flirted with disaster in the past when they bucked trends, and found themselves in stiff competition with foreign makers. And while he may be in terminal climate denial, all large companies are not: they are all trying to factor in how they will be affected. They know any "giveback" on standards will be temporary.
23
Corporations, at the end of the day, are generally pragmatic.
California represents the largest and most demanding vehicle market in the US. To fail to listen to and work with California on emissions standards is corporate suicide.
I applaud the 4 automakers who have stepped up here, but let's not pretend they are doing it for the good of the environment. They are doing it because it is good business. And credit to California for doing the right thing for the environment and being a large enough factor in the world economy to have the power and influence to do so. GDP of California is larger then the GDP of Britain... so yeah.. California speaks.. automakers listen.
The other automakers will now have to get on board or lose California as a market... thus seeding market share to these four automakers.
The folly of the Trump administration here is thinking that they are the force in this business equation. They are not.. and they have no power to bargain accordingly because automakers do not want to make different cars with different emission standards for different states... as it kills their economy of scale. Used to be the Federal Government was known for setting and enforcing the highest standards in all things commerce....now days.. they are fast taking the position as setting the lowest standards and becoming irrelevant in the shadow of states powers.
16
Hooray! Ignore the guy looking in the rear view mirror.
13
This is, indeed, wonderfully ironic. The GOP has been shoving states rights down our throats for decades. Now, California does exactly what the GOP has been preaching but they don't like it because it takes power away from their control....in Washington, DC. Carry on, California. Carry on.
44
Trump is recklessly tearing down anything with Obama's name on it. But at the same time, he is destroying regulations to amp up the economy. Drill in the arctic, jobs; more pollution, cheaper cars, more jobs; fossil fuels, jobs, pipelines, jobs. No corporate taxes, jobs. It doesn't always work out but his claim to fame is a booming economy with low unemployment. No one sees what's behind it. Corporations making a killing means inflated stock prices. Trade war raising prices, jobs.
He stopped talking about his wall and replaced it with cruelty at the border, says some racist things, and everyone's all tangled up in not noticing Mueller's report or testimony. Not noticing that he's raping the country with corruption. It's impossible to keep up. Now here comes California negotiating with automakers voluntarily reducing pollution. And there's Trump and the GOP livid about state's rights and less pollution. How do you be the pro-pollution candidate? Cheaper cars = more buyers = more jobs. More jobs = 4 more years for Trump... he presumes. I'll buy a car from these companies.
5
@Meta
This is all true: Trump parades around out front keeping attention away from all of the destruction.
This is like China has been and the way desperately poor countries act: everything else is sacrificed for a short term gain. Whatever sort of jobs get amped up this way will not last. And we will have more superfund sites, more health problems, and an ever widening wealth divide.
Rape is a best metaphor, and ties so nicely with the current stories of Epstein. Take something beautiful, use it for your own profit/enjoyment, then walk away .
2
His claim to fame is not HIS economy. He has had virtually nothing to do with it and indeed will have everything to do with bringing it to a screeching halt with his ridiculous tariffs.
This economy started while Obama was President and if any president deserves any credit for it, he does. An economy is governed by lots of different factors and whoever is President is NOT one of the major ones.
When reading my comment, please imagine that it is being uttered by "The Simpsons" character, Nelson.
"Ha. Ha."
4
Now if only California also get more trains and public transportation going! I understand the bullet train is expensive but there are not too many alternatives to alleviate the traffic problem which is getting worse and worse. And it would lighten the load off of airports too! From LA to SF in under 3 hours + you can walk around; have a meal at the restaurant car; do some work with wifi and all and even lay down and take a nap!!! It's seriously beyond me why some people are against it!
16
Man, Trump’s base must be furious that they’ll have to pay less at the pump and breath cleaner air! The audacity of California & these automakers to reduce your gas cost and lessen pollution!
30
A study just published in Wednesday's, Nature (Journal), reported that "Scientists discovered that global warming has increased at an unparalleled rate in the past 150 years, compared to the past 2,000 years,...that refutes climate change deniers’ claims that current global warming is part of a natural cycle of global climate events."
Electric vehicle sales from 2017 to 2018 were up over 80% and by Dec. 2018, over 2-million electric vehicles were sold.
Automakers do not want to be on the wrong side of history or customers, regardless of trump's policies.
If the pact is joined by a majority of automakers, expect spiteful trump to tack tariffs on foreign automakers imports. Especially if California is successful in court. That will elicit hateful tweets.
trump's spiteful revenge filled hate of President Obama is just another racist nail in his self-made coffin.
14
I can’t believe that in an era when climate change is a critical issue, the Trump administration and our EPA are hellbent to throw American consumers and the world under the bus for the fossil fuel industry. Pathetic national policy.
12
Thank YOU!
9
It is really, really hard not to hate Donald Trump and everything that he stands for. It has been a long week and an even longer two years. Spare us from the ''Ugly Americans.''
17
Obama wins again.
Gone from office for over two years and DJT is still obsessed with the Obama legacy.
It drives DJT nuts and I kinda like it!
17
Good enough? Good is bad in this case. There is no time for intermediary agreements. We need the most stringent fuel efficiency standards possible.
3
Explain to me why the automakers need to make two sets of each vehicle when they can simply make one set to meet a single high set of standards (on average) ? The argument that they have to make a line up of different vehicles for different standards seems a bit self-serving and dubious at best. Were they delusional enough to think they could to get California legislators to lower CA standards just because they got Trump to? Like that was going to happen. They can make one set of cars that pollute the least. Period. Then again, I can hear some guy in Alabama complain about paying extra for his pickup. Maybe it's the same reason healthy people have to pay higher health insurance- to help cover the cost of the sick. Or have I got this all wrong? Would not be the first time today. I'm going for a walk. Or a Scotch.
8
Are SUVs and pickup trucks included in the fleet mileage calculation? They should be.
5
Those with a GVWR of less than 8,500# are included. That’s why Ford dropped its line of sedans and GM closed Youngstown ending Cruze production when the Obama regs were suspended. They would no longer be needed in calculating the average.
2
I am surprised to see that Toyota didn’t join in this agreement. I am thinking hard about not leasing their vehicle next month.
15
The automakers don't care as much about the emissions thing as the left imagines. It's the size of the California market that matters. As well as other the countries. Just like anything else in this world everything is mass produced. So they have to cater to a certain common denominator. They all know that the emissions standards will continue to get tighter, everywhere. The net result is plan for the future with better emissions controls. Spread over a broader production base dilutes the R&D expenses.
It is interesting that the left now appears to support state rights when just weeks ago they were completely against it because of anti-abortion legislation. Of course it may just be the typical case of picking and choosing your as you see fit.
1
They are exceeding the federal regulation standards so they are meeting and exceeding the federal standards. Big difference.
8
@Mark That sounds like the hard core righties demanding that all states recognize gun permits from other states, But I guess that doesn't fit your narrative so you ignore it.
6
@Mark; yeah, maybe both left and right are hypocrites, I give you that. Except that the Left wants health care coverage and breathable air for everyone whereas conservatives want just the opposite people to die both from lack of health care and bad air. That's the difference.
8
President Trump's vindictiveness towards his predecessor seems utterly relentless. If President Obama tells us it is Friday, you feel that President Trump will rush through legislation stating that it's Thursday. Perhaps somebody could whisper into Mr Trump's ear that Mr Obama just loved the look and smell of petrol fumes? You would have clean air coast-to-coast in no time.
20
the free market has spoken! consumers may have been duped by the industry to buy gas guzzlers, but not anymore...
8
Way to go California! Do the right think and show the rest of the countries and states how it is done.
19
You know you're backwards when the automakers are frightened by what your administration wants to do.
"But the automakers have since grown alarmed at the expanding scope of the administration’s plan."
19
Big oil wants to sell more gas. But the only reason Trump Cares about EPA mileage standards is to reverse everything Obama did, not because of policy, but because Obama once ridiculed Trump in front of an audience. All of Trumps actions are based on revenge against the “elite” who continually will not accept him into their club. It’s not policy that drives him, he is a whining cry baby out for revenge. So let the planet burn! Where is your democratic leadership calling this craziness out?
13
@Eric Blair - Ironically the entire world is now ridiculing Trump.
6
The entire world and a high percentage of US voters have been ridiculing Trump since day one. Unfortunately his ability to destroy things is not so much comic as terrifying.
6
Maybe you just haven’t been listening. I hear them calling him out big time.
1
California, for the most part, is a cesspool bowl of Los Angeles, San Diego and the land in between them and the foothills to the east. I experience the pollution in the early 60's when I lived in Corona. Breathing was tough at best after a day in the outdoors. Nothing has changed, and it will not change until every bit of industrial and human pollution is eliminated. Good luck with that.
Uh...sorry...our pollution is no where near the red watery eye polluting smog of the sixties. You moved away so you obviously don't know and haven't been back. We have worked hard to combat pollution in our state.
12
California pollution has taken a turn for the worse recently due its population boom, more cars and trucks. But it would be much worse if tailpipe exhaust wasn't restricted.
5
Glad you left. I’ve lived in California all my life and it is NOTHING like you say it is.
3
My next car will use the strict standards. I don't want to breathe exhaust, nor should anyone else have to breathe exhaust from my car. It is what I can do.
14
@pointofdiscovery
Consider electric for your next car. No tailpipe emissions at all. I live on Vancouver Island and don’t pay a nickel for gas. There is enough solar coming from my roof panels to cover all my local driving needs. What’s not to like about that?
14
Proud to be living in the Great State of California. Sure, we have got plenty of problems, but if we apply solutions with innovation, foresight and humanity, there is nothing we won't be able to solve.
21
I believe Ford was the only US automaker who didn't accept the federal bailout money. I've always respected them for that- and their cars have improved considerably over the past 10 years. I will always drive a Ford!
4
How exactly is this a loss for the Trump administration? The federal government doesn't need to enforce and the free enterprise system is enabling these companies to make their own decisions. Wasn't that his goal?
4
@Didi
Trump’s goal has not changed. His immediate goal is the complete destabilization of the United States and his installment as Demagogue for Life. His ultimate goal is an amassing of a fortune greater than Putin’s and a world that does nothing but stroke his ego.
4
Good for those companies and good for California. This means less gasoline consumed which means cleaner air, less global warming and most importantly fewer wars (since all modern wars are fought over resources including oil).
11
More evidence that on issues of climate change, DC is irrelevant.
In terms of power plants, states are systematically closing coal facilities. Electric utilities are by nature risk adverse. A coal plant is a risk on the books. Utilities seek a path through state regulation to provide an orderly exit.
Now we have a very large state acting in concert with automakers. In this case, automakers seek certainty in the roll out of regulations, not a temporary reprieve. This is essential given the long lead times and high costs of producing products. This is an easy choice for carmakers that understand that adopting to new standards will require enormous capital investments. A stable regulatory environment is a key to profit.
5
I'm proud to be a Californian for many reasons but this one today is near the top of the list. Not only is it a great deal for our environment, it bypasses Donald Trump without missing a beat.
And thank you to BMW, Ford, Honda and Volkswagen! Come trade-in time, I'll be buying one of you (again.)
22
Auto makers have figured out how to use the emission rules to force consumers to pay a lot more. They now lobby for more emission control to increase their profit margins.
@Qcell
Except that there's NO evidence whatsoever to back up your claim.
It's pure, unverified ideology.
By the way, in what kind of economical market do consumers buy MORE products when the prices of those products increase ... ?
15
California, well done! Thank you for sticking to your guns and making a deal in which the air quality will not only improve in California but also other states. Now, it is time for all automobile makers to step forward to also help us work towards a better future as Ford, Volkswagen, Honda, and BMW have done.
16
This administration is solely motivated by spite. I find it extremely hard to believe that any significant relief will be realized by the American consumer. Even the car manufacturers are not lining up behind the reduction in fuel efficiency.
If any plan has Obama's name on it you can be sure that Trump will withdraw, replace and/or blow it up regardless of merit or consequences.
14
What on earth could compel Trump & Co want to pollute the planet over human interests? Profits for him and his greedy friends. He does not represent The People.
9
Hmmm. I thought the Republicans were all for local decisions and less oversight and control from Washington?
16
I doubt dying of lung cancer will provide certainty and relief for American consumers.
9
Someone tell me what do stand to gain by weakening pollution standards?
Other than the fact it was from the Obama administration.
10
And the profits for the polluting oil barons.
4
"Margo Oge, a former senior E.P.A. official who worked on auto emissions policy and now serves as an informal adviser to several auto companies,..."
I guess she can expect to be fired now by Trumps man at EPA
2
The article notes that she is a FORMER EPA employee!
4
The world is going to move on without Trump/GOP.
Mind you, these auto-giants aren't that interested in emissions either... what they have a feel for, is that, they have their fingers on the pulse of the coming consumers. They know what the coming generation would expect of cars, etc.
Trump was going to save the coal, right?
Revelation Energy LLC., a West Virginia-based company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in July, 2019 (as reported by the Lexington Herald-Leader). Further, Revelation’s own parent company, Blackjewel LLC, shuttered two coal mines in Wyoming, after filing for... oh, yes... bankruptcy.
If you want to understand Republican's disconnect from reality, these major examples are enough. Trump supporters are the same face reflected in the mirror...
the world is going to move on, with or without them, and rightfully so.
A patient of mine in Eastern Ky (coal-miner dying of stage IV cancer) said, doc, there are only two professions left here, medicine and coal mining. When we are dead, medicine will move on as well. We... are a dying breed.
Sad, disheartening but true.
16
@Ash.
China is poised to bury us and we're trying to save coal.
8
Interesting paradox. Trump, the wannbe absolutist quasi-emperor, has through his own greedy incompetence, rudeness, and personal animosity to his predecessor succeeded in single-handedly destroyed the office of President as a power base. Our allies cannot and will not trust him or his appointees in negotiations. Our enemies find him ludicrous. Business and economic interests strike deals around him because he is so unreliable and old-fashioned. All he does is destroy, destroy, destroy. He destroyed environmental regulations out of hatred and ignorance; sounder authorities and men of vision simply write him out of relevance recognizing that, whether he likes or believes it, the fossil fueled internal combustion engine and the archaic motor car are fast disappearing. To stay competitive American business has to move in other directions. Sadly, if Trump DID have a brain let alone business sense, we could be leading instead of playing catch up to other economies. Trump has made us a third world banana republic -- without bananas.
15
Given the context of climate change rolling back these auto regulations seems insane. Trump is not psychotic but he is acting as if he is out of reality. It is sort of surreal the president of the US either pretends to be our of reality or really is by way of denial. A relatively rapid transition to vehicles that run on electricity is what we need. A president of the US should be leading the way instead of turning himself into a major obstacle.
3
Trump is nothing more than an arsonist for civilization and his deplorable supporters cheer him on for no more reason than to hurt the libs. Are there any attractive societies today driven by spite of the majority by a minority?
12
When the FBI tells the GOP that Saddam Hussein has no WMD, the GOP decided to send in hundreds of thousands of our finest and bravest youth, simply because their oil barons would love to earn a bit more money.
Result? Tens of thousands of Americans injured for life, and thousands killed.
And now the GOP knows that climate change is costing the world already a fortune, AND one third of the world's refugees, and yet, their oil barons ask them to do something that would allow them to earn a bit more money, so the GOP caves once again.
Making oil barons great again. That's the only "value" the GOP stands for today.
13
The GOP happily railed against The Tan Suit. I think the rest of us happily rail against The Tan Lungs.
5
Even Ray Charles could see this coming.
Seriously. California has almost 15 million cars registered in the state. What auto manufacturer is going to pass up that market with less fuel efficient vehicles? Answer: None.
Of course this isn't the end-of-the-conversation (or lawsuits).
Fully expecting Trump-to-Twitter threatening to withhold federal money from "that loser state-California..." Threaten to punish U.S. automakers for "bowing to pressure..."
3,2,1...Trump-Twitter-Tantrum.
9
Of all the many crimes Trump and his gang have committed, the most global and egregious are those against the biosphere, innocent animals, and ecosystems.
Trump and his allies see Nature, beauty, clean air and water, open spaces, parks, wilderness, oceans and other features of the only living planet we're sure exists as mere fodder for capitalist destruction.
Because Trump is a physically unhealthy person whose only outdoor activity is golfing (golfing is used by corrupt businessmen to do business because it's hard to surveil and record them on golf courses), he doesn't care about human health or environmental health.
He and his gang are owned by the death-dealing industries such as mining, logging, hunting, fishing, coal, petroleum, development, etc.
It's wonderful that a few auto companies have defied his efforts to dump more tailpipe poisons into the air we all breathe.
And his supporters call themselves "pro-life." Sick!
14
With Trump having less than two years left on his term I think the automakers aren't willing to assume that Trump's rule changes will last.
I think it's safe to say that our next president (democrat) will do his/her best to restore the previous EPA standards set during Obama's years in office. That is assuming they don't change the rules of the game to prevent any such changes from happening.
12
@Bilbo. I guarantee you that they are already plotting that. Just like reducing the power of a Republican Governor just before a Democrat takes over.
2
I, along with millions of others, including Donald Trump, grew up in New York City. He should remember what the air used to be like until all these 'burdensome, restrictive, expensive' regulations came along and made the air breathable in our home town and so many other American cities. Why in the world go back?
24
It's a rare case when regulatory rollbacks are considered too stupid even for the corporations that could reap profits from them. In this respect, the Trump administration has reached new heights of stupidity. Bravo, Donald Trump, bravo!
32
I'm waiting for California to kick the other 49 states out of the union. "Sorry, you lot are just not up to standard. And don't try sneaking back in through Mexico, neither. Thanks to you that border is locked down."
9
Used to live around West Virginia. Pretty state, mostly.
Bad problems with anthracosis, leaking or flooding tailing ponds with collapsing dams, effluent runoff from farms, weak public ed system, massive drug epidemic, though.
Poor regulation, you see.
11
These guys sell cars, not oil. If they could power their cars on vegan chicken wings, they would. But as they have children, its a natural alignment. Good. Trump is obviously owned by Putin, the Saudi Royals, and the Koch Brothers: Big Fossils. And so are the people who stupidly would vote for him.
20
Some times the comments are better than the article. Just read all of Madalines Conants 25 repays Awesome !!
4
After year’s of falsely championing states’ rights, the GOP has stumbled upon a great way to have states rise: Be so incompetant and wrong on the national scene that companies seek guidance from the largest state. Brilliant! They are brilliant! Thank God for California.
25
New York State please follow our lead..
15
The automakers know they have to sell the cars they make AND be ready for the next decade. We would never, ever buy a polluter. Thankful they won't let Trump and his foolish, greedy cronies--focused on only short-term wealth-- lead them astray. Hope the automakers analysis and assurance inspires others.
7
I have said all along that just because the Trump administration's pollution rules (if implemented) allow more polluting cars does not mean the car makers have to make cars that way. Why not continue on their planned path toward better mileage/less polluting vehicle fleets and ignore the noise from Washington? I'm glad to see that Ford and the others here have joined with California in working toward better outcomes for everyone. Now when will GM and Chrysler join in?
7
And Toyota!
7
This illustrates why government generally has to change gradually and predictably. Business and others end up quitting or being frozen in their tracks if regulations and laws drastically Yo Yo back and forth.
In the age of Twitter, purity tests, 20 candidate races and cable news soundbites, I am concerned the subtle transition and the nudge will become lost arts.
1
I agree, thank you, California, but we cannot rest easy. I am currently visiting LA family, and for every Tesla, Hybrid, plug-in hybrid I see on the road I see dozens of SUVs and other gas guzzlers. Pullout of a parking lot this morning, I witnessed a young woman trying to maneuver her Escalade through the exit, not easy, and all I could think was that this monstrosity of a vehicle should never have been built, and its owner should be publicly shamed.
20
@Daisy went to NY last weekend during the heat wave and just so sad to see so many huge suburban SUVs
6
So much for republicans supporting states rights and small central government.
14
"Trump administration officials said the California deal would not stop their plans to put forward a new federal rule to allow more tailpipe pollution. The deal “has no impact on E.P.A.’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act,” wrote Michael Abboud, an E.P.A. spokesman, in an email. “This voluntary framework is a PR stunt that does nothing to further the one national standard that will provide certainty and relief for American consumers.”
Relief? Relief from what? Cleaner air? Less greenhouse gas emissions? Savings at the pump? Conserving finite resources? Development of new vehicle technology? American vehicles that are competitive with foreign vehicles?
The EPA is no longer protecting the environment. It's more like the Fossil Fuel Protection Agency. People, remember this in November, 2020!
If I have to, I'll go to California to buy a car!
21
A no brainer for the auto industry, really. Are you going to follow the world's 5th largest economy or a snake oil salesman who once ran a fake university?
24
@Bun Mam: And who went bankrupt six times - once with a casino for god's sake!
7
Few people seem to be commenting or even noticing the fact that these are FUEL EFFICIENCY regulations. Greenhouse gases result from burning fossil fuel. Fuel costs money. So Trump supporters are jazzed about paying more at the pump??
7
Get rid of cars totally and have a high speed railway with light rail. We need to police our own future without depending on our government to do well in our interests. We’re from the government...
3
Take THAT Koch Brothers and other fossil fuel polluters. Take THAT Trump. The automobile manufacturers see the writing on the wall, and they are getting ahead of the trajectory. Trump can utterly eliminate pollution standards, and some of his supporters will still drive around in gas guzzlers (more masculine to burn lots and lots of fuel), but the public is sick of polluted air, and as the younger generations age they are going to demand climate control. This bypasses legislation and puts the question clearly into the marketplace. Republicans should rejoice, shouldn't they?
7
I too will only buy from a auto company that supports the clean air standards.
14
The Oregon State Department of Forestry has not been paid by the Federal government for fire protection services leaving everyone who lives in Oregon in danger of no fire services outside of the city. It is wrong for the GOP to not pay their bills and leave people hanging. Their evil knows no bounds.
9
The evil Federal Government does not pay for fire protection in rural Illinois. Why should it pay for yours? Contact your state and local government for fire protection. Don't expect much, as they are likely Democrat and have other urban priorities.
"Trump administration officials said the California deal would not stop their plans to put forward a new federal rule to allow more tailpipe pollution."
So much of the Team Trump's evil idiocy distilled into a single sentence. I have no idea what to make of people who don't see the need to have him and his accomplices removed from office.
15
Automakers should strive to manufacture cars that EXCEED all government standards. Only Trump would seek out to lower standards to enhance the almighty buck. What good is money if the air you breathe is noxious?
7
"....potentially splitting the United States auto market in two, with car companies forced to build different lineups of vehicles for different states."
Why would they be "forced" to build different lineups, even theoretically? Ridiculous.
There is no such "nightmare scenario" for the auto industry. The only nightmare is in the White House.
10
I grew up in California and for years automakers built cars specifically for the California market. There were engine options that the 49 states got that didn't meet California smog laws. This did not destroy the auto undystry
1
It's refreshing, despite whatever the motivation of the auto industry is, to see them actually push back on the clearly outrageous changes Trumpism is pushing,
Paris had its hottest day in recorded history today, Get real Trumpites, the climate is changing as I write,
Hold steady on those mpg numbers, we can meet those goals.
11
Funny.
Thanks to Trump, these automakers will create cars that pollute less.
Thank you Mr President.
7
Great move by automakers to work with California to develop a 50 state emissions rule that improves emissions while decreasing costs for consumers. American companies and employees win when innovation marches forward. Smart chess play by Canada to harmonize with California. Other countries should join in to drive a more global market for auto emissions.
The US EPA is a true fossil by comparison.
Next step: enlarge the cap and trade market.
20
It's clear to me that CA will have 2 different emission standards, one for auto companies that strike "agreements" with CA, a stricter one for companies that don't.
Others insist that CA will have a single standard that applies to BOTH Ford (an "agreement" company) and GM (a "non-agreement" company).
The incentive, it is argued, is that Ford will be able to manufacture cars to a single standard. But keep in mind that GM is free at any time to do that. The question is whether Ford will be better off by committing now to do that.
I can't see why Ford would commit to that if there will be only one standard. Maybe (unlikely, but possible) the courts will decide that the federal government, not the state governments, gets to set (looser) nationwide pollution standards. Why not just wait and see?
Possibly Ford executives have become environmentally minded but GM executives have not, but I doubt that.
Possibly it would not be cost-effective to switch down the road to more polluting vehicles. But that ignores reality. The most popular US vehicles are pick-up trucks and SUVs. If federal regulation prevails and standards get looser, automakers may add those vehicles to the mix, using old factories and methods (especially in the early years) to grab market share. What if GM is free to do that but Ford is not because Ford has agreed not to?
Clearly Ford would demand some incentive to commit NOW -- looser standards, for example.
@Commenter Also keep in mind that cars are develloped for the global market ,not simply for the USA .If US car manufactors are failing to meet international standards they will simply be incapable of competing ,even on their own turf and once again they will risk disappearing into oblivion .It almost happened before , Obama bailed out Detroit before ,it seems GM has learned
little.
I would have preferred we kept the Obama rules, but it's still better than what Trump's pushing.
Yes, I drive a hybrid.
13
The automakers are already complying with clean air rules. What's the argument to scale back the rules?
14
I saw some bad smog last month in SoCal in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties--it reminded me of smog here in the LA basin in the 60's, where our air does look to be getting dirtier again. Millions of trucks and old V8 motors produce a lot of smog.
8
@Hector I live in SF (which has very clean air), not LA, but I visit LA occasionally. LA still has some smog, but it's considerably less than it used to be. Still some trucks and old V8 motors are around, but the high price of gasoline appears to have driven (pardon the pun) most gas guzzlers off of the freeways. A ways to go, but smog is definitely lower.
9
@Commenter, I live here and it seems to be worsening again--in the previous drought years we had far more dust blowing around, too.
3
I know this is true, but for the life of me I do not understand the "head in the sand" selfishness of the American car owner.
"car buyers increasingly prefer sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks that tend to have much lower fuel economy than sedans"
Let the price of gas/diesel SOAR so it reflects the true cost to our warming planet. The future is happening now.
16
yep. at it's core, climate change is "someone elses problem". until each and every one of us take responsibility nothing will change. so far the answer to the basic question of how much are americans willing to PAY to address climate change is a resounding $0. and please...no tesla apologists. my toyota yaris has 1/2 the lifetime CO2 footprint of a model s.
5
What this actually represents is a small victory over the fossil fuel lobby by consumers and another huge industry which is starting to see the writing on the wall. That is, the rest of the world will march forward toward economy and clean air with or without the USA. What automakers and regulators better embrace soon is that combustion engine vehicles will be obsolete for the average driver in a short while (drive & pay to operate an electric vehicle and you'll understand).
It would be great if the American auto industry did not lose (again) to foreign firms because of an inability to read the future.
It would be even better if our government would represent the interests of its people.
13
Trump fiddles while the world burns.
Do any of these people understand that the current global warming projections do not include the rapid thawing permafrost and melting ice cap because they are based on old data?
We are in the process of destroying our planet with overpopulation, increasing carbon emissions, and resulting migrations all while acting like it is not happening.
Our descendants will curse us for our behavior.
19
If these companies agreed with the Obama Administration’s standards, I would call it a victory, but they didn’t. What has happened, is 4 companies compromised on a number they thought they could achieve, and still be profitable. Remember the games used in the past to achieve fleet mpg? A PT Cruiser was sold as a truck. GM and Ford imported small, foreign cars sold as their product to increase fleet MPG averages. When the new agreement takes place, it will be interesting to see what is permitted to reach the new standards. If cars and trucks that average 30 mpg are still sold by the millions, it may only be a gimmick. Does a car that says it requires 94 octane pass, if it gets 6 mpg less and runs fine on regular?
5
correct. the misleading headline suggests the car companies and CA have somehow teamed together against Trump in a crusade to fight climate change. not even close. car companies care *zero* about climate change outside of how it may impact sales and profits.
2
That "nightmare scenario" would never have had to exist. Even without an agreement, companies could still choose to build to better standards against the board--there was just the potential that they would choose not to. In which case they would be creating their own problems.
3
These automakers have understood the sign of the times. Many countries have set emission-free cars as short-term goals (for example, in Norway by 2025). Any automaker that still wants to build cars that spew out pollution will find a very limited market, and anyone buying such a car may find themselves virtually unable to sell it later as used.
16
@Gary Never understimate the short sightedness of the U.S. car makers in particular. Ford/GM would be happy to ride the large pickup/SUV profits train until the day it runs out of steam and *THEN* figure out what to do next (maybe ask Uncle Sam for another bailout). Ford / GM don't figure they need to worry about the costs of climate change and health problems from pollution.
Just goes to show that in the commons space, government regulations (with a government that properly represents the long term good of the voting citizens) are important to guide corporate behavior.
4
This is great. The automakers want one set of standards so they can manufacture to them. California, the biggest market, now provides those standards. Since Trump won't make the move, it's now up the the states, and we can thank California for the move against greater pollution and more CO2 emissions.
22
Further underscoring that Trump's proposed rollback of vehicle emission standards and fuel economy standards is for the benefit of no one other than oil companies - the former and future lobbying clients of his current EPA administrator. Bravo to California for filling the leadership void.
26
The true PR stunt is a federal rule that allows more tailpipe pollution. As if the fervent supporters of Trump and their descendants do not need to breathe.
Bravo to these four auto makers. I am sure many other companies will want to join the group.
15
@Sleepless In Los Angeles It's a curious thing, that even government officials lower down start talking in these stupid, arrogant Trumpian tones - or is this guy a Trump political appointee? The fish rots from the head aft... and boy, is the head rotten!
3
Amazing that even the profit-driven auto industry which cares nothing for the environment is more intelligent than our half-wit president.
28
@Ben
That's an incredibly low bar, but point taken.
5
But what happened to States' Rights? Or is just when 45 isn't being petty?
12
Manufacturers are listening to consumers. They also know Trump won't be in office forever and that things will change. What CA adopts often is adopted elsewhere. The lead time for new car production is lengthy so they're planning ahead.
Meanwhile, is Trump dumb enough to fight this? Will he tell the voters they can't have something they want or that exceeds standards?
14
With respect to the people who are at least trying to do something, the Obama standards amount to no more than re-arranging deck chairs on a sinking ship. Most Americans want to drive giant gas-guzzling vehicles, in order to look and feel important. 50 mpg Fleet-average is a joke when the average car on the road gets 14 mpg.
Tax gasoline up to $10/gal and watch the carmakers try a little harder.
8
@Eric - given the difficulty of getting mileage standards implemented, consider how likely passing a worthwhile tax on gas would be. Tax is Congress' job, and while there are a few bipartisan bills floating around, we need every tool available, and mileage standards give the engineering staffs at automakers what they need - a target to grind on towards.
So when people loving their oversized vehicles are able to get them with batteries instead of gas tanks, that's a step forward just as increasing the cost of energy from fossil will be a step forward - if it passes.
Consider that the federal fuel tax for our infrastructure hasn't been incremented since the late 1990s. Emissions tax would be great, but there are fossil-fueled radical billionaires who take full advantage of Citizens United.
4
@Eric Five or so years ago, when gas was heading towards $4.00 a gallon my department found ways to encourage those who were able to "not drive in and work from home" some portion of the week. I'm not saying everyone can do that - but put more cost on something, and conserving that something starts to look obvious.
3
@b fagan. Gasoline taxes, like sales taxes, liquor taxes, and tobacco taxes hurt lower income people far more than anyone else. Incentives for owning more expensive cars will cause the poor to buy the lower mpg cars and SUV’s. Know anyone making $35,000 a year who got a $7,500 electric car rebate? People driving Escalade’s can afford any tax you can put on gas. Can the guy who owns a ‘97 DeVille?
4
Well, working with Trump is difficult because he's a liar. He'll turn on a dime if it profits himself. Anyone with eyes, ears and a nose can tell we need to reduce pollution. I'm not sure how so many survive without their senses, but enough of them voted to get Trump in office. With help.
Better to work around him, and ignore his ignorant self-serving nattering. That includes his 'cabinet'.. what there is of it. I think that is what most of the world is doing now.
Well done, California, Ford, VW, Honda and BMW. I encourage others to do the same: ignore the noisome little wasp until he can be replaced with a human being, and go forward to a better day.
10
@JW - One up on dealing with trump: "work around him, and ignore his ignorant self-serving nattering. That includes his 'cabinet'.. what there is of it. I think that is what most of the world is doing now."
It's whistling in the wind: the more passenger cars were regulated the more Americans switched to large SUV and Pickups - not covered by passenger car rules
Which is why Ford and GM both are terminating passenger car production in the US
SUVs and light trucks are also subject to the CAFE standards.
4
@Colonia: And which is why lots of sedan drivers like me will stop buying Ford.
1
@Colonia ; there are a lot of hybrid and electric only SUV and Crossovers out there and the number is growing. Where the is a will ...
1
I’m so happy that this refusal to abide by trump pulling the plug on exhaust laws. That is the first real company to show that no matter what, they’ll still do the right thing for air quality and human life. Thank-you!!
2
This could well go beyond the auto industry. Companies can’t afford to be pawns to the whims of a fickle president. He changes his mind so frequently that a policy that could be good for business one day might not the next. Businesses need to look ahead. You can’t change your manufacturing process overnight and yet again when the presidential wind blows in another direction. He and his policies are untrustworthy, not grounded in a reality except that of his obsession with appearances.
9
To Madeline Conant
Smog generation and fuel efficiency are not the same.
Smog was eliminated with nitrate oxides regulation (mandatory catalytic converters)
A modern Chevy Suburban emits more CO2 than a straight six Chevy from back then .
But it does have a catalytic converter
3
@Engineer Related - wouldn't be great if we applied what we know about Smog Generation to Motorcycles and landscaping gear (leaf blowers cough cough cough...)? ("apply," implies enforcement)
Driving behind some "hogs" is like a trip back to the stinking 60's
2
Good news!
Common sense , both for air quality and the markets the auto companies serve.
Trump is hopefully just a blip on the screen of history but all the damage he is causing will take some time to reverse!
5
Good for the auto companies and good for the environment, we are inching closer to the Etch A Sketch of life, you know where man dies and buildings crumble and we shake the etch a sketch and we start all over (eternal resource) and the planet gets bluer. Public is aware of mph and will support the struggling auto industry if they continue to support climate change charges. Now if only we can get the airlines industry to follow suit. Trump may be good in rejuvenating buildings but he is so far under water when it comes to governing a nation.
1
How's that infrastructure initiative going, Donny? You got yer best man (Jared) on it, right?
12
Sometimes when reading the comments section, I wish there were reaction emoji’s available instead of just “Recommend.” Love your comment!
2
@LI Res - Second that - any opposed?
1
Michael Abboud, the EPA spokesman quoted in the article as saying “This voluntary framework is a PR stunt that does nothing to further the one national standard that will provide certainty and relief for American consumers," is apparently a moron, and hence well-qualified to be in this administration. If the administration were in any way concerned with one standard, they'd keep the current standard in place, because it's the only one that will stand.
5
What idiot wouldn't love better air and better mileage when US policies are pushing up gas prices every month and, at times, every day? The answer - Trump and his cronies. The Constitution cedes to the states decisions on state regulations and governance as long as they do not overreach to impact the well-being of the nation. How are stricter mileage requirements damaging the well-being of the nation? In fact, Trump's mileage standards are currently being met by many manufacturers. The effect of his standards would be to allow cheaper manufacturing by outsourcing parts manufacturing in other countries who cannot match the technology for more efficient systems - a win-win strategy for US auto manufacturers who have outsourced US labor to foreign nations. This message needs to be championed by the Free Press and every thinking person to ensure Trump's base will understand he is hurting them in every way.
3
@Angelsea - So true and I agree, except this part is out of reach forever: "Trump's base will understand he is hurting them in every way." (Implies reason and independent thought.)
3
Illinois and NY need to get some skin in the game too. Be leaders when Washington decides to take backward steps.
2
What idiot wouldn't love better air and better mileage when US policies are pushing up gas prices every month and, at times, every day? The answer - Trump and his cronies. The Constitution cedes to the states decisions on state regulations and governance as long as they do not overreach to impact the well-being of the nation. How are stricter mileage requirements damaging the well-being of the nation? In fact, Trump's mileage standards are currently being met by many manufacturers. The effect of his standards would be to allow cheaper manufacturing by outsourcing parts manufacturing in other countries who cannot match the technology for more efficient systems - a win-win strategy for US auto manufacturers who have outsourced US labor to foreign nations. This message needs to be championed by the Free Press and every thinking person to ensure Trump's base will understand he is hurting them in every way.
1
When push comes to shove and the rubber meets the road and when the stuff hits the fan, Trump becomes totally irrelevant.
Proof: how's the tariffs on Mexico going? Has Mexico started paying for the wall yet? China doesn't look like she's crying on Putin's shoulder?
Are you going to let Trump pollute the air you breathe? He'll sell you canisters of Trump Air at inflated prices.
Look how Trump is making America great again!
7
Very pleased to read this. Taking California to court over air quality, as well as welshing on the Iran nuclear deal, have been Trump's most foolish & irresponsible decisions to date. What was he thinking?
4
@Antipodean - Trump thinking? Aussie humor right?
4
@NotSoCrazy
No. Up is down and down is up in Aus. Thinking means the opposite! I mean, it's the dead of winter there.
2
@Fox
I think Trump ratted on the Iran nuclear deal because Netanyahu told him to. Why he hates California so much is baffling. It's the most successful part of the US economically by far. Of course it's also very liberal in a Scandinavian sense and intensely multicultural. It's a magnet for IT talent from around the world. It's America's future & Trump despises it!
1
Simple stupidity of revenge
Of Course, this particular issue, deregulating Tailpipe emission by Trump administration is simply the most hostile and malevolent idea against the American people.
Tailpipe emission in its best form is a poison released to air, deregulating is unconscionable. Tailpipe emission, ( forget entirely to Climate issues,) who would like to smell and inhale tailpipe, in a city.
And there is no other way car manufacturers must follow California lead, Trump is not a king, worst case scenario he will be 6 more years in WH, Then, There will be a backlash which no car company can handle it.
Consumers are already on the path to get cleaner cars, I am not really talking electric or hybrid, They still need maturation, But at this moment of Internal combustion engine technology, I will refuse to drive a car which doesn't comply California emission rules.
This issue which Trump is literally committing a crime against American people wellbeing is not forgivable. We have technology and Emission will go down with that m that is the only path.
As a consumer and planning to buy a new car who doesn't comply California Emission standards is out of my eyesight.
5
"The Trump administration had been working on a plan to drastically weaken Obama-era rules on planet-warming vehicle pollution."
. . . .
What in god's name is wrong with these people? Do they want to see the planet fully destroyed in their own lifetime, instead of just their grandchildren's? History will not treat any of us kindly for allowing all this to happen when we KNOW what the result will be.
Maybe it is now the time for a new American Revolution. When in the course of human events, whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to the survival of the planet...
5
Making America "great" in Trump's terms is just this - taking us back to the 60s - rolling back required regulations and bringing back racism.
#weshallovercome
4
There seems no end to trump's madness. It is clear he his hate for Obama is so great, he will destroy every good thing he accomplished for spite.
5
A win for both people who need to breath air and climate change.
It does help. Other countries will follow and some are already adopting stricter laws.
More car companies will shorty join in as they won't want to be selling gas guzzlers while other companies continue with higher
sales selling the most fuel efficient less polluting cars. i.e. Toyota.
Trump is disgusting.
4
Did Gavin really say "denialism"?
“The fight over emissions rules is just one of many between Mr. Trump and California, a state he seems to relish antagonizing...”
And the feeling is, oh, so mutual. I relish California’s reciprocal antagonism toward this viciously retrograde, stunningly ignorant, and utterly depraved president and his enablers. We continue to march into the future while leaving the rest of them behind in their fantasies of the past.
9
Failed businessman Trump fails at governing in his role as "President".
Hardly surprising. A shame Fred Trump isn't around anymore to bail Donald out.
6
If Republican legislators at the National level will not step in and shove a sock down Trumputins throat, state legislatures and corporate common sense will. This action by states good news. Now watch to see how our Chief Narcissist comes up with a vengeful move. He will - Miller and Kushner have put their heads together and will apply pressure to EPA. Morale there will drop even further. Those two also closely reviewing the Immigration Laws in place in Israel. Then will whisper in Trumputins ear. Mischief is afoot - watch for tweets. Ignore them.
2
The supposed “conservatives” have hid behind many a battle cry, but in my recollection there has been one particularly loud one: States’ Rights. They don’t want to federal govmint telling them what to do! However, for some unknown epiphany, they are perfectly OK with Trump running roughshod over any and every States’ Rights you can think of. After he’s gone, what leg will they have to stand on?
6
My next car will be from one of these manufacturers.
6
Everyone should take the pledge not to buy a new vehicle that does not adhere to California's emissions standards.
6
'Revoke states' rights to regulate'... this from an administration that is against voting security measures since it will take away state autonomy around voting methods.
6
Bottom line, Trump wants to roll back ALL regulations, especially Obama's, because it makes him and his rich friends MORE MONEY! Plain and simple. Lower regulation means lowers costs for fossil fuel magnates, at least for the immediate future. Down the road we and our kids will have to pay for Trump's greed, of course.
2
This was less a matter of bravery than accepting reality. Emissions must get to near zero tailpipe emissions. Moving quickly toward that goal will convert the auto industry with early converts gaining advantages. Electric cars require much less labor to build and maintain. Some carmakers will lose out entirely and go bankrupt. The world we are heading for is one of harsh environmental realities, not Trump's fairy tale world of lies and distortions.
1
"The agreement provides “much-needed regulatory certainty,” the companies said in a joint statement, while enabling them to “meet both federal and state requirements with a single national fleet, avoiding a patchwork of regulations.”"
This is good. Industry doesn't want to have to respond to random tweets, or to one Administration's gifts to the fossil industry that will likely be overturned. It also means they can settle in and focus on replacing the internal combustion engine (ICE) power trains and start putting more effort into the replacement for the future.
A note to Ford F-150 fans, read this article:
"Ford shows off electric F-150 truck by towing a million pounds of train"
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/07/ford-shows-off-electric-f-150-truck-by-towing-a-million-pounds-of-train/
There's a reason that Ford's recent layoffs included a lot of the white-collar engineers focused on ICE power trains.
And a reason Ford's partnering with VW on electrics
https://electrek.co/2019/07/12/vw-ford-electric-self-driving/
And why they invested half a billion in electric SUV\pickup company Rivian
https://www.trucks.com/2019/04/24/ford-plans-new-electric-truck-rivian-invests-500-million/
Unlike Trump and his fossil friends, they have to try to manufacture where the market's going, not where it was last century.
2
Even the auto industry can see this is needed and wanted. Only the doofuses in the Trump Administration oppose it, because they're powered more by spite and anger than by reason or sense.
2
Bravo for the corporations facing up to this problem!
2
Thank you California and auto industry. Trump hates it when others do the right thing.
4
They also see the writing on the wall come 2020, because the rules will be reversed back to Obama rules. Trump will be indicted and jailed.
1
This is why I will never vote for a democrat again. The George Wallace States Rights democrats have taken control again.
GM, Chrysler/Fiat, Toyota where are you? Come on and get on the right side. Join this deal. It's good for humanity, and even $ales. Do well by doing good.
3
Trump and his republican allies are willing to destroy the environment for $. For them, its all about the Benjamins.
2
California, like Oregon and Washington state face pollution problems that the other states do not.
Prevailing winds for from the West to the East and these three states are on the western coast of North America and have coastal mountains that prevent air pollution from heading across the continent.
In short, California needs stricter standards then other areas of the nation and this is not some liberal left-wing attempt to put a burr under Trump's saddle.
1
Even minimal sanity is welcome!
2
Really, Trump is just going to eliminate a state's right to set its own standards? I thought the Republicans were big on States Rights. This rollback is not intended to benefit the average citizen. it's designed to make Trump look like the is dismantling big government.
1
After yesterday Mueller testimony and listening Fox TV and This news piece.
My conclusion is Republican party is in deathbed. The republican party as we know it previously like George Herbert Bush , Regan, Nixon era party.
A president as if a king forcing private sector corporation to submission to his ideology.
Examples
1- He forced to carrier company do not close facility in USA. Carrier buckled but end point didn't change.
2- He is again forcing auto industry for no brainer idea of different emission level car manufacturing which for Car maker is a death sentence. why they should spend money for making two different engine system.
GOP is okay this , let's call Communist/Fascist government idea of dictating rules on Private sector.
This is not socialism for Republican and FoxTV.
Only AOC ideas are socialism.
Trump with this actions is exactly doing the same thing what Maduro doing.
Trump as a government dictating his rules. This is not free market, capitalist economy model.
2
I'd bet Chrysler won't make a deal. They survive on gas guzzling cars and ridiculously massive trucks and are as short-sighted as they come.
This is one of those times that I kind of wish the media would downplay an event. Not because it isn’t important. It most certainly is. But if Trump feels like he is being undermined or has lost face in the media, we know he will go to great lengths to destroy this agreement. Having not studied it, I don’t know what his options would be. Perhaps some fed preemption theory drummed up by his corrupt lapdog, William Barr.
I know that CA (any many other states) have for years enforced more stringent standards re the environment, but this is a historically petty man, who is now backed by a court whose new members display open fealty to him. So can we just pretend that this isn’t a slap in his face, for the sake of environment?
1
What this article omits is the obvious observation that when Trump likely loses the 2020 Presidential elections, then the new Democratic administration will re-activate the Obama-era Rules for Saving the Planet. When this happens, the auto manufacturing companies do not want to then be caught in the position of having stupidly chosen to build smog-belching cars (as allowed by Trump) and then having to (once again) re-design all their cars and factories for the re-instated sane Obama era rules.
Democrats should drive this as a wedge issue into the heart of Trump's base with the following talking points:
* Trump wants you to die from lung disease so billionaires oil barons can get richer
* Trump doesn't care if he jerks around private businesses by instituting and repealing tariffs (hello corn and soybean farmers, steel producers), injecting and removing and meddling with existing private business laws for political purposes.
If you only get ten seconds, this is the talking point:
* Trump Tariff Trade War and EPA Meddling Kills Auto Industry Profits, throws industry into Chaos, increases lung cancer rates and damages our children's planet.
That will well.
2
EPA = Environmental PROTECTION Agency. Not Environmental sometimes we Protect Agency. This should be a no brainer for Auto makers. Trump's schizophrenic tendencies and policies provide them with no future certainty.
2
Thank you California and thank you to the automakers who have agreed to continue develop and build lower emission cars.
How or why any automaker would think it good business to do otherwise is beyond comprehension. In addition to being best for the environment, reducing harmful emissions is best for their own businesses. Not doing so would make their products less competitive.
This is the nature of free enterprise.
2
The world, the US and especially California runs on oil. Obama, you know, the "green" president, realized this. It part of the reason oil and gas production increased to the highest levels since the 70s during his admin. At 40 million and no end in sight, California will continue to add people and cars and air pollution for the conceivable future. We have made a deal with the twin devils of oil and endless, development and population growth. There's a reason co2 is 415 ppm, the highest in a million years, and no one thinks it's going anywhere but up. We are arranging the deck chairs on the titanic until we decide to face the real problem. Too many people using too many resources on a finite planet.
2
If we find a regulation that is actually really good for an industry, then the thing to do is eliminate the regulation, because all regulations are bad.
Next steps? Eliminate all laws that apply to the president or to taxes, since laws are regulations and therefore are bad. In fact, eliminate all laws. Eliminate all traffic signs and stop lights. Since there are no laws, open the prisons and jails, lay off the police, the FBI, the Justice Department, and the Judges, since that government governs best which governs least.
Finally, lay off all federal, state and local officials and employees. All of 'em, since we don't need 'em and there are no taxes to pay 'em, including INS, ICE, and the Border Patrol since entering the country any which way is OK.
There. Problems solved!
4
@Speakin4Myself And the warlords self elect, and suddenly Somalia looks like paradise....
@Dave Allan
Exactly. My comment is based on the ideas of Ayn Rand and an 8th grader named Grover Norquist. As you suggest, such thinking will inevitably lead to a currency based on precious metals, since no governments means no fiat currencies. Not the gold and silver standard Randians demand, but the precious metals guns are made of. Absent fiat, that is faith in governments, then as Mao said, "power comes from the barrel of a gun".
2
@Speakin4Myself Appreciate (I think) You had my head spinning. Like "Great satire"? or "the scariest dolt out there". :)
1
The world needs to wean itself off of private gas and diesel vehicles and use energy efficient mass transport more. This is particularly true in urban valley areas like those around LA. Clear up the traffic, make it all electric and let's make our planet quieter and easier to live on. Good job California, this is what the liberal agenda needs to model after...advance to a greater goal through negotiation, not insult.
3
@Joe Barnett: Quieter. Doesn't that 'sound' lovely and peaceful?
It's always lovely here in Maine in the summer. But, oh don't I get tired of diesel engines mowing lawns and blowing stuff and weed whackers and motorcycles.
I know this is about cars.....but I do get so tired of 'small engines' everywhere.
Regarding autos.....why can't Trump just do the right thing for once? Just do the right thing!
2
The only people proposing the elimination of private cars and using mass transit instead are those right leaning folks pretending to be liberal.
Trump was allowing the new regulations to go into effect in the near future but was delaying the super strict regulations that were to take effect later for several more years. It’s hard to see this as a roll back. I see it as a delay. But either way you’re thinking, I never read that manufacturers were being prevented from making more efficient and more expensive vehicles.
Bravo to Ford - the only true US automaker on this list - for agreeing to be forward thinking rather than revisionist. I've never purchased a Ford before, but they are now on my list of possible purchases - now if only we can get the others on board!
As for GM and Chrysler/Dodge, they are blacklisted until they step into the 21st century - as always, i'll choose to vote with my wallet.
9
Another feel good story. Sure, continue to try to reduce the poison that passes for air in Southern California thru emission standards. But as we continue to crowd more and people into the same finite space, adding to commute times, idle times and of course more people driving more miles in more cars, someone needs to wake up to the fact that without addressing the underlying problem-too many people, this is all a waste of time. There is No technological fix that will not be eventually over whelmed by our numbers. We can ignore the elephant in the room, but it's not going away.
6
There is no single magical solution. It will take many changes to solve it. This is one piece of the puzzle
2
@northeastsoccermum. You're wrong. Try this thought experiment. Suddenly there are 500 million people on earth. Pollution solved. Resource use solved. Mass extinction solved, etc. try that with any other "solution" to our problems with 8 billion humans. I'm not say we can do this over nite, but it shows that without lowering population as big part of the solution, nothing will get better long term.
When the auto manufacturers strike a deal with states and bypass an intransigent Federal government, it shows just how far right the Trump (mis)administration has become.
Whose interests are Trump, Barr, and Ross serving?
16
@NYer: Trump, Barr and Ross serve themselves.
3
So Americans want to get less miles per gallon and pay more at the pump? Then Trump will increase the price of gas and no one will be able to afford to drive, so I guess that is one way of decreasing pollution.
4
@dlb
We are winning a lot in USA...………….
This interested me the most this week because it showed that people are passionate about cutting greenhouse gasses in the United States. As a country we need to act now on cutting greenhouse gasses to sustain our planet because we are quickly getting warmer and many of the Earth's animals are close to extinction. I think as a species we forget that we are not the only ones living on this planet and that other creatures are trying to survive here too. We were just the lucky ones that were able to ascend to the top of the food chain.
As well as that these restrictions for emissions in cars will force car makers to build fuel efficient cars which means less time at the pump. That will save Americans on gas money and could help many people who can not drive places because gas is to expensive. It will also cut back on our day to day carbon footprint. The car manufactures are business that want to make profit off of people and more likely to side with the people who are going to make them more money. They don't care about the Earth for our future children, because that would mean that they would have to sacrifice some of their profit. We need cleaner tomorrow and a less polluted today.
5
This commenter insists that CA will apply the same standard to all automakers:
"One standard will apply to all cars."
If so, why in the world would any automaker strike a deal with CA now?
Any automaker can choose to manufacture cars that meet stricter standards, but why commit to the State of CA that it will do so? If I'm Ford, for example, and I know today that, worst case, I'll have to satisfy only the same standards as GM will have to satisfy, why in the world would I commit to the State of CA to do that? After all, the feds might win in court (unlikely, but possible), in which case my competitors (GM, for example) will be allowed to sell more polluting cars in CA than I'm allowed to sell.
Why would I do that, unless I'd been told that my compliance burden may be lower down the road if I strike a deal now?
2
The reason the companies made a deal with CA is so that the fact of the deal will bring the other Blue States in line. Otherwise they risk other states setting stricter standards and your back to a patchwork. now that the biggest state, and four of the biggest manufacturers are all together, they have a new national standard they can apply. They also know that if Democrats come back to power, the Feds will probably stick with this deal, untill 2026, and if Republicans hang on, they aren't going require anything strickter. That gives the companies regulatory predictability, which lets them plan for the future.
5
@Commenter
oh boy, California since 1970 has its own regulations.
If you buy a car , you will see explanation in info pamphlet.
I bought my first car in Europe , it was an old Chevy nova 1975 , it was an explanation about car is complying or not california emissions.
When did you born? , Yesterday.
@Commenter: Because they sell cars to more than just Americans so it makes sense to appeal to more knowledgeable and aware people, that's why.
1
A commenter sensibly asks:
"Do automakers actually need federal government permission to produce cars that are more fuel-efficient and pollute less?"
No, of course not. If it so chooses, an automaker may make all cars that get 80 mpg. The only question is what the automaker MUST do. If Ford, for example, sees fit to strike a "deal" with CA now, that can only mean that Ford fears that stricter standards may apply to it some day if it does not strike a deal. In other words, the State of CA intends to have two sets of pollution standards: looser standards for automakers that agree today to a "deal;" tougher standards for automakers that don't.
2
Maybe, just maybe, the Democrats can take a clue from some business entities. If you want to get stuff done, you've got to work with the corporations AND the people that will purchase services and/or products from said companies. These companies are doing what's in their best interest, but they can't ignore the people. Speaker Pelosi, please.
3
@writer the suggestion that Democrats need to "learn" from this is bizarre. California is governed by Democrats and Pelosi represents a CA district. Democrats have always been in the lead on sensible environmental regulation and this pact between CA and the automakers is exactly the sort of thing that Democrats have been doing for years. If you read the article, what you find is that Trump and the GOP, in their rush to toss out Obama-era regulations generally and environmental regulations specifically, completely ignored what the auto industry was telling it.
If you want to address any complaints about how government works, send them to Mitch McConnell.
13
Now if we can only get those sensible Democrats to spend state tax dollars to improve the water quality of the thousand systems in California that have dangerous water quality. No innovation is needed. The technology exists.
1
Funny you should mention this:
"It's all about oil and money. 52 miles a gallon sells a lot less oil than 37 miles per gallon."
About 6 years ago, CA voters approved a steep "temporary" hike in the gasoline tax (I voted for it), the principal argument being that a higher tax would discourage driving.
It worked. Driving dropped considerably, as many commuters figured out other ways to get to work.
But about two years ago, the State of CA asked that the gasoline-tax hike be extended and increased, and that many other state taxes be raised too. Why? The State complained that it wasn't taking in as much gasoline-tax revenue because driving had dropped so much. Commuters responded: "Hey, we did what you asked -- drive much less, make alternate commuting arrangements -- and now you want to "reward" us by increasing our taxes?"
The State of CA answered "Yep." And voters approved the higher taxes -- not just the higher gasoline tax, but many others as well, notably including taxes on other "non-driving" activities that CA drivers had shifted to.
2
The most popular vehicles with Americans are SUVs and pickup trucks. Is Trump really our biggest problem?
9
@RG SUVs are a scourge that Americans have unquestioningly bought into. Ask anyone why they own an SUV and you hear 'I feel more safe'…'it's more comfortable'....'I have a big family'. There's never a shortage of explanations.
Then there's the cultural aspect. Even 20 years ago, SUVs were ubiquitous in the UAE. And indeed, I see lots of Arabs in my neighborhood with SUVs. Then there's the In-Your-Face NYer type for whom everything must be Bigger and Bolder. Then there's the 'prestige' angle, which Escalades, etc. bring ('I'm a celebrity... I'm a big hip-hop artist... I'm a corporate mucky-muck and this is the vehicle of choice for corporate car services...')
On the flip side, our streets are filled with ever-larger vehicles. 'Normal-sized' cars, pedestrians and cyclists now have difficulty seeing the road and traffic in their midst. Pedestrian/cyclist deaths have increased. The very design of SUVs means that if they hit a pedestrian, the pedestrian is more likely to go Under the front of the SUV, versus Over the hood (as is more likely with a standard car). At narrow intersections, SUVs (due to their elevated vantage points and their field of vision being further ahead down the road) often fail to notice a pedestrian directly in front of them in the crosswalk (just below the SUV’s field of vision). This happens most when SUVs are turning onto a street where pedestrians have the Right of Way.
Dense cities like NYC need to address the SUV problem.
2
@RG: I spent some waiting time in a grocery store parking lot in Bangor, Maine the other day and all I saw come and go were big ol' trucks and huge SUV's. Now Maine is a rural state but not everybody has a farm where they need a truck. My partner's son and daughter-in-law both have big ol' trucks and they live in a small town in a residential neighborhood and have one little kid. Why do they have these trucks, these gas guzzlers? I have no idea but that is very common here. I just don't get it.
2
Excellent news. Thank you California.
12
The governors of the following states signed on to a pledge earlier this month to defend the Obama administration's mileage plans (according to LA Times):
California
Puerto Rico
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Montana
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
These states are currently enacting the California standards (thank you Wikipedia):
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New Mexico (2011 model year and later)
New York
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington
District of Columbia
If your state is on both lists, thank your lawmakers and keep them strong. If your state is only on the first list, demand some legislative action. And of course if your state is on neither one, we're going to need a change of mind, or better yet a change in leadership!!
I'm doing my part by trying to convince my teenage son that Prius=beautiful.
19
And this is yet ANOTHER reason that this Dorothy left Kansas.
3
It's just like trump* to mess up our air quality while he goes to an air controlled prison cell. Second term - Prison term.
9
Trump wants to eliminate states setting standards?? Hello! The GOP has championed states rights for decades!
California set the standard for emissions way long ago and continues to do so. And all other states have benefited.
Another hypocritical Trump (and his crony in crime Stephen Miller) power grab.
7
@JaaArr
That is why I am saying that Republican party is in death bed, what resurrects from that death is going to be Trump party , a fringe. Nothing to do with Lincoln .
On balance, good news.
2
CA leads the way in many areas, but certainly not transportation. The state and its politics are wedded to the automobile.
Even a slightly cleaner single-occupancy vehicle is an environmental disaster when scaled up to the hundreds of millions of vehicles.
The best news so far this week is yesterday's Times story that annual auto sales are declining in the U.S., Europe and China.
1
We know we have a car problem. We’re building transit as fast as we can AND young people, in large numbers, are organizing their lives without cars.
7
Yet the air remains filthy. I wonder why? Could it be 40 million Californians?
@Robbie See, young people don’t drive their own cars, maybe, but a lot of them use Uber.
Trump wants us to buy something we don’t want. Even if he wins, he won’t win on this one. The market rules.
5
@Vivien Hessel
Who does this type of things generally?
Communists and socialists.
But AOC is socialist , trump is god send savior for capitalism.
Sure sure...………..
Do automakers actually need federal government permission to produce cars that are more fuel-efficient and pollute less? I have an excellent Ford hybrid that consistently gets 45 mpg or better, and am not aware that the company needed government permission to produce it.
7
I am convinced that the Trump administration's focus is NOT on the automakers, but rather the focus is on the oil companies. It's all about oil and money. 52 miles a gallon sells a lot less oil than 37 miles per gallon. Look at all the other actions which the Trump administration has taken to benefit the oil companies (and correspondingly, harm the environment and promote global warming). It appears the oil companies own the Trump administration!
20
Not really. The oil companies own us. You, me and everybody else can stop using the stuff anytime we want. The lesson? The world runs on oil, just like it has for the last 150 years (not the internet) and there is no end in sight. We, as usual, are our own worst enemies, but let's blame trump.
@JK: The devil owns the Trump Administration.
2
Why do I think the auto companies do things strictly for business reasons?
"If the automakers and the American people both don’t want lower emission standards, who does want them?"
The automakers will always be free to make high-mileage cars only, whether they've agreed to or not. So why would an automaker agree now to do so? The only obvious answer is that the automaker will be required later to comply with stricter standards if it doesn't agree now to comply with looser standards.
In other words, there will be 2 sets of standards for automakers. Twenty years from now, if you see a Ford and a Chevy coming down the street toward you, that Ford might well be "dirtier" than the Chevy.
I bet this puts the kibosh on Trump's plan for coal powered cars.
25
@chairmanj - Best comment of the day.
7
Until this chaotic, despotic business in Washington ends, can decency and common sense elsewhere in the country over-ride (pun intended) the deregulation planned by the federal government?
2
Trump lovers never tire of bad-mouthing California because they know that's how they demonstrate to each other loyalty to their cult leader, who hates any idea not his own. Let's see them bad-mouth the automakers this time.
9
Correction to last post:
Absent some special treatment of auto companies that cut deals with CA now, a "non-deal" auto company (GM, for example) will figure out that standards will either get looser (if the federal government wins in court) or will stay the same (if the states instead win in court). If so, there's no incentive whatsoever for an auto company to strike a deal now with CA.
This seems obvious. Am I missing something?
“... some officials have said that they fear industry criticism could lead the president to retaliate by imposing tariffs on auto imports.”
Wait, what...?!? trump is such a nut job that he could punish manufacturers who voluntarily make a product that is better for the environment, the world, and its inhabitants?
And his base thinks this punishment of manufacturers wanting to make some move to deal with climate change makes sense? (A rhetorical question - of course they think it would make sense.)
Newspeak and Doublethink strike again.
15
Trump is probably not very familiar with how cars work. After all, he's been so coddled and pampered all his life, he's had his own private chauffer since puberty and hasn't needed to ever drive one himself.
Someone should tell him the tail-pipe is a Diet Coke dispenser.
11
This shows how little faith they have in Trump and global warming deniers..
It's sad and also a little funny how even the huge automakers are abandoning Trump and his isms.
7
If auto makers decide to renege on tail pipe emissions, they will go bankrupt at the speed of light. What parent want his/her kids breathing toxic fumes all around them 24/7.
6
What up, NYT? Maybe the title of the article should've been, Trump Administration Bizarrely and Inexplicably Pushes to Loosen Emissions Standards Against Auto Industry Wishes. Or, if "Bizarrely and Inexplicably" isn't accurate, maybe you could do a little extra journalism and state, or at least ponder in print, the possible reasons why this might be. Like "Is Trump Weakening Emissions Standards to Promote Fossil Fuel Sales?" Or substitute the last four words with "to Spite Obama?" Also, why don't you try to explain why the auto-industry just doesn't find the lowest common denominator in pollution standards and manufacture something that meets it, instead of feeling forced to "make and sell entirely different types of vehicles and different states".
7
Republic of California! Bravo!
Trump's only goal is to negate everything Obama did.
Even so he will never win the Nobel Peace Prize.
5
"some officials have said that they fear industry criticism could lead the president to retaliate by imposing tariffs on auto imports" ... so, it's expected that our president could blackmail industries that don't agree with him, and most of us aren't even surprised any more.
7
I'm suspicious of the thinking that auto companies have joined the "good guys." If they're striking deals with CA now, there must be some good business reason for doing so.
Only one possibility comes to mind: They'll have to comply with looser standards if they strike a deal now.
What other reason could there be? If my (very strong) hunch is correct, doesn't it follow that CA intends to have two different sets of emission standards -- one (looser) for auto companies that strike a deal now with CA, and the other (stricter) for auto companies that don't.
The only other possibility is that these automakers feel they currently (and for the immediate future) have a competitive advantage over other manufacturers in complying with the standards and probably have compliance costs they can creatively write-off to their benefit.
4
This episode proves a point about regulation in the 21st century.
The interests of the public and business are best served by uniform, consistent predictable regulations.
A state-by-state patchwork of inconsistent regulations mucks up compliance. Imagine you have a national business and you need to try to comply with a 50 state survey of the applicable law. It's a huge waste of resources.
And frequent changes in regulations endgender unpredictability and hamper business investment and planning.
There is a balance between local concerns that should be dealt with by state and local regulation and national issues.
Air pollution and automobile standards for example are some of those things where federal policy should trump, because we all breathe the same air and drive on the same interstate highways.
The minimum wage on the other hand is one of those regulations that is better tailored to the cost of living in each individual state or locality.
4
For what it's worth, Los Angeles is a lot less smoggy than it used to be. Still smog, to be sure, but much less.
10
The more I think about this, the more it appears that CA does intend to set 2 different emission standards -- one for auto companies that strike a "deal" with CA, and the other for auto companies that don't. Absent this "club," why would any auto company even talk to CA? If the federal government wins in court (unlikely, but possible), the auto company will start complying with the looser federal standards -- i.e., it will sell more SUVs in CA. If the states instead win (as expected, though not certain), the auto company will just continue complying with the stricter CA standards -- UNLESS CA rewards an auto company for striking a "deal" with CA.
In other words, unless CA has promised "deal" companies that CA will impose stricter standards on "non-deal" companies, an auto company has no incentive to cut a deal with CA now: requirements could get stricter, and they can't get better. There has to be some incentive for an auto company to strike a deal with CA now, and the only incentive that comes to mind is: "You'll have to comply with stricter standards if you DON'T."
In other words, CA (assuming it wins in court against the federal government) will have 2 different emissions standards.
1
@Commenter no they will not. One standard will apply to all cars.
4
@Commenter I don't believe that CA intends to have two different standards. The motivation for the automakers is that they have negotiated a standard with CA that is looser than the Obama-era regulation (which was being phased in over years) but considerably tighter than the Trump roll-back proposal. Once they have that agreement in place with CA, they no doubt believe they can begin to make long-range business decisions that will work in CA and, thus, presumably in every other state that feels strongly about helping the environment. The idea that companies might try and game the regulation and wait, potentially for years, while lawsuits grind through the system and up to the Supreme Court, is not viable, and the automakers obviously know it. Certainty is worth a great deal when you're talking about global businesses that are making 5-10 year business plans. GM, Toyota, Mercedes and the rest will be on board quickly.
1
Automakers realize that the rest of the world is more like CA then like Trump. The cost to manufacture to two standards is more than just meeting the new global standards.
16
Something no one ever talks about and I don’t know why is that the world will be out of fossil fuel in 50 years...that’s a very short time. Imagine living in world without oil ! Any business that relies solely on fossil fuel will cease to exist on another 50 years !
5
Best news in a long time
13
If the automakers and the American people both don’t want lower emission standards, who does want them? I’m thinking Saudi Arabia, but Trump doesn’t have any particularly suspicious ties to its government, except for things like the Saudi’s booking more than 500 rooms at his DC hotel after he won the 2016 election. But, except for those things, I wonder why Trump wants to lower emission standards.
7
If only CA have the courage to leave their cars at home and take public transit. What's the point of demanding cleaner vehicles when you are dismantling the subway and rail networks?
3
@AmateurHistorian - Do you realize how big California is? Public transport simply isn't possible in many locations.
I will agree that where possible public transport should be put in place and supported. I'd also like to see a tax break for companies who allow telecommuting.
4
Remember that the Oil industry is behind the effort to roll back the Obama's emissions standards. Of course Trump's hatred towards "anything" Obama does not help either.
9
I wonder what Trump's son and the children of Trump's anti-environment lackeys ( heading the EPA, etc) think about their parents actively working to make a dirtier world for them and one where climate change is going to create unimaginable changes? "That's OK, dad, I'm sure some short term corporate profit is well worth what you're doing to my future!" Parents with no conscience. Poor kids.
6
American auto manufacturers dropped the ball for decades, nearly wiped themselves out. Bad product. They are still not at the top of their game. But California and customers are giving them a helping hand. Go with Trump and they are doomed.
5
Car guy here. Thank you California for always leading the charge. Why would anyone want to buy a car that pollutes more and gets LESS MILEAGE?!!
19
California will continue to lead the way into the future. Trump will continue to push for regression. Maybe the red states will eventually open their eyes?
11
There goes the 10th Amendment!
What amendment has Trump NOT attacked? I shocked he hasn't attacked the 18th Amendment (you know, the repealed one)!
3
Gee, I love love the new California standard. It reduces Trump's national standard from 52.5 to 51!
Obama's standard was 37.
C'mon, Gavin, can't we do better?
3
@cl not true. There is no Trump standard. The proposed CA standard was to be 52.5 and they are dropping it to 51. The article lays it out pretty well.
8
@cl You have your data backwards - the 52.5 standard was issued in the Obama administration; the far lower number, 37, is the one proposed by Trump.
1
So what would a Trump car look like?
I imagine that the Trump car would be painted gold, with gold trim.
It would be too heavy, and too large.
It would need a very large engine that consumes a great deal of fuel.
Its exhaust would be gaseous and contain large amount of unburnt fuel.
It would cost $150,000, and it would be of very poor built quality, and last just long enough to defraud.
9
@Truth is True
The car would be a coal burner. You would need a driver and a shoveler.
1
@Truth is True
....in other words, a Trump car would be a high-end Cadillac from the 1980s, their very worst years. Yecch.
Why is he so bent on ruining the environment for his grandchildren?
First he’s trying to roll back car pollution regulations that keep American car manufacturers competitive in the world market so he can spite Obama, then he starts selling plastic straws to purposefully create ocean polluting garbage. What’s the point?
7
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico (2011 model year and later), New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia are the states following California's lead on emissions. Trump's racism is most evident with his hatred of Obama.
6
As a kid who grew up in Los Angeles in the 70's with brown air and smog outs. We would wipe the soot off our faces after playing outside in the summer. Cant imaging what was in our lungs. I think we should really take a look at who is supporting increasing tailpipe emissions. That is very clearly in contrast with the interest of the American people and their children.
10
When I was a child growing up in Southern California (the 50's and 60's) the air went from clean and clear (with orange groves and berry farms) to the equivalent of smoking two packs of cigarettes a day. When I rode my bike to Corona del Mar I sometimes had to pause by the side of the road because my lungs hurt so much.
The street at the end of the block was named Electric Avenue. It was named Electric Avenue because that's where the electric train that reached most of Greater LA area (and going into Orange County) in the first half of the 20th Century ran. The Big Three bought up the train system, ripped out the train tracks, and sold people smog producing cars and buses.
Regulatory intervention has made an important dent in those horrible health conditions. There are good reasons why California has strict environmental laws. It was literally becoming a matter of life and death for millions.
Rolling the clock back and throwing up roadblocks is insane. As I understand it the concept of good government is fundamentally defensive: it provides protection against those who would endanger the public through the heedless pursuit of personal gain at the expense of others.
The arguments of the Trump administration are not directed towards less government. They're directed towards bad government - protecting the minority at the expense of the majority. That should be rightly viewed as a criminal undertaking.
7
I'm very happy with my GM but I hope General Motors and Toyota knows that dragging their feet in this crucial area will cause people like to consider other car manufacturers.
5
Next, we should encourage European car makers like Seat to sell their cars here. I recently drove a Seat Leon in Spain that got well over 60 mpg with regular petrol, and it drove smoothly on the highway (with A/C) and had plenty of room for 4 people.
2
Bravo California, hopefully protection of the environment is an area where states and concerned citizens can fight federal directives. Since this administration is rejecting the feedback from the automakers what is the real reason trump wants to eliminate President Obama’s clean air standards?
1
The sole beneficiaries of the proposed Trump rollback on gas mileage are the oil companies. Smart, fuel-efficient, less polluting automobiles are in everyone's interests with the exception being big oil. (Los Angeles handed over transportation infrastructure to Detroit and the fossil fuel behemoths after WW2, aided by the national highway building program under Dwight Eisenhower in 1956. The Federal Highway Act, like the fledgling Internet, was also regarded as a national defense measure. Few knew LA would explode in terms of size and population...and it's unique smog generating capacity.) It's reasonable to assume that the Trump Administration could care less about California's air quality - and what a fitting response a roll-back represents to a state that cares not for him. With Trump, lack of fealty means punishment...fouled air quality and damaging legislation.
2
It's pretty funny that automakers are listening to the market, thinking about long term trends and investments, while the Trump Administration cares only about short term appearances, national control and denying climate change.
Trump and the Republicans have largely abandoned their core principles. What happened to local control, "free markets", stopping the power of the Federal government? It is past time for the Democrats or some other political party to clear to the vast sound bite driven public how the Republicans are destroying our country bit by bit.
5
Perhaps, in order to achieve the higher greenhouse gas emissions desired by President Trump, he will have to order the Navy to convert its ships back to coal fire boilers and the GAO to heat all federal buildings by burning coal. That also should make some new jobs that he can take credit for.
5
@Doug Karo Be careful that someone in the Trump administration does not take your tongue in cheek suggestion seriously.
4
In ten years, while California and the other thirteen states, none of which I'm positive are southern, are breathing clean air, the rest of the country will have large numbers of children and elderly populations experiencing frequent respiratory problems. Mind you that these states will be the same one that didn't expand Medicaid, and as is currently happening in the courts in Texas, want to eliminate President Obama's 'preexisting conditions' that protect those already ill (or formerly) with the right to insurance coverage. All the while, the communities who will no doubt be hit the hardest, will still proudly state that Trump
WAS the best President ever!
To the four automakers, I thank you for staying on the right environmental path. Even if your decision to do so was financially motivated, by not losing the largest consumer market, it's still good for the Earth and California.
12
This action by automakers is based upon the need for relative certainty large scale global business. In this context, government regulation limiting CO2 by increasing automobile mileage is acceptable to big auto, Not because they care, but because certainty and uniformity can be built into cost. Uncertainty is risky. The conservative imperative to increase certainty resulted in a rational deal to reduce emissions and increase gas mileage. This is an excellent example of achieving a common result from differing imperatives. Here, clean air and certainty in the auto market dovetail perfectly.
5
The California exemption has be part of Federal law for many years. Only Congress can remove that exemption.
1
Positively surreal, that the automakers are working in secret to agree on regulations, while the Trump administration wants to stop them.
11
Couple reason why these companies want to do this: first, they know they will have to anyway as soon as Trump is gone. Denying climate change is going to start moving into Qanon-level territory soon. Even Fox News will get on board if they can figure out a way to blame Democrats for it. Second, changes like this actually spur sales - great marketing opportunity when you have a shiny new feature that can turn over household vehicles and fleet vehicles sooner.
7
California needs to counter the regressive Trump EPA vehicle mileage regulations by mandating a zero emissions vehicle requirement for all cars licensed in California to be phased in over the next 10 years. At that time, all old and new cars licensed in California will be electric or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Zero emission vehicle sales will increase and their prices will come down. Car manufacturers will have to follow California's lead.
2
The conservatives are always screaming about states rights. We fought a civil war over it. Now they want to shove their backwards, ignorant thinking down the throats of states that want to live in the present and have clean air, freedom, etc.
15
Proud to be a Californian!
10
Thank you Governor Newsom for standing up for California.
14
It's so interesting that Republicans are now an anti-state's rights party. In the 60s when I was young, "state's rights" was a basic plank of the Republican platform although it was just a way to camouflage racial discrimination. If it's with the intention of denying equal protection, they're for state's rights; if it's to ignore science in favor of profit then they're against state's rights.
9
@Descartes, State's rights is the ignorant argument for the reason for the American civil war.
1
“... This shows that state leadership is indispensable. That’s where the leadership is coming from right now in the U.S. on climate.”
You have that right! A BIG thank you to Gov. Newsom, the rest of the State Gov't and the people of California. Generations of people will remember this day and your leadership!
15
i
The policy crafted by the Obama administration with its emissions targets is reasonable, necessary, and vital to the health and well being of the planet. Any reasonable person would for the greater good seek to support and build upon such good policy. But one need look no further than Trump’s most recent racist comments to confirm what truly motivates him dismantle President Obama’s climate policy and, of course, it is not the first time.
6
Anything with Obama on t is fair game to this acting-president. The BBC had a report last weekend detailing why Trump insisted on pulling out of the Iran Agreement. Because it was Obama's work. Diplomats from the other states begged him to reconsider, but as we know, his fragile ego has become the strategy of most policies, and now the power-hungry GOP has sold what little soul and moral currency it had left for a seat in the Trump clan clown car.
7
That our states and industries must peep about to find themselves honorable pollution standards, while the corrupt colossus in Washington DC bestrides the narrow world bragging he is an environmentalist, is tragically ironic.
3
Someone has to take responsibility, and it is obviously not trump.
6
THANK YOU CALIFORNIA!
Someday, some people may write a song about you ;-)
7
I'd fly to California to buy a new car and drive back to DC rather than let The Donald win this one.
7
"Light trucks take a record 69% of U.S. market"
"The 5.4 million cars sold last year represented the fewest since they had tail fins, in 1958"
https://www.autonews.com/sales/light-trucks-take-record-69-us-market
A lot of Trump-bashing comments here. However, the above statistics would indicate many commenters here will be unlocking a gas-guzzling SUV/Truck when they hit the road.
Yet, these same commenters will be the biggest proponents of the "climate change" threat.
As I was driving through the inland empire of southern California last week, I was simply amazed at how clean the air was. I could see downtown LA fifty miles to the east. I could see the mountains. I could see the blue sky. The hills to the south were visible. It was beautiful despite the fact there are more freeway lanes and more cars than ever. As a young man living in the same neighborhood in the late 70s, the air was yellow and brown. The blue sky was visible only straight overhead on some days. My lungs ached. I wheezed from asthma. Mountains were gone on vacation, invisible behind a haze of gray for six or eight months at a time. Downtown? HA! Who in the world wants to return to those bad old days? Oh. Right the oil lobby and their president. No thanks. Air to match his hair and skin color? I don't think so. Nowadays we have thousands of acres of solar power farms out here. We have wind turbines. There is so much alternative power generated, in fact, that we have to pay adjacent states to take it away. (Which leads me to wonder why we have the most expensive electricity on the planet, but that's another question for another news story, other than to say executive salaries much?) By 2040 100 percent of our power grid is slated to be delivering my electricity fossil fuel free. Wind. Solar. Water. All great sources of power. Oil, gas, and coal? Out! Over!! Done!!!
3
The future can be delayed but never stopped. Those who try to stop it will eventually be run over and condemned to living with the leftovers of society. Then they will eventually die and no longer matter.
1
Anyone else feel more comfortable following California's lead on pollution rather than Kentucky's?
7
"The new rule... is also expected to revoke the legal authority of California and other states to set their own ... standards."
More proof that the GOP is only in favor of states' rights when a state wants to ban abortion or same-sex marriage.
8
Reality: it was a compromise between new standards and ridiculous Obama regulations
1
@james alan the Trump standard was 37 mpg and the Obama standard was 52.5 mpg. 51 isn’t really a compromise, it’s a slight 2.5% reduction from the Obama target.
Various commenters are missing the point.
Toyota or GM may voluntarily cut emissions, but why would they obligate themselves to CA to do so? If the federal government wins the court battle over who -- state governments or the federal government -- gets to set pollution standards, any "non-Agreement" auto company can and will start selling SUVs. If the states instead win that battle, the question will become whether CA really will impose two different standards -- one for "Agreement" auto companies, and the other (presumably stricter) for "non-Agreement" companies? If CA does, of course, Ford will be better off than GM, since Ford will be an "Agreement" company and GM will be a "non-Agreement" company. But I can't even imagine that CA would impose different standards on different auto companies. Maybe CA will, but I seriously doubt that. If CA doesn't, what incentive is there for GM to talk with CA now? GM can simply follow the new CA rules voluntarily but without signing any "Agreement" with CA to do so?
In short, it all depends on whether CA, if it "wins" the regulatory battle in court, will impose different standards on "Agreement" companies and "non-Agreement" companies. My strong hunch is that CA won't. If it doesn't, GM will be unwise to cut any deal with CA.
@Commenter
No automaker has a monopoly in California. It's so big a market that it is a big market for businesses world wide. If domestic makers collude with the Federal government to invalidate pollution standards and prevents California government from implementing it's own. East Asian and European automakers could cream them by selling low pollution autos to the retail buyers because they know the consequences of driving cheap polluting cars is expensive to live with bad air. In the 1950's the air in many areas had now visibility due to air pollution, 'smog', and it hurt to breathe, and it killed people with lung diseases. It damaged children's lungs. It was a lot worse than paying for low emissions automobiles.
@Commenter if they want to sell cars there they will talk to them, or just meet the new standards. There will be one standard. The difference between the two standards under consideration was 52 mpg vs 51 mpg - negligible difference.
@Commenter, If they don't get on board with clean air then don't buy their cars.
Back in the early 1970's when the environment became a political issue, the common belief was that creating wealth in our industrial economy required lots of pollution by products be accepted as the price. It was so prevalent an attitude that all major industries, labor unions. and even minority voters were opposed to environmental laws because they thought it would prevent them from doing business and earning a living.
Trump really does think that economic growth requires environmental degradation. It's like everything else about Trump, he does not bother to deepen his understanding of anything except how to play on people's emotions to gain their support. As a result, he's often wrong headed about things for which President's are expected to deal.
The auto industry needs to keep it's customers. A polluting auto will save them a fraction of the price of an auto but a customer refusing to buy the auto costs them the entire price of an auto. Californians have too much experience with pollution from autos to be okay with Trump's efforts to eliminate the standards which California advocated. The choking and painful to breathe pollution and lung diseases that result have been too well known to Californians. The auto industry knows that the standards give them the ability to sell cars. Without them any foreign maker will sell California cars that do reduce air pollution.
6
I thought that being conservative meant that you believed in states rights and did not believe in the federal government's right to interfere with state's rights. Why aren't the conservative pundits objecting to Trump's plan to take away the rights of the states to choose their own emission standards?
16
@Jacqueline Gauvin
Every factor which requires consideration in making a business decision reduces the options for the decision maker and reduces the opportunities to make good profits. Thus, the default position of business supporting conservatives is whatever gives businesses the least constraints upon how they choose to operate.
1
It appears Trump's real reason behind his decision is not so much about profits for the auto industry and more about limiting states power to set their own standards . He will not have it ; he wants to run it all like the autocrat he thinks he is , or aspires to . Kudos to the four automakers , let's see more of these sane decisions from other companies .
10
@sm
What really baffles me is the fact that Trump has grandchildren. Doesn't he want them to be able to breathe clean air? Will he wait until Mar a Lago is washed out to sea before he accepts climate change? I once watched him describing wind power and realized that he thinks the wind blows to each house, and when the wind stops, your TV stops. It would be funny if it wasn't terrible.
5
@sm
Trump runs nothing. He orders and demands, but he does not do any work to make anything happen. He really does not know how to do that. That is why he cannot keep good help, he has never learned how to lead a team of highly skilled people in a common endeavor.
Trump really has no wish to actually rule nor to command, anything. He just wants to be obeyed.
4
@Casual Observer , Being obeyed is ruling , who ever said he does it sanely , the man is power hungry . A king he is not nor will ever be but ...he aspires to have all at his beck and call . I do agree he does not do any work ; he expects other to make it happen , while he sits on the edge of his bed tweeting at 4 am and eating cheeseburgers .
They are recognizing the obvious: Donald doesn't do government.
They might as well go directly to the people who do.
10
This is a clear victory for the Republicans. Absent federal regulation, the auto industry is going to reduce tailpipe emissions. The last time I checked, Republicans favored letting private industry regulate itself and the Democrats favored extensive government regulation. here, the auto industry is proving the Republicans right -- they will do the right thing on their own. Reporters calling this a victory for the Democrats need to go back and take Economics 101.
2
California has a lot of cars. Get it? The automakers want their business, they are aware that Trump is merely temporary, and it would cost them more down the line to adjust when sanity returns. Win for politics? Nah, simply a win for those of us that breathe air.
9
@michjas Hmm , this is like seeing through a mirror darkly ; don't think they were thinking about democrat or republican , they decided not because they were self regulating but more because they see the whole picture . As far as self-regulating , there are industries that don't but I guess your ok with the undoing of air , water and soil pollution that this administration has undone and your children being exposed to polluted water , air , and food laced with pesticides . Economics 101 is all about making as much money without thought to damage done .
3
@michjas
I don't know what you're smoking over there but yeah, ok, whatever. Maybe you missed the part of the story about these being California state regulatory limits, not automobile manufacturers doing the right thing based on the demands of their customers. It's just cheaper to build to one set of standards than multiple sets. So they take the REGULATED version from our increasingly lovely state of California. You remember California, right? The one that sends all that money to Washington DC so the red states have something to live off of? Sheesh.
4
The President has professed to possess a world class business mind but what he's failed to grasp is while he overturns the environmental strides made by his predecessor here in the US, automobile manufacturing is a global industry. As such it benefits automakers to have components and processes as standard as possible across their operations, irrespective whether they're assembling Fusions in Mexico, Golfs in Brazil or X-5s in the US. If BMW wants to sell Minis in California or Rolls's in China it's probably best to conform to whatever the strictest standard might be in order to meet the regulatory requirements of the markets where the autos will be sold.
4
We need a detailed legal analysis of what California can and cannot accomplish with their agreement with certain car companies. Can California prevent car companies who don't meet the California standards, and have no agreement with California, from selling cars in California? And how is this all affected when Trump repeals California's EPA rights to set it's own standards?
1
@DanielB. As per usual, trump will lose in court. California can and does set its own clean air standards. Has done so for many years with our cleaner burning fuel standards. Auto makers already know this - that is why they cut the deal with Newsom.
9
Of course California can prevent car companies from selling cars in California that don’t meet its standards. That was already the case.
It’s unlikely “Trump will repeal” California’s right to exceed federal standards. Even if he succeeds in such efforts (which will result in dirtier air and higher medical expenses), California’s agreement with automakers will endure.
2
@DanielB
Actually California does not prohibit anyone from selling their cars regardless of the pollution they spew out. But they do register only the clean burning ones. The rest have to sit in the garage as dinosaur models. Poetic justice there somehow...
A great example of how a consumer driven, free market can work with a responsible democratic government to make sensible laws.
5
Just remember this when another state asserts their right to encourage industries which choose to ignore pollution. This will not end well for the nation.
@Hellen. That's already been the norm for many years in coal mining states. And many more coal mines are closing than opening now. Cleaner energy/technologies are proving to be more cost efficient And more profitable. This is not the first, nor will it be the last time that California leads the way for national standards.
12
California has required automakers to exceed federal standards for decades. It’s resulted in cleaner air and lower rates of respiratory problems. Seems to me this is an example of “ending well.”
5
@Helen, It is up to individuals to make their voices heard and complain about said pollution
1
I don't know how we are going to get out of this conundrum, the dilemma that we face.
We are asking the automotive companies to take a cut in profits (pay) if you would. We are asking them to forego profits by making smaller, more fuel efficient cars. We are asking the automotive companies to convince Americans and the world that we would be better off in smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient cars. We've been down this road before.
I don't know how we are going to do that.
Every time we have a technology break through offering more miles per gallon we increase the size and horsepower of the cars negating to possibilities of increased miles per gallon, lowering if you would, the pollution effects of increased C02 emissions.
An interesting article from February 8, 2018 of the New York Times, "To Power the Future, Carmakers Flip on 48-Volt Systems" is interesting. It demonstrates what technology can do and the limits of technology,
1
We do it by pricing fuel in such a way that it discourages inefficient vehicles but, if that’s your choice, you’ll be paying the full cost of burning it - including carbon offsets.
1
@....a reader..... - I'll take that as a positive response. That is definite possibility.
I used about approximately $2200 in gasoline last year, drove about 14,000 miles. So, I guess the price of gas would have to triple to about $6600 a year to make a change in car selection. That would cost the average driver about $4400 more a year. Do you think that would make a difference, that it would effect a buying decision? I still may have underestimated what it would take to make a change in buying decisions. You could drive less, too.
What do you think?
1
@Steve Many of the true costs of driving are currently outsourced to citizens and taxpayers in the form of health care expenses, climate change adoption/amelioration, wasted time, etc. If fuel was priced to include such costs, we could each buy the type of vehicle we want but we'd pay its full costs.
1
I love Ford. Have been driving only their sedans since 1978.
They didn’t need a bail out. Smart company focused on consumer demand.
And now on the correct side of history, of the environment.
I love Ford.
9
@Dorothy
Dorothy: may I ask how you feel about Ford?
1
How utterly refreshing to see someone (In this case California)take the lead rather than the federal government in regards to fate of this planet no less. I’m sure more forward thinking states will follow. Yes this will cost more money to which the response should be either get used to it and learn to do with less.
Next up should be significant reductions in pesticide. How many beaches in red Trump states need to close before the states wake up realize that the cause can be traced to our farming practices? Yes it will cost more money and food prices will go up, but what choice do we have?
For a billion years if not more all organic matter learned to adapt to a planet high in co2 and absorbed the carbon and spewed out that nasty oxygen- the very stuff we need to breathe. The organics died and rotted beneath our feet in vast pools of oil,coal and gases. All that carbon locked up safely underground for a very long time and now like the flip of a switch we are sending all this carbon back into the atmosphere in what future earthlings will refer to as the 6th and slowest mass extinction event in the history of this planet.
4
It’s the smart move.
There’s absolutely no way I’ll buy a new vehicle that isn’t an improvement on my current one’s emissions. Full stop.
11
This is how the free market is supposed to work.
The automakers are still as profit-driven as ever, but they're not idiots. They know that social norms are still advancing, even in the face of Trump's regressive policies.
Trump may not care, but people still want to breathe clean air.
Trump may not care, but people still want to spend less money and time at gas stations.
Auto manufacturers are not selling their cars to Trump. They're selling their cars to people.
By siding with California's more progressive emissions and fuel economy standards, they're merely giving the people what they want.
Long live American free enterprise. It has a much brighter future than Trump enterprise.
1034
I’m unclear what is ‘free market’ about a government applying regulations to the sale of goods in its borders..
I’m all for these regulations, I just don’t see how this is ‘free market’.
24
There is no such thing as an absolutely “free market”. In a civilized society, all business proceeds under law and regulation. Business without law and regulation is anarchy. The only question is what and how much regulation.
57
@Jeff
If they are complying with California emission controls to sell cars in California, this would be a regulated (government controlled) market not a free market
See california air quality control board (government agency) for more details
10
I find it utterly baffling, especially in this day and age, that anyone would want to raise allowable emissions. I am thrilled that these automakers have decided to go this direction with California, and hope similar arrangements can be made with other states. In the long term, though, I would like to see a quicker transition towards electric vehicles (charged via solar). One day...
659
@Andre Hoogeveen. Because if its a good thing...republicans dna compels them to do the wrong thing.
59
@Andre Hoogeveen
To reach these average fuel economy standards, electric vehicles will need to be a significant part of the each manufacturer's mix of vehicles. It's sad that in the past year, both Ford and GM have moved away from sedans, in favor of more SUV's and CUV's. They will need to make small enough versions of these vehicles, to meet the tougher economy standards.
10
@Andre Hoogeveen unfortunately to have it quickly would require infrastructure- something promised but not kept by this administration. It would also help to have a continuance of federal incentives for both solar energy and clean-emission vehicles, now that the automakers are making the products viable for the larger population. The U.S. became great by being a leader.. this could happen, but it would do too much damage to republican lobbyists in the energy sector. God forbid we initiate progress and improve the environment at the same time.
14
While a lot has been said about the electoral college giving politicians a reason to care about smaller states, very little has been said about how it enables some politicians to ignore larger states since the popular vote doesn't matter. Trump doesn't care about antagonizing voters in California, even conservative ones, because he knows he doesn't have a chance of winning the state. Republicans can make snide remarks about "New York City values" and bash Chicago because they can afford to ignore them due to the system we have.
1
If you wondered what the GOP really stands for, look no further than this story as Exhibit A.
No to state rights when it interferes with Trump and big polluter fealty. No the climate awareness. No to compromise, collaboration, and democracy.
This story gives me hope in these dark days. Hurray for the automakers and California.
1021
@NancyJ
Yep... more clear and visible hypocrisy by the GoP.
38
@NancyJ -- And don't forget YES to states' rights under Republican rule when it comes time to tell women how to live their lives under state control of their bodies.
50
@NancyJ Wish I could back there. I NEVER should have left.
12
The largest vehicle market in the US is California and many states base their vehicle regulations on California's. The manufacturers well know this. The largest vehicle market in the world is now China, and China has decided that EVs are their future. The manufacturers know this, too.
The manufacturers are planning accordingly. What happened to the GOP's firm belief in "free market principles"?
800
@The Poet McTeagle
Same thing that happened to the firm belief in 'small government', 'balance budget', and 'states rights'
88
@The Poet McTeagle What happened to the GOP?
18
How about states’ rights!
15
I am one car owner who will be keeping track of which companies support the California plan. I will not buy a car from any company that does not. It's past time for the auto industry to act responsibly by building cars and trucks with sharply reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
1319
@Dave
Should be pretty easy to keep track of other states that follow the lead of California. There are 23 states that form the United States Climate Alliance and they are committed to the targets originally established in the Paris climate agreements.
Those states, including Oregon, will almost certainly join California in supporting the negotiated plan with automakers, bringing the US closer to other advanced economies in fuel efficiency.
67
@Dave Thank you, Dave. Great idea, too!
30
@Dave
And make sure you're buying new cars that already meet or exceed the standard. My Prius already does. And I have friends who are driving all electric cars powered by their rooftop solar.
57
No surprise here- unlike Trump, the Auto industry has to keep the long game in mind. There's no point in US automakers going by the Trump admin's less stringent standards if the US is likely to raise them once Trump is out of office, especially when the European auto market is also moving in that direction. If they were to take Trump up on the lower standards, they'd just be falling behind the global competition. It's not 1960 anymore, the auto industry is much bigger than just the US.
1089
@Greg. Make America great again...despite Trump!
29
@Greg
Right you are. Auto companies are global, selling many vehicles around the world, not only in the US which has only a small slice of world auto sales. Europe and Asia have emissions and fuel economy / CO2 standards as clean as California. The "EPA states" of Mr. Trump's proposal, ends up being a very small slice.
5
Exactly! Trump will be out of office in 18 months and the new President will immediately undo so much of what Trump has done (in undoing Obama’s work). The auto industry sees the whole picture, including climate change, and is making the long run best decision to improve the performance of gas-powered vehicles. A slight change in the overall goal and timing is immaterial. They also know that ultimately EV’s will be the norm, and are transitioning their products to meet the changing customer demands. This will all take many years, but it is absolutely the right decision to ignore the Trump approach.
59
Anybody here old enough to remember when LA was a smog nightmare? Well, let's give credit where credit is due: California turned itself around. In fact, the rest of us in other states ought to just admit we owe a vote of thanks to California for persistently leading the way on the environment.
Thank You, California.
2193
@Madeline Conant
Yes I do remember.
When I was in college in CA in the early 1960s, the smog in the LA area was often so bad that one could not see far enough to make out the traffic lights beyond the nearest intersection.
I am over 70. (I also remember a 5" diameter circular DuMont tv, rotary dial phones and 78 rpm records.)
168
@Madeline Conant When I arrived in Los Angeles for college back in the mid-'80s, there were still some really terrible smog days, and you could see a brown/blue dividing line in the sky from the Griffith Observatory.
In the three decades I spent living there after college, I saw the skies get bluer and bluer, and I enjoyed the much more breathable air.
It's ridiculous that the government is now under the control of people who seem to be incapable of understanding that these are good things.
358
@Madeline Conant
I also remember cancelling trips to New York City because the air quality was too bad. Air quality was bad, killing bad, everywhere. People use to sent their kids out of St. Louis in the summer so they could breath. And I remember when the Federal government worked to improve the environment, not like today when it is working to make it worst.
230
Excellent. And, my 33 mpg dinosaur is on its last legs. My next car will definitely come from a signatory to this agreement.
7
Never forget that, despite the tens of billions of dollars Obama spent to bail out the auto industry, they're still the ones that approached Trump first to loosen those standards.
Their reversal now does not mean their priorities have changed. Those companies only care about profit and themselves.
4
Remember, Trump wants states to make their own decision to INCREASE pollution, but not if they want to DECREASE pollution. And it’s all linked to what Obama supported and whether the states votes for Trump or not. This approach has dominated Trump’s strategy his entire adult life. Fine for business (I suppose) but terrible for governing.
8
It’s been the conservative mantra for years to let states do what is best for each individual state. Not only does Trump not care about the environment, he’s also so obsessed with his own ego that he’s driving policy contrary to widely held conservative values.
9
States Rights, "Don't Tread on Me" free marketeers are totally OK with the current White House occupant using the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution to attempt to pass laws barring states from passing their own environmental legislation. In other words they're for these irrefutable, unshakable principles until they aren't.
10
@Phillip Usher
Correct, as Bush v. Gore demonstrated. It's funny how the strictest interpreters of the Constitution as written become the greatest proponents of the Constitution as a living document when the need arises.
1
@Phillip Usher- With the minor detail that he wishes to "occupy" the area without any legislation, just a regulatory edict, forbidding the states from issuing their own rules.
The big question is why don’t other states do the same thing?
1
States rights was one of the things we had to fight against during the civil rights movement. It gave states the right to choose which laws to uphold and which ones to ignore. It gave them the right to choose how they applied different laws to different groups. For so called progressives and democrats to champion the inequality of states rights, instead of federal law, is more proof democrats are returning to their elitist and racist roots. States rights was always the mandate of extremists.
@Hellen
What you’re saying is that a core principle of the GOP is extremist, elitist and racist. Could not have said it better myself.
2
I will continue to vote with my decisions on cars, high gas milage and low emissions.
We fought a civil war against this. Get it done on a federal level, not by states thinking they run their own country. The corruption in this nation coming from both parties is unsustainable and divisive.
1
@Hellen
Because slavery and environmental concerns are the same thing.
2
The automakers take California customers seriously. Trump seeks votes from people with no environmental concerns. Automakers sell autos to people who do. Trump represents people who will dump trash on other people’s property and poison other people’s water if they are not stopped.
4
I wonder if Trump and his followers would want to send all of us in blue states “back” to some place or the other since we disagree with him on so many issues, including our desire to save all of us from the continuing destruction of the environment—maybe they’d have us join with Canada. Wait but without the blue state economies, including the great state of California’s, where would the supplicant Republicans get the funds to support all of this administration’s pet projects, including DeVos’s for-profit pals needing bailouts, the hapless farmers needing support because they are being trounced by Trumpian tariffs, the military-industrial-complex (an archaic term fitting for the retrograde “policies” and whims of an an archaic man), oh and all the jaunts to Mar-a-Lago, Bedminster and unstately family adventures in the U.K. and the like? I guess they could just keep ballooning the deficits even more than they already have with their tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy.
11
So when this country breaks in half, where in California will be the new Capitol be? Sacramento?
The state of California is doing what Washington can not. Getting stuff done.
5
So proud of my home state.
4
Wonderful news for the citizens of California who breathe air.
3
I just wanted to point out the insanity--wouldn't be surprised if someone already has but I've not read any of the posts yet.
Article: "...the White House and Environmental Protection Agency have been working on a plan to drastically weaken Obama-era rules on planet-warming vehicle pollution...."
Purpose of the EPA: "...mission is to protect human and environmental health."
7
Auto makers pave the way, showing the rest of the world how to deal with Trump. Ignore him.
13
That doggone Ocean keeps rising
Where’s the drain plug ?
3
Auto makers taking the high ground over the Administration...has to be a first.
3
CAlifornia, the 5th largest economy in the world, again demonstrates it responsible leadership achieving real progress to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while the top 4 global economies merely talk.
6
Trump took the US out of the Paris Climate Change Agreement because his task master Putin only has oil keeping them afloat.
Trump has taken the untenable position of rolling back energy efficiency and pollution standards in this country for the same reason.
9
So proud of our state’s leadership on leaving a better world for future generations and on fighting against the biggest resource and security threat facing the planet- fossil fuel driven climate change. Plus we are also the most innovative and most economically productive state in the US sending more to the federal govt than it gives back to us. Environmental protection and job creation can go hand in hand as demonstrated by California.
4
This is the real scare of the article, "some officials have said that they fear industry criticism could lead the president to retaliate by imposing tariffs on auto imports". Now that's working for the American people, ain't it?
17
Clearly a science backed market based decision by the four automakers. And clearly a political decision by the Trump administration. I am one who believes that science based decisions need to be root of large scale business planning like this.
28
At last! A piece of good news. Kudos to all the people - auto industry, California and the advocates for clean air and fewer emissions - that made this happen.
37
An example of why America is too large. In CA, auto emissions are a critical factor in air pollution in densely populated areas of the state. Most Californians understand. In ND or OK or a host of other lightly populated but Trump-backing states, emissions are less critical due both to lighter population density and lower educational awareness about effect of climate change on our environment. Issues such as this could not have possibly been imagined by the Framers, a group of white men in the 18th century. The US would be better off to no longer be the US and instead become a group of regional nations, each with social and political philosophy congruent with their citizens.
14
@blgreenie - Air travels. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to breathe dirty air when it's possible to prevent it.
6
@blgreenie, emissions of particulate matter and smog-forming nitrogen oxides are more critical in California and in big cities than in the sparsely-populated parts of the country. But carbon dioxide emissions affect the climate worldwide, so these fuel economy rules should apply everywhere—even in the rest of the world. Europe and Asi are correctly focusing on reducing emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2. This new agreement between automakers and California affects CO2.
3
When you think about it, the fact that the auto industry is acting more ethically than the Federal Government is a clear indicator that the Trump administration has not only lost its moral compass but burned the maps as well.
83
It's very bad for business for each state to have it's own rules. It's just not feasible from a manufacturing, design and validation. I'm all for 51 MPG by 2026 (which, in itself is a lofty goal); however, it has to be done at a national level. This basically forces automotive companies to play ball with the strictest regulations from a single state for their entire model year line ups (otherwise they are banned from those state markets). This is a big deal. California can essentially force the automotive companies to play ball or lose 30% of the U.S. market.
While it appears California has good intentions, this is not good for automotive companies.
2
@kz California will drive regulations in this case. They represent a big enough market. This is not the first time California has been in the driver seat of auto regulations.
Its possible, however unlikely that other states could try to push the regulations farther, but without the market size of California, it would all be for naught.
I suspect we will see more state driven regulation leadership in the future as our national government continues to flounder.
21
@kz Since when does everything have to be good for business? Companies can adjust and do to the market. It is the American way. When governments interfere in the way the Trump administration is, that is bad for states and companies. So much for Republicans and their ideology of hands off regulations - all they care about is rewarding the rich.
4
@kz
It is not good for the nation. Soon we will have the Republic of Texas and the Republic of California thinking they are separate countries.
I applaud the efforts of states like CA in battling climate change, but from the automakers' perspective, this is about economics, not environmentalism. It's costly to have to change designs and manufacturing at the whim of each administration and potentially manufacture different models to meet different state-level standards. In the end, however, it's an overall win for the environment.
13
@norma clyde
Agreed. Most businesses operate on a profit first basis. Afraid for the country that starts only focusing on profits while forgetting people, morality, the long range. That country more & more, feels like us.
6
The Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese and many other countries are building a world system around the messed up Trump administration and the US. The US states are starting to do the same. It is very interesting to see what will remain of the federal government power and influence after the current occupant of the White House is gone and the amount of damage inflicted on us as a nation. It remains to be seen how long it will take The federal government to gain the trust of the world, the US states and the public once again when it starts working for the citizens rather than as an affiliate of Trump inc.
26
Even while tRump's buddies engage in increased pollution and malfeasance, SOME businesses can feel which way the wind is blowing. Good news, but we need much more than this. End the tax cuts for the rich and corporations; increase their taxes to reasonable levels. They will still be very rich, while doing their civic duty. Adequately fund the IRS to pursue the wealthy evaders, not low income people.
39
Thank goodness for the rational legislators in CA who are doing what they can to reduce environmental harm. We truly can’t rely on those currently running the show in Washington.
17
The extreme right has no desire to do what is best for the long term success of this country.
Fortunately we have California and the auto industry whose management I would assume to be Republican making an effort to the right thing.
So it does appear that there are Republicans with working brains. Hopefully this will turn into an epidemic and start affecting the make believe Republicans in the Congress.
15
There's no way of knowing what Trump is thinking...so we ignore that. It'll change in an hour anyway. What is the auto industry thinking? Because this hinges on a long term commitment that the next histrionic personality disorder elected to the presidency could invalidate with a tweet. Historically, CA gets in the way of even their own good ideas due to ultra liberalism. The automakers aren't doing this for the good of the world order. Follow the money. The contributions. And as somebody already said, the real progressives ARE THE MODERATES.
1
@Kevin - Most people (i.e. consumers) with an IQ above room temperature want to breathe clean air. It makes good economic sense to build cars people will feel good about driving and living with.
1
Bravo for California and those four automakers!
Let’s hope the others soon follow suit.
As for those who worry about a bifurcated markets — textbook publishers have for many years put out separate editions of their elementary and high school texts to accommodate the demands of the relevant Texas authorities, seemingly without harm. Or who knows? Maybe everyone will manufacture to the highest, not the lowest common denominator, and in the process give future generations a better shot at a habitable planet.
12
California has always had a reputation for forward thinking in environmental matters. Unfortunately the reality is more complicated and tainted by the effects of lots of corporate money.
But, as complicated as it may be, the strides in improving air quality and leading the nation in those advances are undeniable.
In the end, it’s better to live in a state where environmentalists at least have a seat at the table.
24
Apparently, the Trump administration has never met pollution it doesn’t like.
22
Bravo, automakers!
Ignore Trump’s deregulations for quick profits. Trump doesn’t care about anyone’s future except his own.
Automakers have to plan for the future and they see where gas-powered engines are going.
Right on!
16
I am so glad that the automakers care about curbing pollution that could destroy our planet.
Why does Trump ignore the obvious consequences of his policy?
10
In a nutshell... automakers are actually on board with cleaner air, and the president is attempting to force them to accept lesser standards... as some kind of punishment to a single state and not really even about the automakers.
Yeah... this makes all kinds of sense...
12
Yes, I know that the failing New York president is a denier of climate change, but this has nothing to do with pollution or global warming.
It all has to do with Obama. Anything Obama did, the failing New York president must undo.
Why?
He has this fascination/obsession with Barack Obama that is fascinating in itself.
What is his reason? A good psychologist might tell us.
27
@Quincy Mass Obama is everything he is not - urbane, intellectually equipped, able to smile, married only once, and mostly beloved. Not to mention way more handsome!
5
Donald Trump and the GOP hate science and facts, but this article shows that it IS possible to fight back against them and their policies of climate destruction.
12
"Four of the world’s largest automakers, including the Ford Motor Company, have struck a deal with California to reduce tailpipe pollution"
Ford Motor Company?
Ford is eliminating almost all of its passenger cars in America. This fact alone is evidence that Ford has Zero interest in producing fuel efficient vehicles.
https://www.foxnews.com/auto/ford-is-killing-off-nearly-all-of-its-cars-in-favor-of-suvs
This is a classic public relations stunt from a company that is selling thousands of gas-guzzling trucks and SUV's every day.
3
@John: the regulations apply to fleet averages. Which means FoMoCo will be in compliance. Ford is also in a JV with Volkswagen to develop the next technology in electric vehicles.
I'll bet Faux News didn't mention anything about those bits of news, did they?
3
@John Ford has invested heavily in electrification and autonomous technology. They believe large fleets of autonomous vehicles will largely replace the individually owned passenger car. Meanwhile, the profits from the trucks are funding that research.
@SteveZodiac
If you are defending a company that sells thousands of gas-guzzlers a day at the expense of fuel efficient small cars......all in the name of profit......be my guest.
But your argument is laughable.
Is the NYTimes also "faux news" for reporting the following?
"Dropping out of the sedan business in the United States is a momentous shift for Ford. Just a decade ago, the Focus compact and the midsize Fusion spearheaded a push to provide stylish and fuel-efficient cars as gasoline prices were rising."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/business/ford-earnings.html
Alabama, Tennessee, and other freedum-lovin states can establish their own rules requiring cars to have coal rolling capability. They can mandate coal-burning stoves in all residential and commercial properties and allow dumping of industrial waste into reservoirs supplying drinking water. They can eliminate all consumer protection regulation if they want and end recycling of all kinds.
As long as they keep the trashy behavior inside their own borders.
I know that pollution and global warming don't respect state borders, but if they're given free reign, I think that the freedum-lovin individuals will eliminate themselves from the voting rolls in short order.
17
Trump does things for a very small list of reasons: It benefits him financially or personally. He is repaying a bribe. Or finally it is a form of retribution to a perceived enemy.
In this situation I can't see how this can benefit him. I also don't think the only industry that might benefit from this new rule, fossil fuel, would bother with large bribes for this. That leaves retribution and yes he hates California.
Policy decisions are being made as if the White House is the mob and trump is the godfather.
10
What about state’s rights which Republicans are always so adamant about? Or all that matters now are what el Trump says.
8
automakers are not stupid, they want to make csrs that they can sell anywhere. Even if the baboon in the white house decides different, it is never forbidden to make a care that does better then the minimum required. Carmakers plan for the future, not the past.
7
Trump, the "successful businessman" and "stable genius", actually has no clue about business as proven by his large number of whimsical ventures like a football league, an airline, or a "University".
His ignorance of the time, investment, and years of R&D required to meet auto emissions and fuel standards is utterly stunning for "a successful businessman". To meet stringent goals for worldwide countries takes years and $billions. And THEN have to face a new set of goals from a whimsical fool is beyond reason.
Not only ignorant, Trump is also stunningly incompetent. He thinks he is providing a favor to auto companies and supplying jobs. He might have considered talking to the auto industry and other experts and considering their advice. But not Trump, he shoots from the hip without advice. Because he is a "stable genius."
A competent leader uses every bit of experienced advice he can get. A pathological narcissistic fool creates failed companies and huge expensive mistakes, just like Trump.
7
The world is trying to work around Trump until he goes away.
14
Thought experiment:
Carbon just wants to be free.
How cruel must the democrats be to imprison carbon in some underground jail, never to see the light of day?
There should be a law requiring that cars idle overnight, so as to spew even more carbon than these unpatriotic fuel efficiency rules will force upon us.
In Russia, even our carbon has carbon!
Carbon is freedom! Don't take away our freedoms with your climate hoax!
Does this sound about right?
2
While the rest of the world embraces technology that will be less expensive to use (not to mention, um, saving the planet), America will be making products than no one else will want, and eventually, that no one else will be able to use. Corporations have been gradually learning that survival will mean being green, and that will mean more than having ads in National Geographic with a photo of some ducklings toting how much they care about the environment. It is the next paradigm shift of business, much like computers were in, say, 1970--either embrace it or get left behind.
7
I suspect that if Trump is re-elected with a minority of the popular vote, California and other prosperous blue states will begin a serious discussion about secession from the union.
At some point, blue state residents will realize that being ruled by extremist red state politicians whose constituents are being subsidized by them is no longer a viable option.
Just look at the electoral map ... it appears to reflect differences that have existed since the founding of the Republic.
19
Where, please, is that astonishing colossus of civil engineering shown in the lead photo?
As others have said, this is a worthy example of private capital showing their personal assessment of the direction of Trump's leadership. Having grown up in the company, I am proud Ford speaks for me.
Let us, each one, hew to our responsibility. Our chance, earned by those before us.
3
San Andreas might be California's Fault, but pollution on a fast track will not (I know, bad pun). Kudos to the Golden State. while Trump and the coal magnates are okay with so many towns and cities in Florida, New Jersey, Maryland and other places going under water by 2060, the leaders in California, and other places are no so interested in becoming the new Atlantis. As long a Louisiana can pump oil and build levies their congressmen seem ok with perpetuating the myth that all is ok, even as they rush to the stores to buy water pumps.
7
As an automotive enthusiast my entire life and mechanic as a young man. I originally hated pollution controls on cars 50 years ago.
I was trained on them and understood how they worked. Over the course of time they showed the way to clean air and performance beyond my wildest imagination. Today’s in cities some cars put out less pollution than they consume.
Let’s not bring back the bad old days.
10
Sorry, @John but every gallon of gasoline an engine burns releases approximately 20 pounds of CO2 into the air. Every gallon of diesel fuel burnt releases about 22 pounds of CO2. There's nothing inherently wrong with CO2, but there's too much of it in the atmosphere. Why? Because CO2 acts as an invisible blanket, trapping heat that causes global warming. So, CO2 is a pollutant, just as salt added to your drinking water is a pollutant. The cleanest cars are those without engines: BEVs (Battery Electric Vehicles).
Don't you love that the car industry is regulating itself on pollution and emissions better than the federal government?
The real regulator here is the EU. These same companies - Ford, Honda and Volkswagen are the most exposed to paying fines to the EU in 2020 and 2021 for failing to meet mpg limits in the EU. https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2019/04/04/eu-fuel-economy-rule-violations-could-cost-manufacturers-big/#5a0e343f7892
So, it makes sense for them to sign up to a deal with California because they're having to change their manufacturing specifications anyway for the European models to compete and avoid fines.
6
And in the future, you'll hear calls for fining and punishing the auto companies for global climate change because people blame corporations when it's usually the government that can't hold steady and be fair. The gov
1
So even industry, known for protecting the bottom line over the environment, is saying no to Trump's tantrum over anything Obama.
Shameful times we live in. I blame ny neighbors who voted for this brat and want to see him reelected president.
At the same time, and I never thought I'd say this: Thanks to the four car companies for doing the right thing by the environment. (Yeah, I know their "no" might in the end save them money, but still...)
10
Toyota, why weren't you at this meeting? I guess I'll be buying a Ford or a Honda next year.
9
@K Barrett, I thought that, too, so I'm sure many people have. I suspect Toyota will be on board soon.
2
For all their faults, automakers know
1. Consumers have voted with their wallets and they WANT cleaner vehicles.
2. Pollution and climate change.
3. Don is - god willing - a time-limited gnat in the grand scheme.
10
Another republican bit exposed as a giant lie - no one can claim to be for "small government" and want to overrule a decision made by a state government and independent corporations.
6
What would this country do without California?
I shudder to think!
Thank you for leading the way among states yet again.
22
These half-measures by the Trump administration are maddening. If they really had guts they would make it mandatory to add lead back into paint and gasoline, dump mercury into our rivers and streams and require all energy to be generated by burning wood and coal. Come on Trumpers! No guts no glory!
12
Amazing to me how Trumpers call themselves "conservative." They are for the most part clueless what traditional conservatism is. Just like any true conservative would be horrified and the prospect of a presidential candidate saying "only I can fix these problems," or a president that is at war with modern science, they would be equally horrified at a president"s attempt to usurp the sovereignty of a state such as Trump is doing on this issue.
13
Automakers know that their survival depends on producing vehicles of higher efficiency if they intend to remain viable. They aren't just looking at market pressures from California. The world's markets are demanding higher efficiencies. The Trump administration's attempts at rolling back emission standards flies in the face of the reality automakers face. You can just hear him at his next rally telling his audience that they're coming to take your SUV away from you. No, the charge is to make the entire fleet more efficient. This will happen despite Trump.
17
Of all people, Trump should understand money talks. It's too expensive to produce modern cars for California and gas eaters for the other states.
But can you imagine a situation where the consumer wants better gas mileage...the manufacturer says they are up to the challenge...and the only one who's not onboard is our president? No faith in science, no faith in American ingenuity, every effort devoted to pleasing the base and spiting Obama.
14
So how exactly does revoking states rights to set their own standards support the small Federal government model that is supposed to be a tenet of the Republican Party?
21
If Trump passes a rule forbidding states to set auto emissions, the states should just Tweet: no, we’re going to do what’s right. And ignore it.
After all that’s what Trump does if he doesn’t like a law, rule, subpoena etc.
23
The current White House occupant is trying to apply the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which in effect says states can't pass laws that contradict federal law. Red state legislatures use the same principle to pass laws that, for example, bar cities from passing laws to regulate the use and disposal of plastic bags.
2
Good people and good companies are leaving GOP; for good. GOP is only for power; weather we have planet or not.
Let's leave them in dust and when time comes; we will put make them pay for all the damage they have done to the humanity and their supporters.
This time; it's no silent compliance; they believe in punishment and so they should get same from the law.
Days getting closer for capital laws against polluters.
4
The article doesn't list "the expanded loopholes". There shouldn't be any. Crime: Taking help from Russia to get elected--the Trump Republicans--is a Crime. Russia is a petrol-state. The Trump administration election criminality extends directly to rolling back fuel economy standards. America's oil oligarchs are in on this, and corporate campaign donations should be barred as well.
Add to that a Carbon Tax, recycled as a transfer tax, to subsidize the purchase by individuals and businesses of renewable energy products including, and importantly, personal vehicles and pick-up trucks. The health of the planet affecting human habitation will not wait. We are at a CO2 tipping point and Action needs to be taken now. Even as "old school" Democrats attempt to put this on the back burner in Congress (they're probably not serious about guns either), the Trump administration's criminality, just on climate change, needs to addressed, and he and his criminal henchmen need to be removed now.
Fossil fuels need to be phased out with immediate 10 year goals. This would include banning coal in China and the U.S., and the export of coal and coal technology by both countries.
California, where there is a common sense environmental movement led by the Union of Concerned Scientists needs to engage neighboring states one at a time in their new fuel standards, until All states are on board to protect the natural environment, which includes clean air and water, and protecting biodiversity.
4
A lot to like; a taste of states' rights for the right, a gentler way with the atmosphere, a political setback for Trump and his cult, and some political energy for the Democratic Party.
It's predictable that Trump will litigate against the agreement, lest his cult begin to doubt his supremacy, though it's hard to see any way they may prevail. It's possible Trump will eventually spin this as a win, or failing that, deny its existence.
4
Let’s talk about our ‘car culture’. NYC is a 'walking city', and also has a very comprehensive (albeit severely flawed) public transport system. Yet, so many are ‘addicted’ to their cars (even those with who are physically fit and have easy access to amenities, subway, etc.). Many can’t walk the few blocks to get their daily jumbo iced latte. Waiting for a bus to another part of the neighborhood is too ‘inconvenient’. Riding the subway among fellow humans would be 'too gross’.
We pedestrians/cyclists have become so inured to the dangers we face every day. This ‘car culture’ is not and should not be considered ‘normal’, particularly in cities like NYC. If you own a 2-ton Private Possession, the city allocates Precious Public Space to the owners of said Private Possessions. But if you want to plant a garden or have a little barbecue in this same ‘public space’? Not Allowed.
Why have the millions of other NYC residents who Do Not own cars allowed so much of Our Public Space to be handed over to deadly 2-ton vehicles? And why has the ownership of SUVs, in particular, become so ‘normalized’? SUVs pose the greatest threat to pedestrians and cyclists, and have No place being on city streets. First it was SUVs, then Yukons, Escalades, etc. What’s next, army tanks?
Smoking in public places used to be ‘normal’, and just look at how we’ve changed our perception of smoking. The same needs to happen with cars (esp SUVs) in our cities.
17
@Lisa - cars and trucks are not some radical new invention that has just been "normalized." They have been an integral part of NYC for 100 years. No, I don't take buses or subways because yes, they are gross. I stick to taxi and Uber which is fine. And Why are you Capitalizing random Words throughout your post?
2
Thankfully, it is the only choice and grateful for some united foresight. Having been immersed in celestial affairs and its relationship to our current environment, it is troubling that so many are uninformed and reluctant to opening their eyes. It is never too late. At the age of 93, my fully engaged Mother was taking a course in her continuing studies on The Global Ocean from Professor J.J. Bhatt, distinguished author of more than 70 books relating to our environment. I found him to be electrifying in his continued quest. She started with Rachel Carson and ended with Dr. Bhatt. Fortunately both of my parents had this type of interest. My Father's greatest client was Paul Kollsman, inventor of the Barometric Altimeter who also provided the sextant technology for the Apollo Missions, known as The Eyes of Apollo. One can never be too informed.
4
Several commenters have asked: "What about the OTHER auto companies -- for example, GM, Fiat-Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan?"
Why would any of these companies cut a deal with CA? Either the federal government wins the ongoing battle over who -- the federal government or state governments -- gets to set pollution standards, or the federal government loses that battle. If the federal government wins, why would any auto company want to be bound by any deal with CA that imposes tougher standards? Conversely, if the federal government loses that battle, is it realistic to expect that CA will require, say, Toyota, to adhere to stricter standards than are contained in the agreement? Will CA really argue that Toyota must observe stricter standards (the Obama rules, for example) than Ford must observe?
I can't imagine why Toyota would even bother talking with CA.
1
They will if they are interested in selling cars in the largest car market in the world.
2
@Commenter if Toyota wants to sell cars in CA it would behoove them to work with CA.
2
@Commenter
It’s not just about a deal with California. Automakers have to plan a lot farther ahead than Trump the profiteer plans.
They have foreseen where gas-powered vehicles are going: to the car graveyard.
They are not going to bet the farm on Trump’s deregulation profiteering schemes.
3
I think the (relatively) better-informed policy makers among the Trumpies and in the extractive industries actually know they're making the planet uninhabitable for their grandchildren and they don't care about the "moral argument" some are making. They figure that if it's all coming down anyway, might as well live the high life now. "Follow the money" is good advice; I'd also suggest finding out where they're buying land to get their progeny through at least 2075 (optimistic). Plant trees, and support organizations that are buying up land to keep it off limits to the petroleum and mining industries.
2
I imagine that Trump's hostility toward emissions standards has to do with his romance with the petroleum industry. Use more gas! Drive more! Buy a truck and a motor home! After the 1973 gas shortage, I learned my lesson and bought a Honda Civic which at that time were actual small cars. I only had to sit in line for gas one time to show me the direction that we should be going in. Why don't people get it? I see more and more behemoth vehicles on the road. At this point I have begun to wonder if they are even paid for. If I had the $, I would buy a Tesla. Always waiting for the next financial meltdown. As I have said before: A motor vehicle is transportation--not your living room.
34
@Suzanne Wheat Perhaps Mr. Trump should breathe the exhaust from the tailpipe of an old bus. I suppose he breathes different air from the rest of us.
3
It's also bigly about his hatred of California for not succumbing to his dangerous, clownish antics.
6
@Suzanne Wheat - I won't be surprised if Trump mandates coal fired cars.
2
Only buy cars from manufacturers who have agreed to abide by the deal made with California. 51 mpg is much better than today's average and a one year postponement is the best deal California could get to have four manufacturers agree. GM and Fiat/Chrysler get on board or face the financial consequences.
18
So true! Manufacturers who don't get on board will wind up with a ruinous competitive disadvantage.
7
Presumably CA's weakening of the Obama-era rules "quantifies" the risk that the federal government, rather than the states, will win the battle over who gets to set pollution standards. CA thinks the states will win, but it isn't sure and so it's agreed to loosen its standards if the 4 automakers will cut a deal. The 4 automakers apparently share CA's risk assessment.
"Under the terms of the new deal with California, the automakers selling cars in that state would comply with a slightly looser standard than the original Obama rule."
2
@Commenter yes "slightly lesser" is 51 mpg as opposed to 52 mpg. It really is a negligible difference and much better than the Trump admin 37 mpg number.
4
The states and Trump aren't the only dogs in this fight for the automakers. There's climate change itself, too. The fact is that climate change is a reality, people are starting to directly feel its effects, and most importantly, *those effects will accelerate and worsen every year*.
They can make any deal they want. Pay a little now or pay a hefty sum later. That's what's in store for all of us, for everything. The longer we wait to take action on climate change, the worse things will get, and more importantly, the more painful will be the action we must take later.
Even if Trump won, the automakers would just have to suddenly achieve even higher standards, later, as the realities and impacts of climate change grow more and more clear.
And a quick note: What do you think is the average age of a car on the roads in America? 4 years? 5? 6?
If we were to want to replace every vehicle on the roads today with something more energy efficient, it would take 10 to 15 years. If we don't realize better standards until 2025, it's still 2040 before complete replacement is achieved... which means that dangerous and irreversible emissions will continue for all of that time.
Interestingly, 2041 is right about when we will pass the 2 degrees Celsius threshold that marks truly dangerous climate change. Going past that mark is like playing Russian Roulette with the entire planet.
California's deal, now, isn't even anywhere near good enough to avoid that disaster.
6
Good for these automakers and California. Such little faith Trump has in American industrial ingenuity. Indeed, his "make America great again" slogan not only has racist overtones, but also, in embracing outdated technology, is an affront to those most American of values: self-confidence and entrepreneurial prowess.
39
@David Miller Reducing emissions is just common sense.
2
Company votes with what really makes money for them and what people really wants, not some random promises. We are moving quickly towards electric power cars started with hyrids and now all electric so emission and MPG will be none issue in the future similar to why coal is in decline.
8
Thank you to California on this issue and resist groveling politicians. I also like the EU regulatory agencies who keep the US regulatory agencies and commissions embarrassed, but still not embarrassed enough to actually do anything of significance.
21
I have a Trumpophile friend who used to claim Obama was creating instability in the business community (even as the economy was recovering month-by-month). But nothing has created more instability for the auto industry than Trump’s rollback of mileage standards.
The Obama rules showed that the industry could use its technological prowess to adjust to higher mileage through more efficient four-cylinder engines, as well as better hybrids and EVs. Now, the genius businessman in the White House expects the automakers to throw away the billions they have spent on research and planning. This is why they are aligning with California. Kudos to them for resisting.
113
@LIChef Why would ANY person NOT want better mileage?
And why would any automaker want to sell an inferior product?
5
Great news that everyone should be applauding. This on a day when Paris hits a record high of 108oF.
I think the general public doesn’t understand (and certainly not Republicans) that going forward the global rise in temperatures only gets worse. The number of these very hot days will increase. The increased concentration of atmospheric CO2 from 150 years ago is a present day reality, but its effects on global temperature has been significantly mitigated so far by ocean and terrestrial uptake of this excess. As these systems reach capacity, this will produce a cascade of events that makes temperature rise, sea level rise, droughts, fires, agriculture failures and attendant mass human migration accelerate.
We desperately need to (1) decrease CO2 emissions globally by efforts such as these, (2) shift to renewable, carbon free energy sources for the future and (3) implement on a large scale efforts to recapture the CO2 already there, i.e., reforestation and developing industrial scale carbon capture technologies. The US and China are the largest emitters with the largest economies. Therefore we need to lead the way.
38
Go California!!! Proud of you.
Lead the way for the rest of the US!!!!
42
Glad to see Ford step up and address this issue. Where is GM and Chrysler?
46
@Tom
And where is Toyota, for that matter? Give them and the other manufacturers not yet in the compact three or four months for face-saving reasons and they are likely to adopt the California standard. Maybe they won't make much noise about it, but they know a big market when they see it.
A much simpler approach would be to first estimate the externalities caused by burning a gallon of gasoline and then to impose an offsetting tax at the gas pump to reflect the harm imposed on everyone else. Consumers would have an incentive to purchase the most fuel-efficient automobile that otherwise met their needs and manufacturers would have market demand rather than government fiat to guide what they should produce. Consumers would also have an incentive to consider when they traveled, e.g. during rush hour or off-peak, and by what means, e.g., bundling trips, carpooling, or mass transit.
8
@Earl W. with a resulting tax on those who can least afford the fuel efficient new automobiles? No thanks.
2
. @Earl W. You think it is "simpler" to let automobiles further damage the environment and then make consumers "pay" to clean it up?
Not at all. It is simpler to incentivize manufacturers and consumers alike not to pollute in the first place.
3
Sounds very Libertarian. Like before investing in technology to control carcinogen emissions at its factory, a manufacturer first determines whether it would just be cheaper to compensate all the locals who come down with related cancers.
1
Thank you California for leading the charge. You’re the most patriotic state in the union.
54
Ah yes, the Trump Administration: where up is down, and down is up. In this case Trump and his goon squad, who are still besotted with trying to undo anything-Obama, are pushing dirtier air and more expensive fuel costs on the American people. What is it that these MAGA folks just. Don't. Get??
34
Translation: Big business realize Trump and his admin. are a blimp on this country’s long-term sustainable economic future.
14
Trump should just claim victory. Say it was his astute use of carrot and stick that resulted in the carmakers reaching a deal with California without federal intervention. He can then go back to golf or his "Fox & Friends".
4
Thank God for California. I am grateful every day that I live in this glorious blue state. If I had my way we would be a separate nation, free of the stench of Trump and his rotten meat family.
57
Where is the soft underbelly of the GOP? Is it not among the Christians? Can they not be helped to see the error of their ways as they vote the GOP like it was tattooed on their bottoms at baptism?
It is heart sickening to see how blind at least half the American people are. PoliNews junkies like us suffer. Even among like-minded friends there is ignorance. But what good is knowledge without the money to speak?
Nobody likes to confront people who might seem decent and well behaved. But is this not the best place to drive in the sword of righteousness? I grew up among these folks. They are not leaders (even if they are in positions of leadership). They are born followers, wanting to do the right thing.
I believe an anti-institutional spiritual message can resonate if well presented. Is there not a crisis among the "good old time" believers? Is this not an opportunity?
I don't care what your spiritual path is. But, I am absolutely affected by your "works" - your votes - as are so many others. Politics is where the rubber of your religion hits the road of reality. What is your politics, unpolitical American?
6
Ivanka is pretending she's a policy wonk. She's worse than any of the Kardiashians posting photos of herself pretending she's creating jobs and working for her deranged father. Yet, she remains silent about the environment and other health issues in the US.
17
I'm a fed scientist that works with the auto industry on tech to improve fuel economy.
The 54.5 mpg CAFE was NEVER going to stay in place. It was a pipe dream. It was pulled from someone's nether-regions in the Obama White House. If it had actually gone into effect, Detroit would have had to ration pickups.
Fuel economy will rise, but it won't be driven by CAFE. Tax gasoline $4-6 dollars a gallon, and all those rednecks driving F-350 4x4s with dualies and leather interiors to jobs that in no way involve their truck will very quickly run and buy a small car. You see hints of it every time gas pops through $4 somewhere in the country - SUV sales plummet.
24
The defiant anarchy of the trump cult doesn’t work for automakers. They have their future in mind.
27
Ah, yes, California. So ‘progressive...’
Rats, typhus, homeless, human waste, and filth are rampant on the streets of LA, hepatitis rampant in San Diego, human waste, needles, and homeless all over SF, ad nauseam.
Extraordinary poverty in the Central Valley (visit NE Bakersfield if you dare), millions of illegals, petty crime, illegal dumping and trash everywhere, etc.
It has 12% of the nation’s population but 30% of its welfare load. And it gives Mississippi competition for worst school.
But it just stuck it to Trump.
Woo-hoo! So much ‘progress!’
1
@EGD
What does that have to do with fuel economy??
3
@EGD
And yet not a word about the important issue we are discussing here - just "yea trump!".
2
@EGD a lot of the things you mention are issues in every state, and your "facts" are not correct. Education-wise, CA schools are around 20th place and MS is at or close to the bottom. California invests a lot in welfare but they pay way more in federal taxes than they receive in federal aid. Not sure how they "stuck it" to Trump. They are pursuing a tighter mileage standard to help the environment - how is that sticking it to Trump? Also, your comment has nothing to do with the article.
2
Auto makers see that renewable energy isn’t just a fringe science anymore. Wind and solar power is not expensive anymore. It is cheaper then gas. And batteries are amazing now. GE is closing a gas powered power plant 20 years early in CA because renewables are cheaper. The plant is being converted to battery banks. A place to store all the cheap renewable power until needed. The auto makers see that electric cars is the future.
Years ago I went fishing in Canada. The parking lot at this paper mill had extension cords hanging down to every parking spot. This to plug in your cars engine block warmer so you could start it in below zero weather. I see something like this happening all over CA but to charge up ones car batteries instead.
6
Republicans in Washington, Trump included, are hell-bent on deregulation, especially regarding the environment. They are effectively abdicating any role for the federal government in these standards. It's non unlike reducing the government's role in healthcare by dismantling the Affordable Care Act.
This is a sign that our republic is failing. It will be up to the progressive states, like California, to take the lead on saving the environment and providing for the needs of citizens.
15
California leads the way, again. Like Jerry Brown said last year when asked about the Trump administration’s plans to restrict civilian and corporate access to government launched communication satellites: “Then, we’ll build our own damn satellites”
14
Oil companies are heavily invested in alternative energy. Electric powered vehicles are already less expensive to run than those powered by fossil fuels. The trump cult is not future oriented but again looking backwards.
7
States, like California, are providing the ONLY checks and balances the executive branch has known. Yeah, Golden State.
15
When I visited SoCal and my L.A. office from NYC in the 1970's, we could taste the air in the back of our throats, and there was brown haze on the horizon. That is no longer the case. Hang in there, CA. What you are doing is important for all of us.
25
Why do the automakers care about the standards at all? Why even make a deal with California or any state for that matter. They know the standards set forth by the Obama administration. Why don’t they just meet those standards despite what the current regime dictates? It’s not like Trump is telling them they can’t voluntarily lower their own emissions. Trump is like a comic book villain. He does all sorts of evil stuff for the sake of being evil. But there’s always a way to thwart it.
6
If the US nationalized its fossil fuel industry, upstream and downstream, that would solve the problem. Then, you wouldn't have any impetus for these kinds of idiotic policies that really only benefit oil producers and refiners.
Set production and pricing, revenue could fund anything, no more foreign wars for oil, only losers are owners and shareholders in oil companies, and that's like not too many people when compared to everyone who'd benefit from nationalized energy.
And really, why should anyone own what comes out of the ground? Why don't the bacteria that make it own it? I get that it's an esoteric or even absurd question, but property rights are going to become more and more questionable as generations pass.
3
California calls for other automakers to join with the First Four. I call on American consumers to boycott any carmaker. foreign or domestic, which will not join the compact within six months.
We've had two wonderful Subarus, made here. Our first one's safety features saved my life. They and the others now have an opportunity to help save the planet. America's unions, there and at all automobile manufacturers, should demand the companies they work for join the California compact.
Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic Presidential candidate should all endorse the compact; rescuing the California standards is a practical step toward a Green New Deal.
Question,
7
Maybe North Dakota can leverage its automobile market into forcing auto manufacturers to bow the current White House occupant's enlightened pollution emissions vision.
2
The doctors in China say pink lungs in the Chinese population is rare.
Thank you California.
7
This is a victory for the people
I wake up every day in LA and see dirty polluted air that is slowly killing us.
We should be doing something to fix this. Thank you California.
10
To even understand the regulations and how they effect the auto business is beyond Trump. Undoing anything Obama is his agenda -industry, environment and the law notwithstanding.
4
California: leading the nation when no one else will. Couldn’t be prouder.
14
I feel a sense of hope. I did not expect this feeling to come from the auto industry, but it shows that the winds can turn if we, collectively, decide that we do love our planet.
12
States may well forbid the sale and registration of non complying vehicles within their borders making red state vehicles less marketable in the future as used cars.
6
What is being missed in all the swirl about the GOP and climate change is this: the part of the world not under the thumb of U.S. energy producers believes the science of climate change. Since tariffs are now a viable trade policy tool I expect them to be deeply levied against us in retaliation for our carbon footprint and the almost gleeful way GOP talking heads reject the science. This won’t happen today, but shortly after trump manages to become re-elected.
7
Sanity prevails in at least some sections of the US. Trump's EPA will have the rivers catching fire again.
13
@Jacquie There is no functioning EPA under the Trump Admin. Scientists have been silenced.
2
Europe has a very competitive auto market that is often used by the car companies to try to perfect their cars. Also, yesterday at the Tour de France bicycle race, the high temperature was 40 degrees Celsius with a road temperature of 60 degrees Celsius, or 104 and 140 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively.
The increasing supplies of natural gas in the US via fracking have helped to shift the supply curves of fossil fuels to the right, or outward, resulting in lower prices for past quantities supplied. The steep vertical kink arising from supply constraints as production maxed out, led to vertical sections of the supply curve with very inflexible, or inelastic supplies. In this case, the free market pricing system discounts the total costs of fossil fuels significantly, given the externality, or pollution costs, of fossil fuels.
For a fuller perspective, consider that: the IT sector, with many of its corporate HQs based in California, is a very energy intensive sector. Cloud computing systems with a "hub and spoke" design, are by their nature very energy consuming. Perhaps California can act as a model for successfully integrating diverse energy sources and the efficient application of these sources across industrial sectors.
[07/25/2019 Thursday 11:50 am Greenville NC]
5
This is great news. But at the end, look what a theoretically good guy had to say: “That means more pollution, less savings at the pump and a bad precedent for future standards,” said Daniel Becker
This reminds me of the idiocy on the other side in a past debate where every candidate was asked if they could get 90% of their agenda through but have a small tax increase would they fo it? And they all said no. And this percentage difference is much less than 10%. Get real guys. Claim victory. Brag about it. Don't sulk like the lock-step robots on the other side. With the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere, its very likely that we're all toast already so take what you can get when you can get it. And then build on it. Litmus tests are for the chem lab, not for people.
9
@weniwidiwici I cannot discern from your quote what side you are supporting. How would reducing emissions lead to "more pollution", etc.? Not sure what debate you are talking about or which side. Very convoluted comment.
The oil and gas industry is the most noxious (pun intended) industry on Earth. It has routinely extracted a product at a scant cost in comparison with the markup, all the while making almost immeasurable profits, for the better part of a century. You would think with all the wealth and money it has historically generated, the industry would be the leader in green technology. Instead, it has been the major roadblock toward energy innovation. If the fact that their story doesn’t raise more eyebrows as to how money and greed corrupt, then I don’t know what will. If someone thinks its satellite industry, the auto industry, rebuked President Trump and wasn’t solely thinking about profits first when striking this California deal, then I have some great beachfront property to sell you in my home state listed under my name.
2
Re: passenger vehicles to achieve an average mileage of about 52.5 miles per gallon by 2025
To set passenger car standards is laudable but largely irrelevant
Here are the top 3 selling vehicles, last year , in the US and numbers sold
Ford F-Series 909,330.
Chevrolet Silverado - 585,581.
Dodge Ram - 536,980.
That is where the problem is. NOT passenger cars
The best selling passenger car was at #6, the Toyota Camry of which 343,439 models were sold
To reduce pollution the US needs to get Americans out of their oversize SUVs and Truck - that are NOT covered by passenger car rules.
The best way to do so would be to increase gas prices to EU levels. No administration, including the Obama administration dared to go there
23
@Woof
Two car household, one is 2004 Toyota Celica gets 29 MPG city and 36 HWY. Its been an all around fantastic investment in many ways. Just replaced a Honda 2014 Ridgeline Pickup truck with a 2019 Ridgeline and it gets 30% better mileage than the 2014 same model. 30% MPG improvement in 5 years, not too shabby. You are correct of course re fuel standards, however at least some of the trucks are also improving and with some pressure more can follow.
2
@Woof I don't understand the obsession with big trucks. I live next to a large city. I would say 90% of the big trucks on the roads around here are being driven by white-collar workers. Since these folks are relatively affluent they have no issues driving gas guzzlers. When I talk to them they say they like to "sit high", they dislike being in a little car, etc. I would not buy a truck unless I worked in a field that required it. I could do it, but I think about the gas cost I'm saving with my sedan.
2
"Four of the world’s largest automakers, including the Ford Motor Company, have struck a deal with California to reduce tailpipe pollution, in a blow to the Trump administration"
WOW - let's hear it for these folks!!!! I've never been a Ford fan, but the "batteries" they and their counterparts have just demonstrated has me rethinking my next car purchase.
Thank you from the bottom of my splintered heart for pushing back like this. At Trump's direction, the EPA has reversed so many policies that will only yield negative results for the environment.
Hopefully this bold and courageous action will be the first others to follow. It's a huge relief knowing that these four automakers took action and refuse to kick the gas can down the road.
11
Bravo CA. And bravo these auto makers.
I am confident these targets will be met even earlier. The consumer demand for electric cars will rapidly outstrip demand for petrol vehicles. Here in Germany the wait for long range electric vehicles is one year. The people will bring about the change and trump and ignorant cartel should be indicted for crimes against the planet.
5
Trump policy only guided by his base preference. Keep things the way they were, turn blind eye to any technological innovation to mitigate known & future problems. Living in the past. Great album, lousy way to run anything.
2
The auto makers could make their cars more environmentally friendly all by themselves..unless Donald Trump wants to make it illegal to make such a car.
1
Smart marketing move by the auto companies. I can just see all my liberal friends here in Los Angeles salivating at this news as justification now to rush out and buy more new cars just to reward the auto manufacturers for dissing Trump and their way to spit in his eye. Never mind all the more cars on the already overcrowded roads here already, just as long as they think they’re all going green.
2
@AACNY, I know and I feel bad for them sometimes because they’re often so worried about doing what’s “right” that they forget about what makes sense and what actually works; that invariably leaves the frustration of it not naturally then always the fault of conservatives, where then the divide only grows and real solutions almost impossible to achieve. Immigration is an obvious example.
@John Doe
Progressives are easily led. Just confirm their views, and they are eating out of your hand.
3
Good for these companies putting the ecology before economy! Let's face it, when it come to Trump if isn't about feeding his greed, it's about feeding his petty retaliation mentality against those he thinks wronged him in some way or another..
4
As a CA resident, this is great news. Thank God that not all big businesses agree with Trump's mission to dismantle everything Obama did.
7
So, in Trump’s imaginary world, the primacy of States’ Rights do not exist.
Keep it up Republicans.
5
Hooray for California! God bless the citizens of that great state (where I lived in my college years, and visit only occasionally these days). And thank God for Ford, Honda, VW of America and BMW of North America - you are proving that you can and will do your best to preserve what's left of President Obama's plan to keep our planet from ignorant destruction. Trump? I won't say what I really think.
3
I salute both the state of California and the car makers for this agreement. Since we are burdened with an inept and totally ignorant president who apparently enjoys dismantling the policies of his predecessor, well, because they are the policies of his predecessor, then it’s time for states and cities to mightily resist. Though Global Warming cannot be reversed, it can be mitigated. Since the EPA, directed by the WH, is intentionally putting the health of the nation at risk, we must trust that entities like California and the car makers assume the moral responsibility of protecting us and the overheated planet.
4
Will I be allowed to buy a California car or will that be against the law?
1
Since the USA only produces about 13% of the world's CO2, what we do here hardly matters. HOWEVER WHAT IS WRONG WITH SAVING ENERGY! I think global warming is a LEFT WING SCAM but I drive a Prius! My next car will be a Camry hybrid (+50 mpg). More CO2 is great for food crops anyhow.
2
Now the so-called president will need to find another way to show his disdain and ignorance for the world we live in.
Maybe he’ll add more plastic straws to the oceans or allow poisons in the water supplies. Anything is possible when Evil is in charge.
5
It's 108 degrees in Paris.
Of course this is the right thing to do. That any one can even question that our planet is heating up is absurd. trump, of course, leads the charge of the absurdists.
10
People remember what it was like in Southern California in the 60's, and 70's. You could't see the San Gabriel Mountains
because of the smog and then the health problems associated
with it.
19
California is simply a state using its buying power to influence a very sizable and influential industry with lots of inputs, suppliers, and supply chain considerations. If Trump/Republicans would like to mitigate this type of state influence, perhaps they can try mitigating a smaller state's influence on a smaller industry first. Might I suggest mitigating Texas' influence on the textbook industry first, so that we can see what the consequences are of that action before disrupting a much more complicated industry.
10
While the several states making the effort to go on their own in plans to reduce tail pipe emissions is applaudable, let's face it: it's too little, too late.
What we desperately need is for the Congress to immediately begin augmentation of stringent laws and regulations to put into place a nation-wide system of re-charging stations to replace obsolete "gas stations". It should be done as if we, as a nation, are in a crisis--because we are.
What we must have mandated by the federal government are the necessary appropriations (perhaps taking from the overbloated defense budget?) to help all auto makers in the U.S. convert their offerings to a few snappy models of all-electric cars--some already on line and ready to go.
It's more than obvious that drastic national climate change measures are way behind in time--they should've been implemented some forty years ago!
Concurrent with the need for all these ideas to be put into place is the political will on the part of Congress to divorce itself completely from the oil and coal industries and the money paid by them to keep now dangerous policies in place.
5
Would this breaking news have happened if California had not had strong environmental laws and rules?
Years ago, my husband was trying to decide between buying 2 hoses for the garden. The hardware store owner helped him by saying, "This hose is approved for use in California, but the other one is not; the first hose meets California's strict environmental standards." Much better, we bought that hose even thought it was more expensive.
I also read that the oil drilling companies abide by Norway's stricter environmental standards when they drill in that country, but elsewhere where pollute as they please.
My point: We have been duped and intimidated by all the right-wing ideological self-serving nonsense, such as trickle-down economics and deregulation being necessary in order for Americans to have jobs.
In simple terms, this is win-lose scenario in that in order for business to win, the environment must lose (and people and living things pay the price in health and safety for decades to come).
Out here in right-wing Utah, some local governments are moving toward renewable energy, simply because it is increasingly less expensive. Plus, since we have terrible air quality at times, this would benefit our environment too.
This is a win-win scenario in that both business (renewable is much a faster growing industry than fossil fuels) and the environment/people/the planet win.
Don't listen to Trump; he has no idea what he is doing, and what he does is generally wrong.
34
In the 70's and 80's the Detroit "Big 3" had to be dragged kicking and screaming into any level of pollution control while the Japanese just buckled down and complied. How did that "thrifty" strategy, coupled with abysmal quality control and obsolete technology work for you, Detroit? At least Ford seems to have gotten the message.
11
The auto makers adherence to Obama's reduction of planet warming emission isn't as much of a rejection of Trump's attempt to repeal it is a financial commitment made by them years ago. To let all that R & D go to waste isn't feasible. They also realize that after the Trump era it's very likely that more emphasis will be placed on environmental issues and they'd have to pick back up where they left off. It only makes sense to continue on down the road they're all ready on. They could care less about California or Trump.
15
Our Ford Bolt is fully electric, uses no gas, has no emissions. We charge it at home using solar power. Range is 240 miles.
34
@MKC, I believe the Bolt is GM product. But congratulations on enjoying your electric car!
4
@MKC
Pretty sure that's a Chevy.
1
Makes me proud to be a resident of California.
Other states might choke it down or just go along with Trump administration trying to pull us back decades in terms of clean environmental initiatives.. but California does not and will not and other states have joined California in fighting back on this very retrograde attempt by Trump and company.
76
@Chuck Indeed. I read about so many great initiatives coming out of CA, and from Jerry Brown. Now there's someone I'd love to see run for President!
2
Finally, a bit of good news today. Congratulations to those 4 auto companies, but what about the rest of them?
I currently drive a Volvo. According to it's trip computer, I have averaged 32.2 mpg for the 14,000 miles I've put on it. Not bad, but not good enough. I'm considering a Honda Clarity for my next car. It's batteries deliver 47 miles on a charge, before it even drinks a drop of gas. If only all-electric cars like the Tesla could deliver more mileage per charge and cost less, I would buy one of them. I certainly hope that one day that's true of electric cars
16
"...the Trump administration...prepares to roll back national vehicle pollution standards..."
To do such a thing requires that you reject overwhelming, scientifically validated evidence of human caused climate disruption and its obvious consequences. What is it with people who continue to support a president? Surely, they must not have children of their own or do not care about future generations. That's a pretty ominous sign for the future of our species.
60
@A Goldstein and that in a nutshell is the M.O. Of trump and the republican party. Evidence, we don't need no stinkin evidence!
2
@A Goldstein Beyond climate change denial, you ALSO have to be happy with just generally spewing maximum pollutants into the air people breathe. I mean, what the [redacted]?
1
Wow - this is an amazing piece of good news. Much needed after the past two weeks and what seems like an inevitable 5.5 more years of the current administration. It is strong leadership from California which can make sure we don't fall too far behind the rest of the world in tech and our response to climate change.
32
Save us the fatalism and volunteer to get out the vote in 2020 so we don’t leave our children’s future to fester in the hands of a monster. The entire GOP needs to be resoundingly defeated down the ticket.
2
It’s a wise decision and welcome step in the positive direction. Pollution reducing measures should always be welcome no matter where it happens.
America is blessed with huge land and plenty of greenery everywhere. Being Indian I envy a lot. Right now I am residing in Ann Arbor, MI as tourist for the past one month and thoroughly enjoying fresh air and greenery every moment. I wish to continue doing the same till I return by September end. This is what we are missing badly in many parts of India. Unfortunately I find very few people walking on the sidewalks either in the morning or evening that includes senior citizens even.
15
@Sivaram Pochiraju Here, in NYC, we walk everywhere.
1
@JW Indeed. Which is why we, the 'walkers', need to start showing the car-owners in our midst, who's really boss. When did we become so inured to the fact that at every street crossing we run a very real risk of being hit by someone's 2-ton Personal Possession? Even when everyone is obeying all traffic laws, pedestrians and cyclists can still be maimed/killed by drivers who simply 'didn't see' us as they were making a turn onto the street we were crossing. Far too many cars double-park with the DoT/police looking the other way. Cars habitually 'idle' in Bike Lanes. I've been on numerous MTA buses where a car was Idling In The Bus Stop, the driver feigned ignorance, and the bus driver simply accepted it as just another day on the job. The bus had to unload/accept passengers from the middle of the street, all due to self-centered drivers and ineffective/ apathetic/ulterior motive$(?) DoT and police. Are we going to have to wait for more of the 'right' pedestrians/cyclists to be killed, before we see real changes enacted?
1
This is smart because when I purchase a car I will look for those that get top gas mileage. I guess many others will too.
15
I drive a 2017 VW Golf TSI. It has a 1.8 turbocharged 4 cylinder motor that gets 33-40 mpg in almost all conditions. 170hp/199lb-ft. It's as fast a vehicle anyone needs, and holds 4 avg sized adults without issue. It's the perfect car for 90% of all driving situations. Imagine the environmental (and financial) impact if we all drove cars that got 35mpg instead of gas guzzling SUVs..
22
@Midwest Josh
Totally agree. Hummers & SUVs are obscene even in snowcities.
I drove a 1993 Miata which I bought w 97000 miles on her in 2001. She got 27-30 mpg throughout her lifetime when I gave her up w/ 200,000 mis. I commuted(!) in Chicago for 3 winters! If you know how to drive--it's a great winter car!
My 2016 Mazda 3 Hatchback is averaging 35-40 and I love it! I don't understand why anyone would buy anything that got less than 35 either.
10
@Midwest Josh The Golf TSI sounds great. Many cars get good mpg that's available right now. I drive a Honda Accord hybrid and get 45–50 mpg. The car goes 710 miles on a single tank (15.8 Gallons) of regular fuel. The positive impact of high mileage is here now in California and it's wonderful that car companies themselves are sticking with the CA mpg requirements.
4
@Midwest Josh My RAV4 hybrid 2018 gets 33mpg and I get a lot of DC traffic jams. The newer one approaches 40mpg and better.
1
The way we can support this effort is to buy cars exclusively from the alliance that is supporting this plan. Vote with your wallet! That's the only thing that companies and politicians listen to these days.
101
I bless every day I live in the magnificent Golden State.
201
@Phillip Usher
Me too, Philip!
#IloveCalifornia
3
What is stopping the automakers to just meet the California standards? In meeting those standards, the automakers will automatically meet the much lower Trump standards. Why are they worried that it would create two different types of vehicle classes with different standards?
24
@H. Malik
Wanting to produce vehicles under only one standard is exactly why automakers are working in good faith with California.
Under the proposed federal rule relaxations... any vehicle produced under the new Trump Admin standards would be illegal to sell or purchase in California and a good number of other states.
Trumps move here is a disaster... and automakers know it and will not conform to it.
8
@H. Because the marketplace still likes big vehicles that use more gas. If your competitors are selling mostly SUVs and pickup trucks everywhere but California, you can't compete by selling efficient hatchbacks. However, if enough of the industry agrees to play by the same rules, you've got a shot.
That photo! Cudos to Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg.
9
@jim I love the shoot as well. If Its the composition and the subject that moves you I wholeheartedly recommend you look up a photographer by the name of Guillaume Zuili. His depiction of LA is worth the effort.
@jim
They've changed the photo accompanying the article. The one posted now (4:46pm) is not the one I was commenting on.