Trump is not:
a conservative,
a liberal,
a democrat,
a republican,
a supporter of Civil Rights,
a believer in the spirit of the Constitution,
a man of dignity
a man of respect,
a role model for our kids,
a man with a Christian ethic,
a man with manners,
a man who is honest,
a uniter of people,
a man who leads by example.
In other words, Trump is unfit to lead or govern the people of these 50 states, including California. He is Trump, a con man supreme, a divider supreme.
35
What happened to states' rights? Does those only apply to conservative issues?
21
Fortunately the real business minds in our largest car manufacturing companies understand that fuel-efficiency and low-cost labor & materials all contribute to a lower-priced vehicle for the average consumer.
Easing the pollution standards will only lead to less competitive product designs that ultimately would fare worse in the global marketplace. So if any American car manufacturer wants to remain competitive around the world, they will need to stay the course and continue to compete with other car markers on efficiency, design, performance and reliability.
If folks need to save money like me (I live on the coast but drive a 17 year old car with 175,000 miles) then don't go out and buy a new car at all. Just keep fixing the one you have.
38
Ten other states have followed California's lead on standards for fuel economy and emissions. Those standards work.
I lived most of my life in Southern California, starting 74 years ago. Over the past few decades, we have seen oil refiners in the Golden State shut down those refineries for "maintenance." Thus, gasoline supplies are reduced with pump prices rising. Then, when those supplies resume, the pump prices remain high.
But higher prices for gasoline formulations have been the tradeoff for Californians to clean the air of smog. So a tank of gas costs more than most states. But breathing easier has been worth it.
This all about the oil companies gaming the people of California to satisfy their corporate greed. That is how those oil companies keep Californians hostage.
Then there are the carmakers who've developed cars specifically for the California market.
I would suggest, if carmakers want to build "one size fits all" cars and trucks, let them build the California model for all 50 states and for export. Oil companies should adjust their refineries to produce the lower-pollution gasoline for a 50 state market.
California is not the problem. The other states who accept higher-polluting fuels and vehicles are the problem. Until electric vehicles take over the market, national standards for vehicles and fuels should accept the California model.
We'll all be breathing easier.
31
@David Ohman
"build the California model for all 50 states" that is what they do.
7
States-righters (or conservatives for short) are rolling in their graves.
Trump now violates the Republican's sacrosanct position that states should be allowed to control their own affairs, i.e. drugs, abortion and anything else they like or don't.
Democrats must be cackling with glee as Trump tramples another conservative principle while his cowed cohort sit mutely by.
With this move the Republican party is dead in substance if not in PAC, pun intended.
10
Trump the Chump is leading the economy deeper into
the swamp he told people he was going to drain.
Ask those who have been effected by the series of storms and
hurricanes these past several years. Clearly a wake up call!
Surely there is no climate change!
Has big coal come back? Ask those who bought his package
if they have jobs?
How much money did he save us the in his tax break?
Who benefited? He and his cronies of grifters.
Now he wants to poison the air, pollute the water, and
send our soldiers at the beacon call of the Saudi government.
How, much will we put up with?
11
The USA is not going to sell many cars to the rest of the world if they are a throw back to the polluting fifties.
13
There will be an auto plant located just to serve Trump's voters. Big exhaust pipes spewing black clouds while safely driving through those corn fields with music blaring and bacon, eggs, pancakes and coffee with three sugars every morning.
Keep America fat and coughing. And don't forget your guns.
Sorry, this is all becoming too much. November 2020 can't come soon enough. And that state that I called Trump's voters? I hope that's just a rant and that it actually doesn't exist.
9
Electric cars that are properly designed and built are the safest cars in the world. Since they do not have an internal combustion engine taking up most of the space in front of the passengers this space becomes a crumble zone. The crumble zone spreads the loss of momentum over a greater period of time which reduces the impulse. It is the rapid loss of momentum [high impulse] that tears and damages human organs. Also electric cars are much heavier than most people realize because batteries are heavy. This has advantages and disadvantages but can be helpful in a head on collision with another vehicle. Tesla's EV's are all 5 star rated by the NHTSA and actually have some of the best crash test results recorded. Unfortunately I doubt Trump understands any of this. He simply wants Americans to burn more gasoline to help his buddies in the fossil fuel industry.
20
When I first moved to California, I could see the air in the LA area. When we drove toward Northern Cal, you could also see the air getting visibly cleaner. I do not want to go back to those old days of visible brown air. I am older now and my body can't fight off environmental toxins like it once could. This administration has claimed that it is a big states' rights proponent. So it needs to get out of California's business or admit it's all a political game where the health of Californians will be the loser.
15
When I first moved to California, I could see the air in the LA area. When we drove toward Northern Cal, you could also see the air getting visibly cleaner. I do not want to go back to those old days of visible brown air. I am older now and my body can't fight off environmental toxins like it once could. This administration has claimed that it is a big states' rights proponent. So it needs to get out of California's business or admit it's all a political game where the health of Californians will be the loser.
2
Sadly, anything that comes out of Trump's mouth, I cannot trust and need to verify.
The short list of his attacks on truth and decency is long for this guy.
--12,000 lies and misstatements documented by the Washington Post since taking office
--running from service to his country by dodging the draft
--charged by DOJ multiple times for racism in his NY apts
--cheating on his wives
--telling the American people your SAFE from North Korea's nuclear threat.
Don't tell California how to keep its citizens safe from autos while you continue to pollute this country's dialog and decency.
10
About 15 years ago we went on a vacation in Flagstaff Arizona, from Southern California. It was early morning in downtown Flagstaff, just north in the residential section. I was about to cross the street but waited for One truck to go by. It was the only moving car in sight. As the truck went by there was a cloud of invisible tailpipe odor behind it. That was the day that I realized the difference between California emissions standards and non-California emissions standards.
And no, there is no difference in performance of the cars that matters to driveability.
Are we supposed to go back to the polluted air of pre-1970s? We are polluting this planet in so many other ways, what is the “inconvenience” of having these standards?
But if these standards were Iowa emissions standards they would not be a problem because we all know what this is really about for Herr Trump.
9
If California is prevented from having stricter environmental rules, then Georgia, Alabama, etc. should be prevented from having stricter abortion rules.
27
We can vote on this at the car dealer. My next car will be a hybrid. I'd go all electric but when the power goes out y'all are going to be stuck in your driveways.
5
If the stakes weren’t so high and serious, this would make a good comedy routine. The Koch-libertarians have never met a regulation they could defend. And their argument for a regulatory scheme with opt-outs (‘our only chance to defeat politicians we can’t elect’) destroys the meaning of the word ‘regulation’! For the Koch-libertarians, Government (and its regulations) are simply a convenience that should be governed by choice, in the name of a ‘freedom’ that cannot exist in a modern society with no frontier and all property (land) is under claim. That makes Koch-libertarianism an anachronism at best, and a utopian fantasy at worst.
The reality, of course, is that Government is a fundamentally necessary attribute of a modern civilization of property-owners, built by and for human communities, and mediated by public institutions designed to synthesize a consensus from the varied interests of those communities, with a minimum of violence.
The insistence on an authority that is so limited as to make the very word meaningless for those interests that are common to all communities within a polity, is not just wrong-headed, selfish, and nihilistic on the merits, but risks being seen as a stalking horse for foreign enemies that are less interested in the finer points of political philosophy than they are in the destruction of a consensus-driven democratic world order.
6
This should not surprise. Take a look around next time you are on the road in SoCal. You can barely see the Teslas with all the giant SUVs crowding them out. Yes, people will buy more gas.
1
Wrong on so many levels
- It is counter to what the GOP stood for before it turned into a DJT cult (states rights)
- Car technology is in international business, a competitive American car industry needs to be able to build cars that meet Californian standards
- Every rule this administration removes by treating climate change as a matter of personal belief also removes PROTECTION for American people (air quality, clean water, clean food) - why is that no talking point for the Democratic party ???
Vote every Republican out of every office anywhere in America ...
13
Incentives to remove older cars from the road would be effective in reducing emissions. Hard to accomplish that without some side effects though. Obama's cash for clunkers had a positive effect in removing older autos, but a "negative" effect in raising the cost of used cars. Buying a new car generally cost more than keeping or buying an older car.
57 MPG average by 2025 is not feasible without a significant, and unlikely, change in buying habits. Americans buy pick up trucks and SUVs.
In any case you cannot predict with certainty what the effect of eliminating the California standard would be. Cars, and trucks, will continue to get more efficient.
There are other options to reduce fuel use. Reducing traffic congestion through smart traffic lights, HOV lanes, and, eventually, autonomous vehicles that can communicate with each other and act as one.
Good overview of CAFE here.
https://reason.org/e-brief/cafe-standards-in-plain-english/
1
@Daphne
Changing human behavior is hard. Political will is harder. But as I posted earlier, the solution is not to end California's fuel standards. They had to clean the air of smog and those fuel standards have worked.
Thus the real solution, until the country accepts electric vehicles as the new standard, is to expand the California model to all 50 states.
Resistance to such a solution is coming mostly from the oil companies who want to increase profits before the electric vehicles take over.
6
I will not buy another new vehicle which does not comply with rational and responsible emission standards. If a significant number of vehicle buyers would take the stand I predict that automakers would provide you with that option. No one can force you to buy a polluting Trump machine, at least not yet.
Perhaps then we could go back to being a country where individuals make decisions for themselves and not be dictated to by two bit politicians driven only by greed.
17
Most consumers support more efficient gas mileage and more efficient cars so why is Trump out to hurt the consumer/taxpayer? Because he only sees us as stupid people who have to pay taxes and have very little power unless we start demanding that the Congress - the legislative branch of our government - stand up for the people and do their job. We must elect men and women to Congress who understand what the role of Congress is and then do it as opposed to being dictated to by the fool in the WH.
16
The tenth amendment rules here. So whatever Trump does is unconstitutional and an impeachable offence.
The tenth is what the right always used so now the reverse is happening.
10
Every decision Trump makes favors the oil industry. It doesn’t matter if it’s foreign or domestic issues, the deciding factor is always “what burns more oil”. And his backers love it.
I want to propose a different path. Put science aside for now. If we continue to try and use the ballot box to fix this, both sides will spend mountains of money creating creepy threatening advertisements showing how wrong the other side is. It doesn’t matter who’s right and who’s lying, this process will take forever. Look, the market capitalization of Exxon is $308B probably going lower as new green technology come available. Let’s just use that advertising money instead to just buy them out, and shut them down. They have to know that their business model is doomed, so they might be willing to walk away now with a little cash right now. Then we can finally be green.
4
On a trip to Costa Rica I noticed that nearly all the cars on the road were releasing visible exhaust into the air. Like it was the 1950's in America. Why? Maybe the automakes omitted Catalytic Converters from their Costa Rica bound vehicles? Maybe it's because they COULD.
4
@Liam Ryan
Maybe the cars are old and not well maintained. You can not "see" the effect of a catalytic converter. Visible (smelly) exhaust from a gasoline engine comes from 1) burning oil 2) fuel mixture is too rich 3) (Rarer and white) coolant leaking into the cylinders. Perhaps the cars were diesel. Very common outside of the US.
2
Following the article "Greta Thunberg, on Tour in America, Offers an Unvarnished View", there's a tagline that suggests 'Read more about Greta and youth climate activists'. -- Given Ms. Thunberg's prominence, and despite her young age, should she be referred to solely by her her first name? Does that come off as somewhat patronizing?
5
How interesting, and how philosophically inconsistent, that Trump is perfectly willing to allow this state or that to promulgate anti-abortion and voting measures that are stricter than the federal government’s, while not allowing clean air regulations that are also more restrictive.
What? You wanted principled consistency from a petty, unprincipled, TanTrump-throwing excuse for a president?
21
Where are all the spineless Republican Senators and Congressmen moaning on about "State Rights"?
Typical GOP hypocrisy... the lack of principles and regard for anything greater than party power is abject, glaring, and is carving out any substance the GOP once had.
18
@GR. With the advent of Herr Trump on the political stage, the GOP has become a party that is more fearful of losing their seats by upsetting Herr Trump's base than doing their job. They no longer represent "conservative America" they only represent themselves.
8
On the issue of climate change, Trump has as much insight and intelligence as the dinosaurs had about their demise. Anyone who does not believe in the human hand in climate change should at least acknowledge the dramatic changes in global climate. And then, How do you explain the massive increase in carbon dioxide and the acidification of the oceans and the known consequences of those changes? If humans are not the cause, then there is nothing humans can do to change a climate that will kill off the human race. We might as well build a wall to hold off the third worlders, drop all efforts to keep a clean environment, and spend all our wealth, borrow from the future so we can party like there is no tomorrow . . . Because there will be no tomorrow in Trumpland. And that is Trump’s reality. Barron Trump has no future.
12
So glad someone with wisdom and courage has the where-with-all to set California straight. Thank you Mr. President.
2
What exactly is the wisdom and courage he's displaying? More fuel efficient vehicles is a positive. Cars that spew less emissions is a good thing. Cars are safer now than at any other time. So what exactly is wise and courageous? Seems more like shortsighted and vindictive and a solution to a problem that no one asked for.
33
@John. Trump doesn't have a whit of wisdom and even less courage...he only breathes to destroy.
25
@Sharon
"Set California straight" ?
States have the right to make their own laws. Period. No one in any other state is required to buy a car that meets California standards. Can't find one in your town that doesn't? Complain to the car companies. They are the ones building the cars. If California passed a law allowing only yellow cars to be sold in the state, then so be it. None of the Fed's business. And if then everyone in Ohio has to buy yellow cars, tough luck. Sounds like a huge business opportunity for any company that sells other colors, huh?
Free market, baby. Donny boy should know.
19
California doesn’t have to take the cars into the state - and we won’t buy ‘em.
5
Does Trump think American consumers want to return to the days of gas guzzlers? People want cars that are fuel efficient, that have lower emissions. No one wants to pay MORE at the gas pump.
16
Trump defends plan to make the US more dependent on Saudi oil. Given the last week, that looks pretty weak. What do the Saudi's have on him? Did Putin sell them a tape?
13
We need to meet unprecedented with unprecedented:
California must refuse to follow such orders, counter-sue, or outright defy the administration. Push it to the brink - like begin talking Calexit.
Trump breaks one norm after another, it's time for some responses to his outrages to be norm-breaking, up to and including possibly illegal. Enough is enough. He has to be stood up to and opposed in serious terms - if they are norm-breaking, so be it. He started it.
20
If Trump says that states can't be more restrictive than the federal government, shouldn't this also apply to all the states placing increasingly more restrictions on abortion beyond what the Supreme Court stated? Hypocrisy.
28
I hope he brings back incandescent light bulbs too
2
The president poo-poos a largely Republican platform started by Ronald Reagan when he was Governor of CA and instead promises cheaper and safer cars.....but there is no PLANet B.
What we need is more transportation that is safer for Planet Earth.
8
This statement in the article struck me as more "Trump propaganda" or opinion vs. reporting - "That outcome could split the United States auto market, with some states adhering to stricter pollution standards than others. For automakers, that would be a nightmare."
Seriously?? Automakers have been building and selling cars successfully to fit multiple auto markets for years. California has been a market for decades, various countries have specific car requirements (e.g., cars with right-hand drive, emissions). Have you bought a car lately? Automakers don't make "one kind of car for everyone" - they make many types of cars with a wide variety of options. I'm sure their supply chains and assembly plants can handle this without it being a "nightmare!"
13
Unlike the President, automakers must deal with what future markets are going to demand in order to stay competitive. I doubt their bosses are sitting around the boardrooms saying, "You know what? I think we should build vehicles that get last century's mileage."
It's called average fuel economy. There are still going to be gas guzzlers to buy for those who choose to, zero emissions vehicles (probably boatloads of those) and vehicles in-between that range. The next thing this president will probably propose will be that we circle up the wagons against nuclear attack.
6
Same old story for States' Rights. The Republicans are always for it when it benefits their agenda, but are predictably silent when it's used as it was intended. Gore vrs. Bush was also a States' Rights decision (by Florida Supreme Court) but again, Republicans whined about it to the federal level.
But the bigger issue is the dictatorial tendencies coming from a President who has clearly-diminished mental faculties to serve the public good. Impeachment has never needed the justification as much as it is needed right now.
16
"Adam Brandon, the president of FreedomWorks, a libertarian offshoot of a group co-founded by the late David H. Koch and his brother Charles Koch, who made their fortune in fossil fuels."
At its core this is about selling more fossil fuels and making profits for big republicon donors. Anyone who has read the recent book "Kochland" will understand that, despite his original opposition to trump, Charles Koch is getting almost everything he wants from this administration.
14
Trump is suing auto manufacturers to force them to make cars that pollute more and burn more gas. Unbelievable.
23
Trump"s defense: I couldn't think of anything stupider to do this morning. But give me a chance. It's only Wednesday.
20
How do you "defend" FASCISM? This throws the TENTH AMENDMENT (states' rights) right out the window!
7
Trump winning = the Planet losing.
7
There's only one group of people who will benefit from the Trump administration's anti-environmental, anti-business, anti-consumer, power play: attorneys. The taxpayers will foot the bill, so I should have added anti-taxpayer, too.
3
It would seem CA can simply add huge carbon tax on any car that does not meet the 51 mpg by 2026. Thereby achieving the same result (i.e. compliance to CA standards) without having to regulate tailpipe emission. Even if Trump admin takes away California's ability to set emission standards, it sure can't take away the right to tax.
24
There is a direct correlation between decreased air quality and deaths, so will the Supreme Court support killing Americans?
17
The goal is "vehicles that achieve an average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025".
How many - and which ones - achieve this goal already?
Tesla, Prius, Audi e-tron, Chevy Bolt....? It seems like a very achievable goal, for the type of cars most of us need. tRUMP makes no sense.
9
Scientist,
My Ford Fusion hybrid gets well over 50 MPG if you keep your foot out of it. And it cost a lot less than a Prius.
4
If I. Remember correctly to was Jimmy Carter who pointed out the dependence on foreign oil is a national security issue. How far we have come.
8
@LCat - Carter was right about that, of course, but right now it's Drill baby drill and we are a net exporter of oil. That seems short-sighted to me; shouldn't we be using up foreign oil first? Exporting oil isn't like exporting soybeans; we can't just grow new oil every year the way we can with beans.
7
@Davy_G I have been saying that for decades. If oil is in short supply and other countries sell it at reasonable prices, let's use theirs up first and make ours more valuable. But there is no future in America any more. Just let's
get it all now, tomorrow might never come.
5
I had mostly succeeded in blocking out Trump insanity in recent months, with a corresponding uptick in my mental health; but the horror snuck back in today through Gavin Newsom's speech about how absurdly retrograde Trump's proposal is. I broke down and cried on the spot as the full scale of Trump's destruction hit me again. I almost threw up.
His term in office feels like a civil war on American ideals, with the latest target being California and everything it represents. This state has many flaws, but its massively successful economy, the fifth or sixth largest in the world, is often driven by ideals of optimism, progress, culture, and expansive human values.
Trump wants to destroy those fine ideals because he will never understand or possess them, since they can not be bought and paid for in an artful deal. Consciously or not, that emptiness in his life tortures him daily, so he lashes out to torture the rest of the world.
Wherever there is decency, he will aim his wrath.
28
There have been two recent studies linking air pollution and Alzheimer's. Allowing our air to become more polluted is just going to increase our state's medical costs as caring for Alzheimer's patients is expensive.
7
One word:
Science
11
@John B
Another word: VOTE!
17
How in the world is a more polluting car safer? How are cars that give you fewer miles per gallon cheaper for people? States are allowed to set standards more restrictive than federal ones, just not less.
16
@RBSF : Yes, and unless the Trump administration has already corrupted our system beyond recognition, the courts will rule for California. At best, though, we the taxpayers will have to pay for senseless litigation.
5
Trump, and his admin, wear their contempt for, and ignorance about, environmental policies on their chests like medals. VILE
16
NOW I agree with impeachment. Endanger the whole world and our children's future for a petulant spit-ball fight? Really this very ill person should be evaluated and treated psychiatrically, NOT given power over Everyperson's lives and the earth's future. So pathetic we have to fight for a normal leader.
27
Is there no end to which this deranged and dangerous man will go in his bizarre and harmful quest to undo his predecessor’s (and the world’s) hard won progress on climate, while (in his mind) “sticking it” to a (blue) state that offends his fragile, little-boy ego? Apparently so, since now he’s racing to get a decision before his newly stacked Supreme Court before time runs out on his term—a move that proveides a window into into a vindictive, embittered agenda.
19
So the King has decreed. I guess that means States Rights only applies to the South.
Political vindictiveness at its most heinous pinnacle ...
19
This plan originated in California but was adopted by many populous states who saw benefits in the plan with similar ozone and air pollution problems. Now Trump drags millions into what is the lowest common denominator of air quality and efficiency.. Any auto manufactures should realize this will be overturned as soon as Trump and his patrons in the oil industry are out. Then we shall look into the undo influence of the Oil lobby in GOP politics.
I guess the lowest common denominator is all American deserve anything more cost Trump patrons money. If this terrible policy continues American Autos will be technical jokes. Companies in constant need of government bailouts.
So it is the Oil Lobby verses what is best for Americans. Under Trump the Oil Lobby won round 1.
9
@GUANNA. The oil lobby has already won several victories with Trump allowing more pollution from various phases of production and more drilling in sensitive areas.
4
I do not understand how the President can unilaterally revoke a statue passed by the US Congress and signed into law by a previous President.
My understanding of the Constitution is that the only methods by which the statute can be overturned are a new statute passed by the Congress and signed into law, or a declaration by the Supreme Court that the previous statute is unconstitutional. The President has no authority whatsoever to strip out provisions in the statute.
6
@rlschles. Presidents have been changing policies by executive order for many years, often using vague portions of laws ("state plans to do X must be approved by agency Y). In this case, California has been involved in setting stricter pollution laws for years. The Administration is also suing four auto companies for "colluding with California." Trump is losing his mind; this will be tied up in the courts for years.
5
“The California emissions regulations would impact Americans in other states who have no ability to vote those state legislators out of office,” said Adam Brandon, the president of FreedomWorks, a libertarian offshoot of a group co-founded by the late David H. Koch and his brother Charles Koch, who made their fortune in fossil fuels. “It is regulation without representation at its worst.” Doesn’t this quote work both ways? I have no say in those states that pollute the air heavily, poison the waters with heavy fertilizer runoff, or allow people to build homes along the coasts and in flood plains that are damaged or destroyed by storms. I guess this is selective libertarian thought and please, whatever you do, don’t confuse me with the facts or reality.
14
@EAS. California isn't forcing its policies on other states. It has had its own environmental standards for years. Other states have not been forced to adopt them.
2
A petty move by a petty man.
19
Next up, the reurn of leaded gasoline.
19
Republicans are hypocrites! As they cower behind the "State's Rights" premise for most of their agenda, their minions using that tired rationale for their anti-human, anti-nature, anti-will of the people regime at the state level where Republicans stranglehold the democratic process, here they are telling California that they don't have the same state sovereignty, why? Because they traditionally vote Democrat. I should know, I live in a theocracy where white men tell the members of "the church" that they have prayed and thus have decided to either take away people's constitutional rights or grant them.
17
"The formal abolishment of one of California’s signature environmental policies. ..."
Surely you mean "abolition." It's the correct word, and the historical echoes are undeniable.
3
Trump is lying -- allowing cars to pollute more doesn't make them safer or cheaper nor does it help the environment. Just more lies from the nut in the WH obsessed with the thought that President Barack Obama is a better and smarter human being and a more beloved and successful president than the lump from Queens.
39
“The Trump administration is revoking California’s Federal Waiver on emissions in order to produce far less expensive cars for the consumer, while at the same time making the cars substantially SAFER,” .... "the change would lead to increased auto production and ... newer cars would be extremely environmentally friendly.”
Goebbels couldn't have expressed it any better.
13
@bl. And the international market won't want American cars if Trump succeeds on this. The Administration will try to weaken environmental protections everywhere.
3
Trump’s anti environmental policies are virtually criminal. I wish he could be tried by the World Court for his unbelievably ignorant stance on the environment.
26
Yet again our President leads the race to the absolute bottom. Now against all expert advice to the contrary, Trump alone claims to know better than everyone. This is a petty, vindictive man who simply wants to punish the State of California. He is absolute disgrace to this country.
20
Let Trump breathe smoggy air and drink dirty water. Not us.
13
Trump’s defense: California is blue; But Obama.
8
This Supreme Court could rule that congress cannot combat climate change through any provision of the constitution. The constitution would thus need to be amended to give the government the legal authority to combat climate change. Given the way the constitution is amended, perhaps 25% of the country, well placed geographically, could block this change to the constitution. Given the level of gerrymandering, it might take 90% of the population supporting this to make it happen.
The US was nice while it lasted but like just about every other human endeavor, greed and stupidity of a committed minority will destroy the best efforts of those adhering to the better angels of our nature.
8
@Djt We already have laws on the books that prevent certain levels of pollution and have had them for years. There is nothing in the constitution that prevents pollution laws. Carbon dioxide, and other chemicals are pollution. If they pass such a law it would mean any regulations, food, drug, water safety would be illegal. No where in the constitution does it forbid the government from passing laws to protect the public safety.
I believe the constitution does not talk of a standing professional army yet we have one.
4
@GUANNA
Look at the makeup of THIS Supreme Court...
3
I thought the republican party was all about states rights. The hypocracy never ends.
14
What sane person wants to spend more money on gas for an inefficient car?
What sane person wants to breath more polluted air, drink more polluted water (lead cased ammo allowed for hunting again), and see a more ravaged polluted land from the gunk that comes from auto exhaust (see California circa 1970's)?
What sane person wants their children to develop asthma and see their elderly on oxygen?
What sane person wants more pollinators, birds and general wildlife to further die off due to pollution and general environmental degradation?
What sane person wants to pay more for milk, bread, groceries and sundries in general - more for everything - as those who deliver these products ultimately pay more for fuel?
What sane person wants to accelerate the fires, floods and increasingly violent storms that take their homes, lives and livelihoods?
What sane person, gleefully encourages their own and their loved ones financial and physical harm by cheering on and voting for a man who relishes in destroying every good thing we've ever accomplished as a people and a nation?
What's next, lead in paint, lead in gasoline, asbestos in construction (last April EPA ruled asbestos no longer banned, just "restricted"), more lethal pesticides (in addition to chlorpyrifos known to cause brain damage in children https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/18/climate/epa-chlorpyrifos-pesticide-ban.html)?
MAGA hats: are you so high on spite that the above is worth it?
28
@Deb for them the answer is yes. They want to tear everything down.
2
All it would take is for the Auto industry en mass to tell Trump _- "forget about it" - we all are going to adopt the Obama rules voluntarily. Why? because the public demand it, climate change demands it, and the world demands it. Its called the "free market" remember.
17
@Maurice Green. There certainly isn't a big market for huge, gas-guzzling cars. Maybe Trump's real plan is to destroy the auto industry so we can import cars from Russia. Putin would be pleased.
1
I remember flying into LA in the early 70's. The air was orange and you could almost chew it. Let's get back to that ASAP.
14
@Dan Barthel I wonder if the tackyness of a Trump building would withstand the assault.
2
Dinosaur Donald at it again. He has no ability to envision the potential of this country to innovate and achieve. He just looks backward and I've no doubt would rather see us choking on smog, living with polluted waters, and slowly killing the planet, as long as he can see the dollar signs. His only barometer for the success of every human being is how much money they make at the expense of every other attribute of humanity. Sad.
9
Republican hypocrisy revealed yet again. They say they’re for state’s rights, and curtailing reach of federal government but their silence about this federal imposition on a state is another testament to their hypocrisy, as was the deficit ballooning tax cut.
1
Why doesn't California simply increase the state sales tax on cars and trucks that are fuel inefficient, proportionally to how inefficiently they run?
This would accomplish the same thing as regulating emissions with the waiver, forcing auto makers to make vehicles that meet California's standard. I'm sure other states would be quick to hop on this bandwagon, hoping to get increased revenues for a very good cause.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Trump.
5
@John
It is not the same thing. Less fuel efficient cars are purchased by less weathly people, thereby another regressive tax on the people least likely to afford the cost. Anyway, no need to do anything. States rights are guaranteed under the tenth amendment. Trump is blowing smoke (get it) and will fail once again in the courts.
5
@John B
Not to go on about this, but since the Supreme Court is just another branch of the Republican Party, I wouldn't reply too much on California winning this one. After all, if California had the legal right to regulate emissions then why was it deemed necessary for a waiver in the first place?
As far as making cars more expensive for people will lesser means, a targeted sales tax would make cars that don't meet the standard set by California un-sellable in that state. The cost of buying a car would be the same as if the waiver were in place as long as the car met California's standard. So I don't see any adverse effect on people of lesser means.
"We the people" elect representatives to Congress. Part of their duty is checks and balances of the Executive. Now they are being totally ignored and defied as they try to do their job.
Therefore "We the people" have every right to ignore the Executive. They cannot mandate dirty cars as manufacturers are free to build and market what consumers want to buy. So just ignore this and be aware that for the next year it's going to be outrage-after-outrage.
7
The Republicans are all for states rights- until a state does something big Republican donors don't want to do.
8
California has historically had stricter pollution standards and it hasn't created a nightmare for automakers yet. Tell the truth, don't exaggerate for the sake of sensationalism. Auto makers side with California in not rolling back pollution standards, by the way.
The real issue here is that trump was "blindsided and angered" by that fact, had a little hissy fit I suppose. Let's let that lead our country instead of common sense!
We have a responsibility to future generations to leave them a habitable planet where humans can thrive, long after everyone has forgotten he ever existed.
8
This is 100% about money, not jobs. Money from fossil fuel companies to the Trump campaign and inauguration funds. California has about 26 million drivers. If mileage standards for cars are lowered from 50 miles per gallon to 30 miles per gallon and drivers drive an average 15k miles per year, and Gasoline is roughly $4.00 per gallon, then revenues for Oil companies could rise by $20billion per year. Spread that out across the US, and the number is staggering. The Auto manufacturing companies have agreed to 54 miles per gallon by 2025, so they haven’t complained. Interesting that Trump is friendly with Russia which derives 60% of its GDP from oil and gas exports. Saudi Arabia has spent millions at Trump properties. This is why Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord. It’s about the MONEY !
This is Corruption at the expense of the planet. Trump must be stopped!
15
There is no justifiable rationale for what this administration is doing to the planet. By gutting these laws and rolling back progress they are simply doing what comes natural. The idea that they "care" about the harmful results is ludicrous. They are concerned only with tearing down what others have built.
7
Trump is forever moaning about how American made cars are being kept out of foreign markets. Does he think we are clamoring for lower miles per gallon cars that pollute. On second thought, that's probably exactly what the stable genius thinks.
8
There is a growing divide between California and the rest of the country and it scares me.
@David Fergenson
13 States signed an agreement with BMW, Ford, Honda, and VW to keep the new standards in place, representing 30% of the auto market.
I think California is leading the way, not leaving the country behind.
7
@David Fergenson. What are you afraid of? Our economy is huge as is the state’s surplus. We are far tougher than that that vengeful cretin in the white house. He will never win this fight.
4
Let him try this in Washington State and he will have our Attorney General living in his head for the rest of his presidency.
7
Democrats Should remind Industry Trump decrees will go on the first day of the next Democrats presidency. Warn them only fools will change their plans and priorities. Democrats will do to Trump what he did to Obama. No it isn't a way to run the country, but the GOP and the corrupt Trump need to pay for their bad behavior.
5
I worked with elderly refugees from the Soviet Union who told me how the leaders of the Communist Party systematically polluted the once-beautiful and beloved River Don in order to break the people's spirit.
I see exactly the same thing happening here with this administration's fascist attempt to control the policies of corporations and states in order to hurt California, a state where progressive policies on the environment, diversity, and immigration have helped us become the world's 5th largest economy.
If Trump wants to go down the road of punishment, he should remember a German proverb: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. And his house, like all of his fake appurtances, is constructed of very weak, cheap, cracked materials and is standing smack on an ominously shifting fault line. What goes around comes around, and the vast majority of the world's people will thoroughly enjoy the comeuppance of this creepy bully who somehow slithered into the US presidency.
8
@November 2018 has Come; 2020 is Coming Wise words; thank you.
I might add the part where he also dismantled all the protections of our wild lands, opening BLM for profit-mongers. Correlates with SU polluting their beloved, sacred river Don.
3
I worked with elderly refugees from the Soviet Union who told me how the leaders of the Communist Party systematically polluted the once-beautiful and beloved River Don in order to break the people's spirit.
I see exactly the same thing happening here with this administration's fascist attempt to control the policies of corporations and states in order to hurt California, a state where progressive policies on the environment, diversity, and immigration have helped us become the world's 5th largest economy.
If Trump wants to go down the road of punishment, he should remember a German proverb: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. And his house, like all of his fake appurtances, is constructed of very weak, cheap, cracked materials and is standing smack on an ominously shifting fault line. What goes around comes around, and the vast majority of the world's people will thoroughly enjoy the comeuppance of this creepy bully who somehow slithered into the US presidency.
3
I thought Republicans believed in States Rights?
7
No nightmares here.
Automakers have dealt with split pollution standards for almost fifty years. I think it is safe to say they have learned how to manage them.
9
I'm willing to bet that if the four car makers got together and fixed the prices of their various models of cars, the Justice Department would not take anti-trust action against them. If the four wanted to merge to form one giant car company, the Justice Department would not take anti-trust action against them. But when they agree to lower the levels of greenhouse gas emissions? Oh no, we can't have that! That's clearly a restraint of trade! When the public AND the auto makers all want cleaner cars, whose interests is the Trump Administration protecting?
17
@John. The oil companies. They have huge influence on Trump. They already run big chunks of the EPA.
2
The "former meteorologist-in-chief and now engineer wannabe" tweets: “The Trump administration is revoking California’s Federal Waiver on emissions in order to produce far less expensive cars for the consumer, while at the same time making the cars substantially SAFER,”
In this view, the first part of his assertions states equivalently that a gas guzzling car emitting lots of junk is far less expensive than a highly efficient car with an excellent mpg ratings. Yet, for fossil fuel powered vehicles gas mileage is gained by overall lightness and small, efficient engine design, which means less material costs and consequently lower fuel costs, both of which make the car cheaper to buy and operate.
Trump's second assertion that the weaker emission standards make the car "substantially SAFER" is suspect as well. Engine size and efficiency have little effect on safety, as safety is largely determined by body design, its energy dissipating and material properties in the case of a crash. And material weight, actually its density, is not a safety determining property, but rather its strength and impact resilience.
Yet car prices will rise in the future because of additional safety requirements that mandate electronic and computer driven solutions. The prices of EV's are expected to come down as batteries will become cheaper. But Trump's latest folly will slow this desperately needed transition. Hopefully not for long as the presidency may well change hands next year.
8
In the 60's and 70's, the Sierras, Coast Range and the Cascades, i.e. Mt Shasta, were barely visible from the Sacramento Valley, especially in summer. Now after 40 years of cleaning up the air, it's a rare day when they aren't clearly visible. And if not, it's usually from wildfire smoke. I hope we're not heading back to the "good old days". If so, it was nice while it lasted.
21
Maybe that's what "they" meant by MAGA. I lived in Northern CA all my life until 2 years when I moved to NC. Here we deal with Ozone warnings!
8
Consumers aren't exactly screaming for more miles per gallon, nor are they switching to public transit. Americans prefer traffic to clean air, which is obvious for all to see.
2
@Stephen I would like more mpg. I would use public transit if it were available in my neck of the woods.
7
@Stephen That's why government takes action for the public good. Not against it.
5
@Stephen "Americans prefer traffic to clean air" We prefer to drive instead of taking the public transportation for convenience. You seem to suggest that Americans like pollution. If we can drive our cars and still have (relatively) clean air, great! Loosening clean air standards for JOBS! JOBS! JOBS! is foolish.
4
Pretty sure that the settled law of the 1970 Clean Air Act is still in force. Moreover, I'm unconvinced that the Federal Government can usurp the rights of a sovereign state to regulate it's own air and water quality. the fact that thirteen other states embrace California standards is a simple endorsement of good sense in the face of climate change. Trump's revocation is going nowhere.
16
@Dwight I couldn't agree with you more. I believe that Trump is just having a little boy temper tantrum because Gavin Newsome has gotten under his skin once or twice before. Everyone knows (or should know) by now that Trump is obsessed with hatred for President Obama and his primary objective is to destroy everything that Pres. Obama created.
7
If the Trump Administration is killing the California auto emissions standards because of undue influence on the rest of the nation...then surely Trump is going to destroy the Texas State School Board's even more widespread undue influence on school text book contents?
For those unaware, all Texas public schools buy only books from the list approved by the Texas State School Board. That list makes Texas a massive customer of a limited range of books. Their mass buying of limited titles dominates the school book market nationally, So much so that school book companies and authors pretty much only print books likely to attract the Texas School Board. The Texas State School Board is filled by elections and recent trends show them inclining to ideological rewrites of history and science and other topics.
42
california's plan was to make larger gas powered cars more expensive relative to electric/hybrid. There was no change in emission technology requirements especially regarding CO2 because non exists. By allowing for normal pricing of larger cars, in effect, trump's policy will make new cars sold in california safer as a group. One has to always assess benefit relative to cost (a logical step that the left is not capable of) and in this case the benefit of safety of a larger car at a normal price could exceed the benefit associated with lower green house gas emissions.
1
@sh This is untrue. Right now electric cars, even with rebates, are not cheaper than large ICE vehicles. They are cheaper to own, because they don't require gas/oil/regular maintenance/etc. But they are definitely not cheaper to buy.
And why on earth would we like to see myriads of huge cars on the road spewing pollution with every mile? The effects of climate change dwarfs the cost of which car you buy. We need immediate action, and California is right to require less polluting cars as a start. Much more needs to be done.
22
@Jeri
there is confusion of california;s plan for 2030. the implementation of the plan was by changing shopping habits by price inversion, not by technology. if california was allowed to proceed, by 2030 an electric car would probably cost about the same as now plus added inflation costs, but an equivalent sized gas car would have had artificially forced inflated cost by government regulation. the cost inversion was intended to artificially force and contrive a medium 50 mpg goal among all new cars sold in California by making it more expensive to buy a new gas car. The real outcome would likely be fewer people would have bought new cars and continued to maintain their older gas cars. Trumps policy with a 37mpg medium is much more balanced It is also likely that implementing california rules in Calfornia and the other 13 blue states would have a negligible impact on total world wide green house gas emissions and would not contribute to fixing climate - it is just empty politics, nothing else
@sh
Well, by your logic we should all be driving sherman tanks. We would all be very safe.
Having more SUV sized vehicles on the road may be safer for those in the big vehicles (this is debatable), but it would surely not be safer for people in smaller (less expensive) cars. So this would discriminate against those who can't afford to by the Ford Subdivision. But I guess that is in line with Trump and GOP logic: if your rich, you obviously are a better person than others and deserve more safety.
3
The Clean Air Act grants California the right to seek a waiver of federal regulations that prohibits styes and local jurisdictions from enacting voter vehicle emissions standards, but it is not a permanent waiver. California has to request a new waiver each time national emissions standards change. Under CAA Section 209 U.S., EPA must grant California a waiver unless the EPA administrator decides California’s alternant standards are arbitrary, capricious or unnecessary.
4
If Mr. Trump is serious about improving vehicle safety, he should look at reducing driver distraction. Vehicles are far safer than they were when I first went into the auto industry, back in the sixties. The biggest gain, however, came when drunk-driving laws got serious. Now we need to look at those things that distract the driver. As far as emissions and efficiency? Maybe I like breathing foul air and paying more for fuel. Not!
5
Time to bring a class action lawsuit against him personally for environmental and subsequent health damages.
34
Lots of officials claim to believe in federalism in one or another of its many forms. However, their positions usually change when their alleged view of federalism doesn't produce the policies they want. The polluters push Trump to let them pollute more, and he is glad to help them. California has had its own pollution laws for quite a while, as do other states. California officials and citizens will tie this matter in court for many years. Meanwhile, watch Trump try to do the same thing in other states.
7
Why does this not end the discussion? "The 1970 Clean Air Act, the landmark federal legislation designed to fight air pollution nationwide, granted California the right to set its own, stricter rules because the state already had clean air legislation in place when the act passed." Does Trump now claim the power to revoke a statutory right? IF this is true, how can he do what he say he will?
12
The NYT has a great opportunity to decouple the issue of tail pipe emissions that pollute the air we breath and the tailpipe emissions that add to the climate crisis. They are different. Increasing emission controls reduces smog and air pollution but it also reduce vehicle efficiency which increase greenhouse gases. The only way to reduce greenhouse gases is to increase fuel efficiency. This latest attack on CA regulators will not make the climate crisis worse, but the reduction in fuel efficiency standards, which Trump helped enact, will.
4
Consistently inconsistent. Absolutely opposite of the long held conservative belief that most issues are handled better at the state level. It is sad how thoughtful, and dedicated conservatives have parked their beliefs in the storage closet.
29
@Edd
It should be obvious now that conservative dogma follows no set logic or principle. What suits the needs of the conservative agenda will be done. If it means that executive orders are used to overrule state laws then it will be done.
The irony here is when President Obama was issuing executive orders to implement policy, due to Republican obstructions in Congress, conservatives were howling from the rooftops about this was a threat to democracy. Those voices are silent now.
5
So what is the likelihood that California wins this lawsuit? Would love to hear from some legal experts.
8
@TT. I ' m no lawyer, but California has had its own pollution standards for many years. I believe the cases will be tied up in court for years--well beyond Trump's terrible presidency. By the way, California is not dictating policies to other states. Another Trump lie.
4
So, at least those who are paying attention, are shocked, shocked on pretty much a daily basis (Claude Rains, RIP) with Trump's boorish, amoral, unethical, likely criminal behavior (anticipating SDNY action in early 2021). We, here in Los Angeles note each grievance and move on with our lives. He criticizes our homeless situation? Frankly, many might prefer the encampments to be located outside Trump Tower, but, man, it's cold out there, so given the choice, who would want that? Now Trump is trying to unravel the Clean Air act, and pump more toxins into our improved but fragile atmosphere. But, just as he's trying to reestablish a market for coal (good luck with that, Chief), he truly believes that Californians (and the manufacturers that supply our mobility) will roll over and return to the past. Why not bring back the horse and buggy? Now, some might argue that the current President just wants to reverse every one of his nemesis Obama's accomplishments. But, who could believe anyone in authority of such age and experience could be so petty and vindictive. (check out his "memorial" comments to the justly beloved Cokie Roberts). In any case, our state.... the largest economy in the U.S., and the fifth largest in the world, will not capitulate to this insanity. We're strong enough to cut our own side deals, and, believe me, any company in the U.S. or abroad who wants to do business with us, will have to obey our standards, not Trump's.
47
@Randy Randy, as a native Californian , 3rd generation I could not say this any better than you did!! Thank You, for expressing what I know most Californians feel.
5
Interesting that the administration is pushing this through because they fear Trump may not win the next election. Every cloud does have a silver lining.
10
If the waiver is built into the law, the president cannot revoke it.
11
Please vote this sorry administration out next year, this madness needs to end.
I don’t know anyone who:
1. Wants to fill up their cars with gas more often
2. Wants to breathe in smog
3. Wants their children to breathe in smog and have higher rates of asthma.
What is wrong with these people?
89
You left out, “wants a nuclear arms race”
7
Why are people here so much on the side of CA in this dispute? It is a no brainer to impose higher standards in order to combat greenhouse emission, but the geniuses promulgating this action do not explain how will that affect the prices of the cars, and what will regular folks do if the car prices go up and up? Just a reminder, Americans drive very heavily and must have cars, whatever their cost.
We are not all arrogant and well-off CA liberals to drive Teslas and cheer on every environmental action, and abuse all those who disagree as climate-change deniers, and loons in general. I am all for the green initiatives but not for hefty expenses right now.
And, before taking care of the planet (or their pets), perhaps the esteemed liberals would first take care of the homeless folks on the streets, an ugly sight isn't it?
@ss So, your argument is that it would be better to permit a higher level of pollution because it may affect the price of new vehicles by an undetermined amount? I agree that it is important to understand the facts. I also believe that clean air is critical. So yes, if paying a little more for a car will help keep people healthier, I'd be willing to do so. After all, keeping the air clean is a whole lot easier and cheaper than trying to fix air that is polluted.
37
I guess you never got to experience the eye stinging smog of LA in 1980’s. Now with the advances in auto efficiency the air quality is much better,you can see the mountains on most days, but it’s still the equivalent of smoking 5 cigarettes every day.
11
@ss *If* there is an increased cost to a car, the lower cost in fuel and maintenance makes up for that long-term, with less pollution to booth.
We are not all wealthy Bostonians that can afford to buy new vehicles so often that the decrease in fuel and maintenance cost does not matter...
4
That tweet is not an aggressive defense, it's another reality TV style sales pitch along the lines of an Obamacare replacement which is better, cheaper and available to everyone. In other words, another Trump lie which doesn't pass the smell test in the reality-based community.
"I love the poorly educated!"
24
@Andrew Ross and the US has an abundant supply.
2
Where are the Republican Senators and Representatives who argue for “States rights”?
Do the Republican members of Congress now agree the Federal government can set standards for states in other areas such as; women’s access to healthcare, limit access to guns, national education standards?
16
@Edward P Smith
Republican concerns for "states' rights" are pretty much limited to a state's right to implement social/economic repression.
18
State’s rights only apply to their agenda. It’s like the US likes democracy , but only when they chose leaders we approve of.
5
@HapinOregon Exactly. Nothing about Trump's wiggle in the direction of revoking the Clean Air Act (Cal's waiver is totally built-in to it) is serious, running contrary as it does to everything his party has stood for since the launching of Nixon's Southern Strategy.
Hopefully, he will be out of office before this can be implemented! Sanity may return!
7
The oil companies can buy all the Republicans they want, the electric cars are coming and there is no stopping it.
13
Unless we can build enough Gen IV nuclear power plants to supply the electricity to those cars , Big Oil will still supply most of it.
Wrong, but keep thinking that if you like.
There are two aspects of Trump's national policy: meanness and spite.
28
@HapinOregon - Three. You left out "smart as a pile of rocks."
1
Agent Orange Donny trying to take us back to the bad old days when there was no concern about environmental impact to impede predatory capitalism. The problem is that auto manufacturing is global. Does it really make sense for auto manufacturers to make special higher polluting cars for American markets when the growth markets are in other countries with stricter rules for emissions? Whether Agent Orange Donny likes it or not the future of this planet, if there is a future, is not in fossil fuels. Failing to acknowledge that fact does no favors for our auto industry. Oh yea the same old lie that if you want more jobs you have to accept environmental damage. Green jobs will be good jobs. China knows this and so do other countries. But of course Donny just puts on his orange tin foil hat and decides he knows better than everyone else.
9
“The outcome could split the United States auto market, with some states adhering to stricter pollution standards than others. For automakers, that would be a nightmare.”
Will someone please explain why this would be a nightmare? The NYT keeps stating this as if it were fact so give us the facts! The auto companies aren’t being told they have to make inefficient cars, just that they don’t have to make efficient cars. Consumers want efficient cars so just keep making them more efficient and forget what Trumpy Boy says, right? What am I missing here?
11
@Ride A Bicycle Get real Ride-A-Bike. The automobile industry is world-wide. Europe, China and most of Asia is rightfully concerned with improving their in some cases perilous air quality (cf. Beijing) so there will be nothing in it for the Auto industry to suddenly lower their standards. Can't not just won't work that way. Cal sets the standard because as in so many ways theirs was the first serious air quality emergency (Los Angeles in the 70s and 80s). Led to their need to do whatever it took to keep LA habitable. Trump's delusional (no surprise) if he thinks he can actually accomplish this .
3
@Ride A Bicycle. California has had its own car standards for many years.
Not all people want efficient automobiles. Have you noticed the huge pickups...usually with one passenger & empty beds...that cannot fit in a standard garage? That’s the problem!
Let's got back to the good old days of LA being ringed by smog so thick that it took till 1p for it to burn off for the day.
5
Trump should be charged with manslaughter for each death plausibly linkef to this completely gratuitous policy.
Further, all the additional noxious gases and pollution that California will be forced - to produce should be piped into the ventilation systems of Trump's hotels and resorts.
6
Should make for an interesting lawsuit.
3
So the rights of individual states to determine their own destinies are ONLY valid when it comes to denying people health care, discriminating against LGBTQ people, and eliminating women’s reproductive rights?
Got it.
40
“The Trump administration is revoking California’s Federal Waiver on emissions in order to maintain consumer dependence on gasoline, while at the same time making the oil industry profits SAFER,” Mr. Trump wrote in the first of several posts.
Just figured I'd correct some of his typos that accidentally made it look like he cares about regular folks.
7
"Bigger-Better-Cheaper"...Wasn't that also the name of Trump's Health Insurance plan?
4
@Candlewick. And universal coverage. He was obviously lying, again.
1
Wouldn't it be more convenient to live in a country governed by elected representatives than by fiat of left-wing and right-wing dictators?
3
Everything he does is about undoing anything Obama did, he's so insecure it's really pathetic. Also a great time to announce cars will use more fuel, when fuel prices are going up. I'll continue to enjoy my electric car, haven't used gas in about 6 years.
8
@Jonathan, Not only what Obama did, but on many things what anyone before him did (Clean Air, Clean Water, Endangered Species, and plenty more). Trump's bunch totally ignores that the Clean Air Act of 1970 which granted California a waiver.
"When the Clean Air Act was passed (initially in 1963, then in 1970), California was already developing innovative laws and standards to address its unique air pollution problems. So Congress carved out an exemption. As long as California’s standards protect public health and welfare at least as strictly as federal law, and are necessary “to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions,” the law requires the EPA to grant California a waiver so it can continue to apply its own regulations. California has received numerous waivers as it has worked to reduce vehicle emissions by enacting ever more stringent standards since the 1960s.
Other states can’t set their own standards, but they can opt to follow California’s motor vehicle emission regulations. Currently, 12 states and the District of Columbia have adopted California’s standards." There's more info in the full article. (Source: http://theconversation.com/why-california-gets-to-write...)
The EPA is REQUIRED to grant the waiver if certain conditions are met, including the standards being AT LEAST as strict as federal law (Check), and "necessary to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions" (Check). Nothing forces OR stops other states from following California.
1
Sounds like Trump has a plan for the auto industry that’s as great as his “Repeal & Replace” for healthcare.
5
Might I suggest the following alternate headline. Bonus, it can be used many, many, many times a day:
Trump Defends the Indefensible
8
The correct solution is for EPA to adopt CA standards for all 50 states. I wonder if Trump's base really wants to go back to 1970's Detroit car technology. They are welcome to it, but I'll be driving an efficient foreign car at 40MPG, while they open the bank account at 10MPG American gas hogs.
5
And in other news, Trump is talking with aides about forcing Impossible Burgers to add more beef to their patties.
7
Trump's motto: "If it ain't broke, break it"
19
There will never be a day when he doesn't behave like a vindictive, petulant juvenile. Not during his presidency, or any time after. Unfit.
15
Anything life-saving or in the public’s interest seem to be targets for reversal under Trump. In what imaginable reality is this defending the nation and holding The People’s interests above all else? Trump is a traitor to his nation, not to mention all of humanity.
10
I thought that Republicans were all about States rights? Was it another lie? I am shocked!
6
Sure, if you can’t see it, don’t breathe it!
I assume Mr. Trump met tirelessly with automakers in order to confidently and truthfully state that this revocation of environmental standards (and state rights) will make automobiles cheaper, safer, and "extremely environmentally friendly".
I'm sure he needs a vacation after all those late nights.
8
Overreach, Defend, Retreat.
Overreach, Defend, Retreat.
Overreach, Defend, Retreat.
This is the Trump model of leadership, now exercised countless times.
It destroyed his reputation in business. It has destroyed his reputation in government.
Hopefully he will be out of office before he does irreversible damage to the country and the world.
11
California Republicans are abandoning California's clean air standards for Trump while Trump is in California collecting big checks. Especially since it was Governor Ronald Reagan who established the California Clean Air Board in the 1970's.
I can think of several California Congressional and State races where Trump doing this with the full support of California Republicans will be very helpful for Dems.
8
You can just see the Republicans licking their chops over the threat of a court challenge, all the way to the Supreme Court. Why do you think they've been so busy appointing their federal judges and pulling off that daring maneuver to hijack the Supreme Court? They are completely set up now, for this and for anything, with no plausible check on their power. Add in voter suppression, gerrymandering, and hacking of elections, and you have to wonder if it's all over but the crying.
85
@John. Given the complexity of the issues involved, though, there will be multiple lawsuits, and resolving all of them will take quite a few years---well beyond Trump's presidency. Given his short attention span, though, he may forget all about it in a few days.
5
@John.....The threat of revocation is domestic political kabuki.
Auto makers will do what is best for business. They aren't going to change how they make cars for a few years to only reverse course with a new administration.
4
@John,
Let's remember that FDR has a similar conservative court system to deal with, and eventually overcame. I have confidence in the American people.
2
For an industry that clearly sees it's future as nearly all electric vehicles, what motive does the automotive industry have to push back on mileage standards that are soon to be irrelevant? Let's see; who has an economic interest in encouraging gas consumption?
13
@Gary Guenther-Wright The automotive industry just wants everyone to play by the same rules. The oil industry would prefer to have no rules.
5
Where is the constituency for Trump's decision to quash California's nation-leading emission rules? The car companies have signed on to the California program. Other states have joined California. Perhaps the oil industry has a vested short term interest in restraining fuel efficiency, but those executives, their wives and children still have to breathe the same air the rest of us do. So who is Trump helping?
12
@Steve, Good questions and good points. Additionally, nearly all the auto manufacturers sell their products around the world. The rest of the world focuses on efficiency and smaller size than the U.S. Check the price of fuel around the world! Check the roads in the cities and countrysides around the world....narrow! It's not only a matter of whether there will be multiple sets of standards in this country (there already are, and it's California and enough other states to constitute 40% of the market). It's also whether the manufacturers will have a U.S. standard, and a "rest of the world" standard.
2
Like I always say, conservatives want states to set their own rules as long as those rules support conservative beliefs. Otherwise they do what they criticize, bring in the big fed rules to control things.
11
One can already purchase a number of safe, modern, midsize cars that achieve 40 to 50 mpg, or more. That's without taking fully electric vehicles into consideration. The safe and efficient Toyota Camry hybrid by itself trump's the president's rational.
3
I'm a pretty conservative person, but even I get that there are too danged many cars in this state not to have stricter emission laws. It's nearly impossible to be a middle income wage earner and also live in California, but even if cars were a little cheaper to buy, that wouldn't change. Real estate prices and punishing levels of income tax are the big culprits.
9
This might be dated info, but I seem to recall that the varying emissions standards means that refineries needed to produce as many as 10 or 11 different gasoline formulations. Wouldn't eliminating regional requirements create more uniformity in these formulas, thus reducing the production costs?
1
@Jim Kerney
Cuts is production cost do not necessarily go to the pockets of the consumer. In fact, they almost always end up in the profit margin for the company and shareholders, just like the president's latest corporate tax cuts.
6
@Jim Kerney
Some of the formulations are seasonal; the need for those variants won't go away even if Trump's current gambit succeeds. That said, the seasonal variants, like CA's EPA waiver, are required for reducing pollution, I believe, and so might well be vulnerable to a similar scorched-earth tactic by this environment-hostile president.
2
@Jim Kerney
Nope. Simply not true.
The US now has huge oil reserves. If the mpg increases dramatically, those reserves will not be pulled out of the ground. If the price per gallon goes up there will be incentives to e.g., use the oil shale reserves. Cars that average over 50 mpg use less gas.
Car manufactures need sell cars to make money. If their cars required 10 or 11 grades there would be shortages deterring their sales. Yet they want the standards in place?
This waiver was granted, most likely by rule, under the clean air act. Probably the Trump Administration has failed to follow proper rule making procedures to revoke the rule.
12
If the auto manufactures ignore Trump, will he force them to make less fuel-efficient cars? I have yet to see any consumer polling indicating we want to pay more to drive our vehicles. Generally speaking, if consumers are paying more at the pump during an election year, it isn't a good sign for the incumbent.
And, is it too much to ask for proof of the president's claims? They sound as believable as his declaration that the moon was originally part of Mars and that his inaugural crowds were larger than Obama's.
30
@Tom Q
Trump's justice department has already threatened to sue four car manufacturers for colluding with California.
3
@Candlewick good luck with that. Cal and its sisters are responding to real problems with their geography and its impact on air quality. If you were in Southern Cal in the 80s you know whereof I speak. Ozone gathers in the bowl that is Los Angeles and if there's too much of it, people with compromised lung function are at serious risk. Nobody's changing anything that will affect air quality. The liability alone would be prohibitive.
2
@Candlewick. And they can tie the matter up in court for years---well past the end of Trump's presidency,
1
Cars that are cheaper, safer, produces more, and better for the environment? I’d love to see the data backing up those assertions.
18
@William You won't, because that data does not exist.
9
@William Trump spoke the words, therefore, they are now truth and no data is needed.
7
Not a single manufacturer will rollback the development of cleaner autos. They will simply ignore this edict and design cars as they expected to under the old rules.
36
It would not be a nightmare if the auto companies just meet the strictest pollution standards.
29
@Chris Exactly. Which is precisely what they will do.
3
California standards in particular improve life in LA. Reversion to 1986 levels has every potential to recreate smog in proportion to periodic air quality matched by the likes of Beijing or New Delhi. Remember those past photos of LA and its highways when smog was so prevalent? Asthma, bronchitis and respiratory disease, especially in children, predictably will rise from EPA shortsightedness. Very sad commentary on this irresponsible administration!
74
@RPM Trump loves those smog pictures -- just like he loves the belching coal burning plants and the people dying from black lung who mine coal and the ravaged landscape produced by any form of coal mining. Maybe we can rebuild the old fashioned steel mills in Pittsburgh that made that city's air quality a nightmare for decades.
Trump knows only hate and destruction.
7
When the Russians hack our elections and the US Congress later hires an independent counsel to investigate, Trump considers that a 'witch hunt.' But it's not a 'witch hunt' when the President disagrees with a policy in a overwhelmingly Democratic state and decides to go out of his way to use the power of the Federal Government--and the Environmental PROTECTION Agency, no less--in a punitive manner to supersede California's authority and cancel an environmental policy they've enacted?
56
@Anthony C
Indeed. It kind of drives a stake in the heart of the conservatives' belief in states' rights.
IN the meantime, nearly all of those auto manufactureres are spending billions in R&D to develope their own electric vehicles. Miles per charge will increase; charging stations will be as ubiquitous as gas stations.
Trump and his sycophants are whistling past the graveyard with their vengence against the Big Blue State known as California: The Golden State
1
Why don’t we just go ahead and produce a coal powered car already? That way we can revive two industries at the same time and really make America great again. Of course we would have to clear that with the Saudis first.
140
@UScentral We should also convert our nuclear powered aircraft carriers to coal. Imagine the coal mining jobs to power those massive ships.
13
@UScentral
I'm holding out for whale-oil powered cars. Let's revive wooden sailing ship builders, harpoon manufacturers, and whale fat rendering companies all in one fell swoop!
4
@Dan - don't forget coal-powered dishwashers!
11
The president's action is little more than a sop to the fossil fuel industry. There is absolutely no evidence that it will suddenly make cars cheaper, stimulate demand or magically make cars safer.
Even to the casual observer, it should be readily evident that hybrid, hydrogen fueled and fully electric vehicles are rapidly growing in number on our roadways. Add to this the stated intention by a growing numbers of auto manufacturers to move to an all-electric fleet of vehicles and it should be clear that the days of gas powered vehicles - and, thus, the need for CAFE regulations - are likely numbered.
The demise of fossil fuel powered vehicles will not happen over night and, of course, EV's will likely be tied to upstream fossil fuel powered energy source for even longer. Nevertheless, the trend to less polluting means of transportation is accelerating, making the president's action of California CAFE standards equivalent to closing the barn door after the cows have gotten out.
Hopefully, any eventual court ruling will reaffirm the states' right to establish regulations beyond federal minimums, but in the case of gas mileage, it almost doesn't matter as "gas" mileage may be a moot measure of efficiency in the not too distant future.
15
No, states such as CA having stricter standards would not "be a nightmare" for automakers: they can just produce cars for the tightest standard, which is what they do now. CA has had tighter standards for decades.
36
@ben We are commenting about U.S. standards for auto emissions. Our cousins north of the border have their regulations that mimic the U.S. standards, and that includes California requirements.
I don't believe the auto makers will make two standards of cars for many different markets in North America.
4
Well Gee Mr. trump what would lead to me saving more money , a car that gets 54.5 MPG or a car that gets 37MPG ? And since the auto makers are already on board with the retooling and want to get better MPG and less emissions , why the out rage?
66
@Rich g.
I think you've hit on a key point, the auto makers are already retooling knowing that cars that get better gas mileage are the future, not just for the US market but for any US maker that wants to do business in other countries. Trump's time will pass and the future is cars that get better gas mileage and lower emissions. Big companies look at the long game, they know what to do and it is not what Trump wants them to do.
34
@Mark Bau
You are right there. In Australia we no longer produce our own vehicles and now import the US made RHD Ford Mustangs, Chevrolet Camaros, and a range of other US, European and Asian vehicles. The difference is that while the US average cost for gas/ petrol is about 89 cents a litre, in Australia it is about $1.30 a litre so the cost of fuel can rule out cars that have poor fuel mileage figures.
19
@Mark Bau I wish I didn't have to, but I must provide an American perspective (not one I necessarily agree with). Buyers here have flocked, fairly completely, to big gas guzzling SUVs. With fuel so cheap here, fuel economy is not the biggest purchase concern at all. The big 3 US auto makers are famous for not looking long term at all, and are very focused on providing these profitably SUVs for the here and now.
7
Trump needs auto workers to support him if he is to win re-election. Car sales are sagging, thus production is down and jobs are scarce. Altering emission standards won't bring back the jobs, but he can at least say he tried.
Safer cars? Not sure how he gets there, unless he is trying to say despite higher emissions, the cars are still safer than old cars in terms of pollution. Crashworthiness doesn't follow.
Perhaps our President can explain himself in a speech or in a press conference. Twitter doesn't allow for details. But, he knows that, doesn't he.
23
@David the logic goes like this:
1) new cars are safer
2) more fuel efficient vehicles are more expensive
3) fewer people can afford more expensive vehicles
4) fewer people are able to buy new cars because they're more expensive
5) Trump rules make cars cheaper, so they're able to buy new (albeit less fuel efficient) cars
Because new cars are safer, and less fuel efficient cars will be cheaper under the new "SAFE" rules, more people can buy new cars.
NHTSA and the Andrew Wheeler led EPA are catering to the fossil fuel industry. Not even car manufacturers like this plan.
12
The Trump administration claims that fuel efficiency improvements cost consumers money but, in fact, they have and will save consumers money, as this research paper demonstrates.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518305135
Indeed, all five income quintiles save money with the lowest income groups saving the most as a percent of income.
Consumers are likely to understand that fuel efficient cars and light trucks are a better bargain and will buy more of them, not fewer.
38
@David Greene, David, please don't trot out logic and science when talking to the Trump administration. It just confuses them.
4
Reducing the emissions standards will make the cars safer. I what way I ask. And Trump proclaims the cars will be less expensive so more cars will sell. Does Trump understand economics and market forces?
Or his he just pulling things out of his....never mind-you get the picture.
This is nothing more than vengeance against the state and the people due to their lack of love for the carnival barker. And if the automobile emissions standards were to roll back, that vengeance will cost many their health, and lives.
I miss the days when we had presidents that were much more intelligent than Trump.
116
@Dan I take it you mean ALL the other presidents.
8
One problem with being the only country led by a climate change denier is that, unlike Trump's voting base, other countries are not impressed by Trump's talent for trolling liberals. They will move on with stricter standards and will not buy these "cheaper, safer" cars. A flaw (not the only one) in Trump's plan that it's not so easy to export lies.
86
@Adan Schwartz
Very good point! But I’m sure that if car exports go down Trump will find some other scapegoat to blame as we all know, he IS a very stable genius!
5
@Rbshevlin wish we could find a stable we could put him in.
4
Each state has different rules for different things and unless it has a law that violates the constitution they are allowed to have it.
I don't believe that having clean air to breath is against the constitution.
This is dictator Trump trying to put money into his and the 1%'s pockets, plain and simple.
California has set the bar for clean air in this country and Trump and his cronies need to stay out of it.
92
@BTO California has set the bar for not only this country but our neighbor to the north also.
7
One of the issues is that high car prices, have meant that people are driving older and older cars. The average life of a car in the USA is now 11.8 years old. That means that the average vehicle being driven - is being done so with very poor pollution and fuel consumption. If you want to reduce pollution, and oil consumption, what better way than to reduce the price of new cars. I am not sure how much this action will reduce the price of new cars - but it is no coincidence that California has the oldest cars in the USA. Lower prices mean new cars. Newer cars mean lower pollution.
3
@Randy not if those newer cars aren’t required to reduce emissions not to mention NEW cars are expensive. I doubt they will ever be cheap enough for people who are forced to drive used cars because they can’t afford a new one.
9
@Randy
According to the Associated Press, California does NOT have the oldest cars. The average age for ALL states is 11.8 years. "Western states have the oldest vehicles at 12.4 years, while in the Northeast the average age is only 10.9 years. That's due largely to less stop-and-start traffic that wears on a vehicle. Weather conditions also play a part. Montana has the oldest average age at 16.6 years, while the youngest is Vermont, with an average age of 9.9 years."
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/06/27/record-average-age-cars-on-road/
7
@Randy
I have always thought that one of the reasons there were more older (classic) cars in California is that we don't have to salt our roads in the winter. When we first moved to California 30 years ago, we noticed this right away.
I can't find a map that shows car ages by state, but my guess would be that southern states in general have more older cars than northern states. Canadians may not be aware that not salting roads is an option.
3
The Federal government can revoke California's Federal Waiver, but that doesn't mean California has to allow the cars to be registered. California could simply refuse to register any vehicle that only meets the Federal standard.
112
@nwsnowboarder A registration prohibition would probably have a preemption problem. The more promising legal fight is against the fed's ability to withdraw a waiver already granted based on factually-unmoored justifications.
11
@nwsnowboarder
As Heath Ledger's Joker said
"Now we're talking!"
3
The Democratic Party needs to make Climate Change and the attempts by Trump to destroy the environment one of their major points of emphasis. This issue affects the likely deciding voters in many states. Air quality, storms, floods , etc . Please emphasize this issue Democrats. Do not get burned by issues you can deal with once elected.
156
Foreign manufacturers, in particular German & Japanese firms, will continue to develop clean vehicle technology & build vehicles that operate to maximum fuel efficiency. It is what the world market demands.
This is called capitalism. So let Trump and his fracking & coal oligarchs continue their attempt to move US manufacturers back into the 19th century. They will not succeed.
Progress, capitalism and world markets will continue to follow California's lead, tuned to the 21st century, and to fighting climate change. The millennials understand this. Trump's woeful attempt to destroy America's environmental progress is ephemeral. He will be gone in a year.
209
@Joe Miksis The manufacturers have stated their engineering for the higher standards is either far along in the process or complete.
Will those manufacturers throw that expenditure of money out of the door to satisfy the whims of Trump?
52
@Dan
My German niece is a Design Engineer with BMW in Munich. She is on teams designing the electric, autonomous cars that will be coming out in 2022. All world class car manufacturers have their current designs for the next 3 years cast in stone.
Trump's "rollback" is, like everything he does', pure talk and of no substance.
158