Ironically, the EPA rules will soon not matter. Replacing fossil fuels can take place surprisingly fast.
All combustion engines can be easily and cheaply converted to run on water. See MOVING BEYOND OIL at aesopinstitute.org for an introduction to this seemingly impossible potential.
Future electric cars will have on-board chargers. They will sell electricity or power buildings when suitably parked.
Future internal combustion engines will need no fuel. They will utilize ambient heat instead - until now a huge untapped reservoir of solar energy available 24/7.
The new science defies convention and is slow to gain acceptance as it departs from long established belief.
However, as products enter the markets they will demonstrate the astonishing reality.
The work is done by small firms, poorly supported at present, made difficult by Trolls who do not hesitate to lie and distort. They are certain it reflects fraud and dishonesty.
Abrupt climate change chaos may be approaching. It is urgent to replace fossil fuels far faster than existing technology will allow.
Pollution kills millions worldwide. Breakthrough technologies will reverse the problem far faster than regulations.
Change, as Margaret Mead pointed out, is always made by a small number of individuals.
This is a time in history where a few bold souls can make a huge difference by lending support and finding ways to encourage the rapid birth of 24/7 clean, green, power.
Cars are the perfect place to start!
8
I see that of the six New England states, only New Hampshire did not join the lawsuit. Might they want to change the state motto? My suggestion: Live free and die.
4
California needs to get brown and Pelosi out..they need sued over all their crooked dealings and corrupt paydays..illegal immigrant laws taxing the people to death to pay for votes from the illegal immigrants..
So glad I moved from that state, born and raised in Los Angeles, best thing I did was move to tennessee...my family needs to get out!
1
Make the air dirtier way to go Trump
3
It’s just disgusting that the American car manufacturers have to be such cry babies. And there is Mr Trump who cannot stand to have anything Obama-related in our nation. Trump and Pruitt and the lazy Congress are killing us!
5
Bring back our smog! It’s good for us! Thank you Republicans!!
4
A podcast discussing this story mentioned a concern/complaint by the automotive industry that meeting the lower standards would be too difficult or costly. One commenter observed that Chinese automakers would happily meet those standards and further step ahead of the U.S.
2
The fact that American automakers are requesting relief from regulations that Japanese, Korean and European automakers just get on with and deal with shows how uncompetitive American auto manufacturers are. They have walked out on a limb with V6s and V8s and they know their development to meet fuel and pollution standards is limited. They are so far out on a limb they absolutely need this to stay in business. Ford has stopped making certain cars which they say is to concentrate on their profit drivers but it really is that they are not selling them. If it wasn’t for government agencies, rental car companies and “patriots” our auto manufacturers would be out of business. They are just one oil price spike away from another “gubberment” bailout...now thats good old American Capitalism!
3
The whole world is going to efficient requirements and electrification. China has far outstripped the US in terms of the size of its auto market. The short term gains to US automakers of loosening the rules would be way, way offset by its subsequent losses to competitors who design cars for the future markets, not the past markets.
Aside from the environment and global warming, this would be the dumbest move yet!
7
Technical breakthroughs and new science will end vehicle emissions.
Ambient heat, a huge untapped reservoir of solar energy, can run engines.
This difficult to believe development was proven possible by the conversion of a Ford engine by Chris Hunter, in Alaska. After 10 years of work he found that by filling the engine with propane, as a refrigerant, the engine ran without fuel. For details, see NO FUEL PISTON ENGINES at aesopinstitute.org Scroll down to the last pages.
Engines designed to run on ambient heat, rather than fuel, need no propane. The first such engine could not overcome friction, but it proved the science. Now friction can be overcome and future vehicles will need no fuel.
Converting ambient heat to electricity has been done with a solid-state device. This will initially find application in keeping phones charged. It can later power homes 24/7, supplementing or replacing solar panels.
Trolls attack as this breakthrough technology does not conform to aspects of science which have become dogma. Kuhn pointed out science advances funeral by funeral. We no longer have that luxury.
Small solid-state devices running on ambient heat will have an educational function. They will demonstrate, rather than argue, that innovation can change the world faster than regulations.
The work is poorly supported at present. Bold souls can change that and open a path to vehicles of any size and weight that need no fuel. Imagine the implications of this emerging reality!
3
Under federalism and the clean air act, California (and other states) have significant leeway to enact air regulations that protect air quality. Obama prevented California from pursuing dramatically stricter regulations. If trump / Pruitt succeed, then each state may start to try to pursue their own regs, which should be something that terrifies the auto industry. The industry messed up here and are likely going to regret it.
3
Those who have swallowed the fossil fuel industry propaganda that climate change is a hoax (notwithstanding the more severe hurricanes, droughts, fires, flooding, etc.) might want to think about whether they shouldn't care about the air they breath? Or are chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchitis, asthma, emphysema and lung cancer also myths?
10
When the American car companies lobbied Washington DC for lower standards , it was clear evidence of backwards thinking executives. I sold their stock and will not buy their cars.
16
There is a world wide gasoline glut.Lower standards,increase demand, prices go up, big oil shareholders are rewarded.
The reasoning behind it, and too bad for us.
5
I am proud of Gov. Murphy of NJ in his action to join in this lawsuit. This is the kind of leadership our citizens need to fend off the Dark Ages.
10
Where is the science that must drive EPA policy? The deadwood investments that electric cars will cause is exactly the kind of dynamic change we need to bring sustainable jobs as the globe retools for a green, breathable environment. American automakers are behind the curve, resisting the future at the expense of our children and the public's health. I am ashamed at Trump's callous knee jerk attitude and science avoidance, promoted by unenlightened industry leaders who refuse to follow the science to do the right thing. I will never buy another gas fueled car again.
7
I purchased an electric vehicle three years ago, and have been very satisfied. Battery technology will steadily improve for greater range and faster charging. Once my current vehicle no longer functions, I plan on using a subscription autonomous ride-sharing service, and I suspect I will not be the only one.
4
It’s hilarious that the auto makers are scrambling to dilute their original ask of the Trump Administration. Turns out that the Administration wasn’t bright enough to think up this bad idea on its own, but they know one when they see one.
4
The emissions standards are high here for a reason. High emissions are extremely unhealthy, and we need all the help we can get. Even with the careful control of smog, asthma is shockingly common, especially among kids. What are we going to put first: our kids’ health, or profits for a dying industry and the ego of a jealous man? It’s not even a contest.
18
there seems to be some surpise re: california emmisions restrictions, yet if memory serves, weren't there much stricter emissions standards in cali for the last 30 years?
2
Promoting fossil over people is dangerous and stupid.
Thanks California for reminding us that the modern world is moving on, and we are better off going forward than backward.
Burning up our planet benefits noone in the long run, not even the kleptocrats who think today's profit is worth selling humanity and making our planet inhospitable in a few short generations.
15
Thank you California, thank you Jerry Brown, thank you former president Obama.
Shame on you big three auto makers, shame, shame, shame.
Shame on Pruitt, shame on Trump.
Anyone who's been to a city in SE Asia or elsewhere--Cambodia, Nepal, India, etc, where the air is too foul to breathe, knows what we have to lose. We should be doing our part to help those countries, not polluting our own.
34
Who in their right mind would want to roll back emission standards? Emission standards once were the way they were because people didn't know any better. Now we do. Don't reverse progress.
29
Almost every other country in the world is enacting these kind of regulations on cars.
If US cars do not comply with this kind of standard it will be impossible to export them anywhere.
22
Let California regulate itself back to the horse and buggy era, or to nirvana. Either it succeeds, or fails.
Oregon has joined the California's lawsuit against the Trump administration.
20
have you seen pictures of Beijing. We better hope .CA. succeeds!
16
We're with you California.
Long live the fighters!
34
Less than 1.5% of vehicle sales worldwide in 2017 were plug-in. (And more than half of those were sold in China.)
Gov Brown allows California’s wealthy to get HOV stickers (and state & Fed tax credits) for buying Teslas and similar plug-in vehicles. Those who can’t afford a $100K car are stuck paying gas taxes for the roads ALL are using, and are stuck in traffic. ((Fair?))
A better solution might be taxing gas $5/gal to repair the bridges & roads and to entice ALL to upgrade to better fuel efficiency. Then, ONLY give tax credits to those who can’t afford a $100K new vehicle.
It’s time for Gov Brown to go. His ideas will change nothing to fix the tens-of-millions of of polluting old vehicles in India’s 15 largest cities, where air quality is 10-20x worse than L.A.
3
I don't mind the ideas you have, but I'd argue electric cars are now in the price range of a lot of people. I just leased a Ford Focus Electric. Its range is 120 miles, and that has remained consistent. My lease is $320 a month. My last car was $275 a month, but I've seen my electric bill and it will more than offset that additional money -and I like the car a lo!
The only other thing - I've never understood the idea that making something better (assuming you think it's better to have affordable electric cars) is pointless because it doesn't fix something somewhere else. I thought the whole point was to fix your situation and then help others. You certainly can disagree with that - just wanted to point out my car is pretty reasonably priced and nice.
5
Why two markets? Is it really cheaper for them to run two different designs and assembly lines, rather than just give the whole country the better automobile?
14
I hope no Trump supporters are complaining about Volkswagen.
11
Meanwhile according to Forbes, Ford is focusing on greatly expanding its electric and hybrid vehicles to 40 new models -- selling them worldwide, especially in China. It will discontinue domestic sedans and reallocate resources to the new lines.
Hmm. Did Ford's market research tell them something?
Last year I bought a Toyota Prius Prime. It is astonishing how seldom I need to visit a gas station. I will never go back to conventional engines.
Here in California the majority have always been proud of our brilliant governor Jerry Brown. Trump and Pruitt can't hold a candle to his intelligence. THANK YOU Jerry and coalition states for bringing this legal action.
57
Has anyone pointed out to Trump that another way to "explode all that was Obama" would be to put in place even stricter standards?
29
There would be no American auto industry without Obama. He should have let them go bankrupt.
17
I’m with California on this ine. Our addiction to huge SUVs and trucks is an embarrassment. I drive a VW Golf tsi with the 1.8 turbo 4cyl. It’s all the engine needed for 90% of driving situations, and gets high 30’s on the highway.
36
The article overlooks one other key motive in Trump's war on the EPA and the environment: The regulations were put in place by Obama.
27
I love my native state of Minnesoooooota. They're always in with the good guys. You betcha!
19
Jerry,
You’re not anything but the governor of California. We don’t have co-POTUS’s. Focus on laws in your own state.
Sincerely,
Someone who doesn’t live in California and doesn’t want to.
1
Correct you are. Jerry is not a co-POTUS. That job belongs to Putin.
12
That’s exactly what Mr. Brown does - focus on California emission standards. He doesn’t want them overturned by Trump. Neither do the other states in the lawsuit that adopted California standards as their own state standards...
11
Actually, dual sovereignty is the core of the Federal system.
Between Donald Trump and his E.P.A. appointee Scott Pruitt, it's fairly obvious that it will be up to every individual state in the Union to safeguard not only their environment -- but the health and well-being of their residents.
Who can fault California for that?
35
The argument boils down to an elected President cannot undo regulations that were made by unelected bureaucrats. The Founders would weep if they knew that millions believed that is a legitimate argument
1
The argument is whether Trup can put the planet at risk, because he hates the previous president and covets donations from the fossil-fuel industry.
30
Huh? Seems to me the Founders revolted against a single ruler who allowed his personal issues and emotions to make decisions rather than deliberative rule makers.
12
Pres Obama said that if everyone would keep their tires properly inflated we would save millions in fuel cost and reduce the amount of smog.
Let's give it another try.
5
Sounds like you are in agreement with Obama. Good. He made a very practical, common sense observation that all should follow.
21
The big story in today’s LA Times was about there being a huge discrepancy between where the EPA says California air should be by its prediction of what its regulations standards once in place would yield and what new satellite data currently records. But California is always happy to sue the Trump administration on anything, I’m sure, so why not?
And you believe the EPA, knowing that a science denier is in charge? You are against cleaner air?
26
The "auto industry" that Obama rescued - with McConnell's obstructionist army kicking and screaming that they should just let them burn to the ground goes whining to Trump on day one for relief from big bad Barack's emission targets. I hope the next Democratic president faced with the same dilemma remembers this.
47
if GM can build electric cars for china and asia in general that tells me they can do it here also. someone is not telling the truth here.
30
Good for Governor Brown and good for my home state of Connecticut! Good for everyone who is standing up to Trump and his cronies! We will not let them put the brown haze back in the air.
Someone has to say, "Stop!"
We shouldn't wait for the November elections. Start the lawsuits now. Drown Pruit's EPA with lawsuits. That's what he did, so back at ya, buddy.
57
Who do those people in California think they are. This is the United States of America and we have one set of laws for everyone.There is one Internal Revenue Code and it applies to all Americans. The administration is absolutely correct in insisting that there in one set of emission standards for everyone. The auto manufacturers follow one set of rules for everyone. This produces efficiency and allows us to sell our cars at a fair price to everyone. Brown and his flunkies think that they are better than everyone else.
Are you being serious? As the article states, California has this authority specifically written into the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act was practically written for California, the state with the highest population, the most cars, and the most air pollution, in an attempt to turn the 1970's skies over LA from brown back to blue and end a public health crisis of unbreathable air full of ground level ozone. It worked, very well in fact, and now people have forgotten the bad old days and are foolishly clamoring to go back to them.
18
How about this: the industry that has been making great strides in achieving less emissions and greater fuel economy (which saves us all $$$ at the pump) is challenged to keep it up, instead of backpedaling after we threw them a life raft. The technology is there. Keep it moving forward because for them, that is where the profit will be.
Just look at their ads promoting mileage and power. They get the public appeal.
Rolling back these goals is completely nonsensical, not only from a PR take, but also from a development stand. The states involved in this lawsuit are not dictators, but simply saying we’re not going backwards to greater emissions.
Good for them!
16
In short, you are for increasing pollution.
6
All this coal and oil we are burning now was formed by the earths warming periods. During the warming periods it was green more then it is now. Why are we afraid of a warming period then? It looks like a good thing.
Melting glacial ice and melting permafrost will increase CO2 well beyond what our environment can handle, and raise sea levels well beyond anything we've seen in millenia.
The last time the earth saw these levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, it took thousands of years to reach that point, which also allowed the plants and animals to adapt to the change. The current rise in CO2 has happened in our lifetimes. As a result, we will lose a vast number of plant and animal species, which will never recover.
25
You need to study the impacts of global warming using a reliable source and then you'll be able to comment on it intelligently.
12
Good news today is that gasoline prices are at a 3 year high. People have such short memories and buy SUVs the minute gas prices fall. I'll keep my 2009 50 MPG Prius with almost 250,000 miles on it and laugh at the people on the news complaining about the cost to fill their gas guzzlers.
14
Hey Trump and Pruitt supporters,
I have an inexpensive, slow but safe, time machine you can use to see the future should you follow Pruitt and Trump's Freedom Air Plan. You can also use this same time machine to visit the past. It's a two-fer. Literally, in less than 24 hours you'll travel backward in time from 2018 to 1970 and 2028.
Book a United Airlines ticket to Los Angeles, and then on to Beijing, China. August is a perfect time machine date.
When you land in Los Angeles you'll breathe what it's like under the current EPA standards. It's not perfect air, but it's livable.
Then board the plane to Beijing. When you land in Beijing you will breathe what Los Angeles air was like in the early 1970's, before the California EPA changed the smog requirements for cars. I suggest you spend a lot of time walking outside, take in Tiananmen Square and hike the 40 foot high South Gate.
After you stop coughing, wiping your eyes and catch your breath, look back across the square and notice that you can't see very far. The entrance to the Forbidden City is barely visible in the yellow haze.
When you return to Los Angeles you should realize that the haze in 2018 Los Angeles is what air will be like in most US cities within 10 years under the Pruitt and Trump Freedom Air Plan. In fact, rural areas such as California's Central Valley, will also have more smog than Los Angeles today.
Is that the legacy you want to leave your grandchildren? If so, buy stock in asthma medications.
66
To Capt. Penny - I agree. I remember the days of being sick as a kid in LA and sometimes in the Bay Area. I've traveled different areas of the world where they don't have very good air quality. You have to take two showers a day to remove the soot from your nose and skin. No thanks. I am all for California fighting this battle. Let's look forward with new technology to cut pollution, not go backwards to unregulated air quality.
26
The law should be re-labeled “Freedom From Air. “
6
Oil prices are currently low, which makes consumers less concerned about fuel economy and automakers eager to sell SUVs (see Ford's recent decision to abandon much of its car line). But giving up on cars and fuel efficiency will make US makers still less competitive globally; it will also paint them into a corner when (not if) fuel prices eventually rebound. The tightened CAFE standards, in addition to being essential to bring down greenhouse gas pollution, are good for competitiveness and industry stability in the long run.
10
Low...maybe but gas here is coming close to 4 a gallon for the cheap stuff. So we, in california, are concerned.
3
Smog we generate wafts to the east and over Oklahoma.
You could make it worse, Mr. Pruitt!
Thank goodness you won't last long, like all the rest of the Trump Swampers.
Even the auto industry doesn't like trump's proposal all that much... and that tells you a lot.
13
All over our beautiful country, the people want fuel efficient cars and no smog. Who needs a car that can go 0 to 60 mph--who drives like that, and where do they do it--on Rt. 80 at rush hour? In NJ, on one of our biggest thru-ways, rush hour lasts from 6:00am to about 11:00am, and then again from 3:30pm to 7:30pm.
When gasoline gets so expensive as it's getting AGAIN, people start cutting back on their driving whenever they can because THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT! Maybe the bigwigs in the government and the auto industry don't experience that pinch, but the general population does.
And nobody is saying, but of course the oil producers are part of this push for less fuel efficiency. But with gasoline going up in price, it's like another unexpected tax.
I don't want to buy a car that can go 0-to-60 MPH in 6 seconds, I want to buy a car that can go 0-to-60 MPG!
23
The US auto industry is fully backing the Trump-Pence-GOP turn back of emissions regulations (falsely) claiming the technology is not available to meet the standards and would be too expensive to develop.
Facts show otherwise. Without exception, any driver's needs for basic safe transportation can be met with a hybrid vehicle (MPG >=40mpg). And for those, that is most of us who drive fewer than 100 miles daily, an electric vehicle.
To those who say 'nay' try it before you pass judgement!
All must recognize that GM is spending BILLIONS in China to build out a full line of ALL electric vehicle for the Chinese and Indian markets. It appears GM does have the technology and is producing low priced vehicle that meet the upcoming rules.
IF T-P-GOP follow through on revoking these standards while the rest of the world markets are moving towards these standards. . .well, this will be one more global market where the USA loses. Jobs will be lost, USA will experience further balance of payment problems and the choking smog will return to our cities as the number of vehicles increases.
20
Why must the goals of the GOP always be in direct opposition to protecting our planet?
35
Hooray for California!! Hooray for Governor Brown!! I am very proud of my Governor and my State for leading this challenge, which is fundamental on grounds of both public policy and democratic governance. "Outlaw Pruitt" indeed!
30
I cannot fathom what Trump is thinking (if he even does at all) when he also pretends to care about our exports. Our cars will be unsalable outside of the US if we reverse course on emissions standards. Foolish move (I almost typed policy, but there is no policy per se with this administration).
13
If the will of the majority is subverted through a slavery-era law like the Electoral College, then this is the way to do it; in TODAY'S courts.
6
This is also a huge play to drastically increase gas prices to justify ever more hazardous oil exploration to keep us “energy sufficient”.
Destroy the air, destroy the environment, destroy as many living things as possible—including their hapless grandchildren—for what? Money for the ultra-rich few, that they don’t need.
13
I say to the US automakers proceed at your own peril. Have you not learned anything from your history. You can chose to follow path number one, or you can chose path number two which is the one the rest of the world will be doing your choice. I for one would never buy another US that has chosen to ignore consumer choices and I do not think that I am alone in this.
13
The auto industry sounds like they just might have created a mess for themselves. I am with CA and will cross state lines to buy my next car since NM seems to be part of the not progressive group.
19
This administration and ruling party only serves the donors interests and have succeeded in convincing the non elite they can be elite too if they only follow their way. This means quarterly earnings and maximized shareholder value. if the government is really a reflection of the people, it reflects a lot of apathy and lack of will to do what’s right for all of us, not just some.
6
I am:
1. Ashamed to be a member of my generation
2. Ashamed of what this country has become
3. Proud to be a Californian
53
You can believe what you want. There are literally thousands of people moving to beautiful Nevada every day from the State of California. Who really needs California and its attitude today?
So you are pro-pollution?
7
All aboard the post-truth express train to stupid. Can you believe that we have to sue the federal government to stop killing us? The belief that less government improves lives is a belief, not a fact. It has been tried and has never worked. But that does not stop true believers from trying again. The belief that more pollution from cars will be harmless is a belief, not a fact. And the fact that pollution kills is a fact, not a belief. So three cheers for dismantling the work of truth and replacing it with the magic world of opinion.
23
This article mentions the Big Three asking for the rule changes - could the NY Times get all major automakers on the record on their support of Obama vs. Trump EPA rules? Should Pruitt get his way and the US has two different emissions standards will they make two versions of their cars, or will any commit to meeting the higher standards regardless?
I'm ready to rule out the Big Three when buying a car in a few years, but to be objective I need to know where the other companies stand.
14
When my car bites the dust, I’ll fly to CA to buy one of their cars!
11
Can't we leave this poor man alone? Toxic land, water, air, and the 350,000,000 of us who count on produce from sunny CA is of NO interest to Pres. Trump. Does California not know this man is already drowning in lawsuits? You may want to consider that filing another
suit from the 5th largest world economy that feeds much of our country all by itself - a state having the impertinence to want CLEAN RESOURCES to DO IT! - could be the straw that breaks the man's back.
WE HOPE SO, California! KEEP IT UP! Tie the man, his heavily mortgaged properties, and his faux billions into Gordian knots, while we add a handful of California walnuts to the dinner salad. We're counting on you and the precious third leg of government to save the air, water, land - and every living thing in, on, under, and around it.
21
Once again....big business profits, and we the people lose.
6
california has a unique problem in LA due to their geography that requires electric cars to fix i.e. fix it and leave the rest of us alone
The entire Central Valley of CA (where your lettuce comes from) has the same problem, as does Denver, as does the earth - it is called global warming..what 'rest of us' do you want left alone - mars?
30
Denver also has geography that traps smog during winter temperature inversions. Before auto emissions standards were increased there were many winter days when one could not even see the Rocky Mountains from the city. Now (unless there are Western wildfires raging) the air is crisp and clean with beautiful mountain views.
As for leaving the rest of you alone, it sounds like you think air pollution stops at city or state borders. Not so. Many National Parks in the west, some quite remote, have had their scenic views obscured by air pollution.
6
Pruitt is working as a lobbyist for the oil and gas industries. He's supposed to be serving the American people by protecting our air and water. He's not fulfilling the mission of the E.P.A. and for that alone he can and should be fired.
He's easily the most corrupt and despicable politician ever to serve a president (who also happens to be corrupt and despicable.)
This lawsuit is good news. I hope we prevail in the courts against this abhorrent swamp creature.
30
Thank you, California.
30
Most of the really nice cars in Chicago are stolen every day. Pollution laws are hard to enforce if you have no car or it was shipped to Mexico on the black market.
That makes no sense and has nothing to do with the comment you are commenting on.
5
And most of NV is completely empty. So you drive through a lot of nothing to get anywhere. So why do you need cars at all?
2
We Californians pay more for our cars because of the added pollution equipment, and while we complain, we pay. Our gas prices are the highest in the nation, to collect $ for clean air and water projects. While we complain, we pay. We need it. We do not want the already poor air in LA and the Central Valley to kill more kids. and ruin our environment. So what do the automakers want? Is it just easier to make all of the cars in one place? Save on shipping? WE pay for it! Trump is short sighted and is just giving California the finger. If he thinks that our attitude will change once Governor Moonbeam is gone, he is wrong.
24
You keep saying that but it has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. Are you for or against reducing pollution?
5
That is why so many individuals like yourself are retiring to beautiful Nevada.
I agree with almost none of California's weird state laws, but this one...absolutely yes. Emissions are controllable, and the environment needs those controls. I would not agree to force car owners to upgrade to either a new car or a conversion - let natural attrition handle it.
5
The problem with 'grandfathering in' things like cars is that it takes too long. I myself drive an almost 20 year-old car and it's got a few years left.
I know there are big, complicated problems with phasing out the current fleet of non-compliant cars, but if we aren't proactive about it, it's going to defeat the purpose of creating the new standards in the first place.
1
True, but probably impossible. I see no way to "mandate" the purchase of a compliant car. And really, how many people don't "upgrade" their cars more often than you or I? (Mine is 20 yrs old, too).
California is one of the largest car sales market. If they win this case, car manufactures will have to service 2 different markets.
You know that is not going to happen.
We now have a capital hill cluttered by people, who supposedly represent us who don't give a rip about our planet.
42
Meanwhile, Ford is planning on discontinuing all cars except the iconic high performance Mustangs. because pickup trucks and SUVs are more profitable. Gas prices have nowhere to go but UP, and when it hits $5/G in a couple years, they ARE going to regret this.
12
Looks like we are headed towards another "we're too big to fail" moment - except this time by their own volition.
Ford is basically saying they don't have the ability to compete with the primary car manufacturers - and that should be terrifying.
The tariffs that the WH is trying to impose on steel make it even worse. Like shooting yourself in the foot with an AR-15 and no bandaids left.
10
Automakers may be missing a marketing opportunity, namely, offering California-standard vehicles in other states as an option. If they charge whatever they need to make a profit, some number of concerned citizens will pay. I for one didn't buy a hybrid because it was the cheapest choice.
26
Automakers realize that there's little point in making cars up to two sets of standards; they'll only make one, and it'll conform to California, and sell it everywhere.
17
Consumers, especially younger more environmentally concerned buyers, will eventually turn the table on this. More consumers want environmentally-friendly cars because we don’t want to breathe smog. They will be more likely to reject cars that are not manufactured to meet higher environmental standards. Trump’s folks will get a big surprise when American car dealers continue to fail if they don’t continue to improve the auto’s impact.
I drive a Chevy Spark that fits my urban needs and gets great mileage. (I will say, however, that it is manufactured in South Korea). If Chevy drops that small car line or makes a less Environmentally-friendly version, I’ll be first in line to change brands.
40
Automobile manufacturers would do their stockholders a disservice to dismiss the California targets and gamble on national election results in 2018 and 2020. Trump's efforts are short-sighted, and readily overturned.
56
What other people need to understand is that lower car emission rules for California is not some sort crusade being pursued by Californians merely for the sake of "go green" ideology. This is an important health issue--sometimes life or death--for people who live in areas of California that are prone to smog. Take a look a pictures of smoggy LA back in the 1970s. That is the situation California is trying to prevent from happening again by going toe to toe with an EPA that prioritizes automaker profits over the respiratory health of Americans living in an entire state.
120
As an asthmatic I applaud Gov. Brown, CA, and the other states that are included in this lawsuit. As citizens we should all be voting for emissions to remain low. Air doesn't stop at the border of your state to mine. I have the right to my life which requires that I continue to breathe healthy air. Trump should be voted out of office on this issue alone.
92
Who would have ever thought that we'd have to sue the Trump administration to keep our air clean. Does profit always trump over health? This is about life and death, and illness.
67
Are you kidding?
2
No she is not. Are you pro-pollution?
5
Wondering why Trump does not even care about the environmental protection of his own grandchildren........
38
The answer is in your own question: "...Trump does not even care..."
7
He probably realizes he has burned all his bridges. They’ll all move to Maralago in Florida, a red state where they can be happy and feel appreciated. This will also have the effect of making the people of New York happy! Although Baron and Melania will probably remain here after the divorce.
As for clean air-we will have 100 governments before the planet becomes uninhabitable, but we only have one planet. I am looking forward to Jerry Brown winning his suit and being able to buy my new Subaru with California emissions refs!
9
Trump and Pruitt are playing checkers, they are incapable of thinking two or three moves ahead. Yes, they have children. No, they are not very smart.
6
Most Republican administrations in this era can be counted on to fight regulations with the argument that they inhibit the economy. But the Trump Administration and notably several of its cabinet members, the worst being the corrupt and malevolent Scott Pruitt, has taken that mandate to alarming extremes.
There appears to be a demented willfulness to destroy even reasonable standards and practices with little regard for the consequences, not just to human and environmental health, but even an economy that has long since adapted its protocols to accommodate change based on factual evidence concerning the negative outcomes in proportion to any financial gains.
It's good to see states fighting back and this president has given them myriad reasons to do so, first and foremost being the fact that unlike the feds, they will not be able to simply create massive deficits to take care of the damage being wrought by Trump and Co.
34
The article only has PR statements and reactions. Please include some substance, minimally what the coalition is asserting in the lawsuit and an assessment of the legal process and prospects.
3
Once again California leads the way to a better future for all of America. Clean air is something that it is not a luxury. In the 1950's L.A. air was so foul that people working outside were wearing gas masks. Today, while not perfect we have begun to reverse the effects of total reliance on fossil fuels. California and 16 other states with thinking governments are standing against the federal government's overreach in rolling back key elements of the Clean Air Act. What used to be the party of "states rights" is now selectively deciding when to ignore their own past values. As Governor Brown has stated, this is a life and death issue. In California we chose to keep our air clean and make sure as the westerlies blow clouds over the rest of our fellow citizens that they are not smog filled. Who could argue with that? Unfortunately this administration in Washington. Shameful.
55
Bravo California and all the rest of the states signing on. I hope they win or at least drag this out in court until we see the the door slamming on this administration and for the automakers to get religion as we head toward $4/gallon gas again.
When are they going to get we all breathe the same air?
26
I love California. #resist
43
Trump and his worthless and ill chosen cabinet are all stupid men: fools. His mantra: "If Obama did it I'll kill it," is leading this country down a dead end street. The message is clear: DUMP TRUMP!
79
Well now, let's be fair. Some of them are stupid women.
5
The rollback of emissions rules will save lives. Cars have become amazingly efficient during the past few decades. Further advances will depend primarily on making cars lighter and smaller, with inherent safety compromises, despite little-to-no effect on global pollution. The US is now a minor player in the destruction of our ecosystem, which is population based and unaffected by incremental per capita efficiency changes.
3
Amazingly efficient? 40% of our global warming emissions are from vehicles, in San Diego. Car emissions represent a very significant part of global warming. Or do you not 'believe' in the greenhouse effect? Or in deaths caused by hurricanes, heat waves, as well as loss of species like bees!
24
Everything you said is the exact opposite of what is true. The technology exists to continue to reduce emissions and that needs to be done. The U.S. is still a huge contributor to global pollution.
6
Jerry Brown for Prez!
33
Last car I bought was a Ford after the financial meltdown, I wanted to support US automakers and autos workers. After this round of lobbying by the big three to disregard the importance of fuel economy and emissions standards, I’ll take my business to a more socially responsible auto maker.
144
Karin, my thoughts exactly! I’ve driven a Ford for the last 9 years thinking it better to drive American made. No more. I’m disgusted with US auto companies’ retrogressive stance on rolling back emission regulations.
34
My father always said the Ford was really Fix or Repair Daily. His first car was a model T.
7
If you buy a Toyota or Nissan, chances are good you're buying a car made in America, supporting well-paying jobs in the non-Union South ️or border states. My 1997 Nissan Altima was assembled in Shelby, TN and does very well, thank you. Or is that Shelby, MS? In either case, kudos to Nissan.
BMW is now in South Carolina, others in AL. It can be done.
3
So who, exactly, are Trump and Pruitt trying to please with this environmentally absurd move, and why? The proverbial "Base" should not want it, since, other than showing that their hero, who promised to undo everything Obama did, is following through, it serves no real purpose, as the auto industry seems to be wanting to impress upon Don Don.
Wait. Perhaps the stable genius thinks that, since we want to produce more steel and aluminum (hence the proposed tariffs on our allies Canada, Mexico and the Europeans), we need to be able to use OUR more expensive steel and aluminum for something. How about producing more gas-guzzlers that don't have to worry about clean air. In some universe, all this will boost the American economy and make more money for Don's buddies, the Amerigarchs (oligarchs in any other country).
40
If you want give more of the US market for cars and light trucks to European and Asian manufacturers, adopt the Trump plan. Our foreign competitors get it. American manufacturers get it but want some specific relief in the fleet calculations. The right-wing ideologues in the GOP and Trump administration not only fail to get it, they want to stick it to the California coalition and the rest of the world to try to prevent us from understanding the science, economics and even the morality of the issues. But California will not soon become Alabama or Kansas no matter how hard Trump and the right wing of the GOP try.
101
It is not surprising why automakers have recently announced that they are abandoning the smaller and more fuel efficient cars. Once Pruitt started the dismantling of fuel efficiency and emission goals set by the Obama administration, the auto makers no longer had any incentive to keep the lower margin but better fuel efficiency cars to help push up average gas mileage of their lineup.
18
Only American automakers are abandoning the fuel efficient sedans. The Japanese, Korean, German, Scandinavian and Italian automakers continue to make very good fuel-efficient vehicles. I'm very happy with my Toyota hybrid.
12
If the American automakers are paying even a modicum of attention to the changing market demands, the car buyer demographics of millennials, the unfettered demand for electric cars and China and Japan’s commitment to electric, then it won’t matter. The corruption of Pruitt and Trump is but a blip on the radar in time and the next president will reverse their changes anyway, assuming they even pass. Good for Jerry Brown though, he’s a true leader.
140
but today, and for the foreseeable future, they are focused in the American market on selling SUVs and pickups that they can sell with an enormous profit margin. Small and intermediate size cars that they need to drag fleet mileage averages down to meet standards have comparably little if any profit beyond the auto's fixed production costs per vehicle. So here we are. As you point out millenials have a different view of personal transportation and Ford, Chrysler and GM are still trying to squeeze every last drop of oil out of the guzzler addicted boomer generation...
8
Of course, another answer is for the auto industry to unite and sign a pact to maintain the fuel efficiency standards and targets in place. That would demonstrate good citizenship and corporate responsibility; be a slap in the fact to Trump and his gang of energy interests; and help 'prove' to Americans that these regulations are NOT industry-devastating as Trump claims they are.
77
Great idea! Naturally, our responsible corporate leaders will immediately move to create a pact that doesn't depend on Scott Pruitt's whims.
...
Sorry, I had to pause to stop laughing. Naturally, our responsible corporate leaders in the automobile industry will quickly seek the position that will cause the biggest short-term jump for their vast portfolios of stock and stock options, then use some of the tax windfall to hire more lawyers to suppress their unions and to lobby Congress with bucketfuls of tax-reduction cash!
24
The rest of the world is moving ahead with cleaner automobile technology, cleaner air and less manmade global warming.
The Trump-Pruitt Gas-Oil-Petroleum-Industrial-Complex seeks to retard that technological and environmental and evolutionary progress all for the sake of a few extra greedy dollars while leaving America in the dust as Europe, China and Japan move forward with human ingenuity.
Once again, the Trump Administration regresses America and tries to make America the slowest student in the class.
We have met the enemy...and it is Republican.
Thank you California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington....for standing up to Trump-Pruitt and going backwards.
Greed Over People is a terrible thing.
197
Well put, but obvious, and maybe not PC enough to avoid alienating some of the problems.
3