I miss my big 1984 Chevy Impala. I don't want no stinking SUV. Bring back the land yacht sedans! Ban electric windows and put the gas cap under the drivers license again. Make cars great again!
I have lived in Asia for five years and almost forgot about the passion for SUVs in the US. They're almost unheard of over here because of higher taxes for owning such vehicles (and more expensive petrol). What a needless waste of the world's precious energy!
9
When the next oil price spike comes, and it will come, who will be in better position to deal with it the automakers with a 37 mile per gallon fleet average or a 57 mile per gallon fleet average. They should be thinking foe 2030 not 2019. Do people think gas would be this cheep if cars still got the fuel efficiency they got in 1980. Fuel efficiency is as much a part of our national security is our military. Nations have gone to war for access to oil.
11
Even if Trump reduces the emissions standards, why can't the car makers keep to the stricter standards and sell the same cars everywhere? No one's forcing them to sell one type of car in some states and another type of car in others. Not only would it be more efficient for them, it would be a first for the industry to lead American consumers where they need to go, rather than playing to the worst impulses of the consumer. Why not be a good corporate citizen and do the right thing?
19
Funny old world.
The self interests of the auto industry require them to support removal of Mr. Trump from office. Businesses adore predictability, and Mr. Trump's lack of any intellectual base makes his world far too unpredictable for the big corporate capitalists. They would be better served by the greater predictability of a President Bernie Sanders or a President Elizabeth Warren.
Funny old world.
6
As many others have noted, it is high time that large (and small) corporations, both U.S. and international, need to do what is best for the environment and humanity, regardless of the regulations crafted by short-term-thinking bureaucrats. For that matter, we should be electing scientists and engineers into our higher offices, as they would be far better suited to devise effective solutions to our myriad challenges.
11
I would like to remind automobile manufacturers that pushing back against global warming initiatives is not good business. For the sake of our future, efforts toward reducing carbon emissions must be increased in an "all out effort". Reducing the effort simply because a low mentality administration says it's okay, would be a classic example of capitalism turning malevolent.
25
It continues to be amazing how a man with perhaps one of the largest egos ever seen in politics, continuously fails to recognize that all the things he is doing for short term gains with his base will only cement his place in history as a clueless punchline for untold centuries to come.
30
@AndyW
"... all the things he is doing for short term gains with his base will only cement his place in history as a clueless punchline for untold centuries to come"
But his 'base,' and future versions of it, will still deify him.
1
@AndyW
Mr. Trump cares about what he hears about himself. Because he will not hear any of the things said about him centuries from now, they are not real. What may be said in the future is mere fake news.
2
They should treat Trump's rollback as strictly temporary.
9
California and the other states must follow the law concerning EPA fuel mileage standards. Under the law, states must comply with federal standards. Currently, U.S. EPA and the Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) are re-writing the standards, as they are allowed to do under federal law. The states have the right to comment on the new proposed standards. If any state believes the feds are violating the laws that govern the re-writing of the rules, they can sue. However, they cannot choose to ignore the new rules. They must comply until a court of law says otherwise.
California has been granted waivers by the federal government since the 1960s. Many states follow suit.
8
Automakers should do what is right. They should oppose Trump's rollback. They should stay the course and stick with the more stringent requirements. The transportation sector now emits more carbon dioxide than is emitted to generate electricity. It's really that simple.
14
Would a split US market help the offshore brands? I remember my youth when the engineers at Honda etc. were much more adept that the ones in Detroit at getting pollution controls and thrifty engines to work. This one a big reason why the import brands earned market share so quickly. The companies with engineers based overseas where fuel economy is a constant priority will have a big advantage if US based companies become known for gas guzzlers. I can foresee a time when driving a guzzler will be socially discouraged - like smoking or not using car seats for kids.
16
So Trump want to increase U.S. dependence on foreign oil, create a regulatory mess for industry, and undermine state's rights?
All in an attempt to erase any evidence of Obama in the White House?
Madness.
27
Simple problem. The USA has the world's worst federal government at the moment making the entire world less well off and dangerous for all life forms.
The tRump administration is simply a disaster in every way. The Americans have gone insane. Simple.
16
Seems simple, keep striving toward the higher standard with one product line and take market share with the more cost effective vehicles.
Those that can afford to over pay will always accept the alternatives. Those who can't afford but insist on having status symbol ego boosters will always live beyond their means.
Doesn't seem like a conflict but a choice of needs and wants. I want 60 MPGs and don't need the SUV that never leaves the pavement, can carry 6+ passengers, capable of towing a mobile home and carrying a platoons luggage. Love my VW.
5
I think that the biggest point in this article, which was in some ways glossed over, was the idea that the feds could overrule state laws re automobiles.
This is a major sea change from what our founders were creating when they wanted a federal government, with states having rights and some independence. Do we really want a central government that has total control???? This is a very slippery slope and could change a LOT of laws and the overall governance of the land.
6
This is an easy issue to handle.
You engineer for the lowest possible emissions with the best gas mileage while delivering more power from the combustion.
The industry should always be challenging itself in this manner while also deciding that safety features should not be expensive 'options' on vehicles.
Another way to look at this is, simply ignore the government and build excellent products.
18
So it's now up to us consumers to choose the least emitting cars. Time to take responsibility for our purchases.
9
The US manufacturers sell their cars overseas, and source components, including engines, from outside of the US. As the rest of the world follows the Paris accords, the American auto industry becomes "out of synch" with the rest of the world; hence their increasing cost to manufacture, and declining sales will put them into financial difficulties.
11
Of course the automakers could work to make the most efficient and environmentally friendly cars they can and the Market will follow suit. Just because the government has relaxed the rules doesn't mean they have to make dirtier vehicles. Automakers would be wise to keep moving towards cleaner technology since the market and future administrations will demand it. Say nothing about trying to sell US cars abroad where regs are much more stringent.
8
The question isn't about "Trump or no Trump". The question is "pollute or don't pollute". Like the utilities industry that has invested in order to shift away from coal-burning power plants, it is time for the car industry to shift away from "burn all the gas you're allowed to burn" to something more responsible and perfectly feasible. It's bad enough that they are pedaling large, relatively inefficient vehicles like SUVs over more efficient sedans that are designed to offer many of the same benefits. To go retro on fuel consumption is grossly irresponsible.
The auto industry accounts for an enormous portion of global pollution. Its leaders need to be accountable for that situation and do what they can to resolve it. "Trump or no Trump" is not the pressing question here. Planet survival is.
7
There is no reason for bigger and heavier cars. Americans are all for YOU saving the environment, but not them.
6
The consumers will have a say for sure. No one really wants a gas guzzler anymore. It will undoubtedly lie in the hands of the educated consumer.
2
Many on this comments thread are assuming Trump will be gone soon. Sure about that? Don't get me wrong, I want him out to, but doesn't mean it's going to happen.
1
Whether this disaster remains in office, the younger set are going to demand sanity on the environmental front.
5
@dude Trump has lost his novelty. Many voted for giving him a chance. Is suspect that 10% of his vote will say no way in 2020. Even now Trump only attends well choreographed Bund Rallies he know his reception would be much more hostile and far less generous in a more neutral crowd. The real question the GOP should be asking is how much of a albatross Trump will be in 2020
7
No worries, the Japanese automakers will continue to make efficient, safe vehicles and the big 3 will go back to making oversize gas guzzlers. The "market" will decide the winners and losers and we know how this will end-again.
Gas prices are already inching toward a $4.00/gal in CA...
8
Why do people need SUVs or light trucks? Most of us don't live in rural areas, haul things, or have a lot of passengers. What I've noticed is that many who drive these oversized vehicles tend to "hog" the road, park badly, and ignore signs. The rest of us are stuck avoiding them even if we have the right of way.
13
@hen3ry I suspect the SUV will soon become the Minivan it is too ubiquitous and is bordering on cliche.
2
This is nothing new, California had different rules some time ago. The companies can adjust those cars that they sell, or just keep the stricter rules. That will be their choice, which is the point.
2
The car makers’ main problems are two: greed and mistrust of each other. Were they willing to forgo some profit they could sell only high efficiency cars. If they could trust in joint solidarity in deciding what to do, they could all decide to produce only high efficiency cars.
Neither solution will occur.
3
@John Brews. ❎❎❎
Should the automakers join forces and consciously decide on standards that affect price they could face price fixing charges or run afoul of anti-trust laws. I'm not a lawyer, but it just seems like commonsense.
1
States can always encourage use of more efficient cars through a "use tax" applied to annual license plate purchases. Many states do this now by charging a property tax that increases rates for more expensive cars. How about charging a carbon tax instead to increase the licensing rate for less fuel efficient cars and decrease them for more efficient cars
4
I don't see what the issue is for the automakers. This is 2019, the soonest the emissions standards will directly effect cars would be 2020, maybe even 2021.
Even in the worst case scenario with Trump winning another term, that's still only four more years. As soon as another Dem president takes office the Trump emissions will get re-rolled back.
In other words, automakers should be making a push towards super fuel efficiency and yes, hybrid SUVs. Perhaps it's time to research exactly *why* many car buyers prefer SUVs and manufacture the New American Car.
3
I drove to the grocery story yesterday.
I noted that approximately 90% of vehicles in the parking lot were SUVs, trucks, or vans. This is insanity.
I don’t care about global warming. I do care about national security. Our national security is threatened when we waste oil, most of which comes onto the global market from authoritarian and/or radical Islamic regimes.
Increase U.S. oil production? Yes. Decrease U.S. oil consumption? Also yes.
Increasing fuel economy standards was okay, but an overly complex solution. We need a more direct solution – increasing the fuel tax by $.50 or more per gallon.
Call it a Patriot Tax and split the proceeds between debt reduction and infrastructure improvements.
People will still have the freedom to drive large vehicles, but will be incentivized to drive smaller ones if possible.
5
It's obvious from reading this article that America needs to re-elect Donald Trump. Look at all the positives: he's good for the environment, he's a blessing for the auto industry, and he typifies the Republicans who are always in favor of states' rights---except when they're not. What can you expect from a man whose caddies nicknamed him "Pele?"
4
The auto industry is concerned about retaliation from the "president", or, losing California's market.
As the piece states, California is forever and Trump has an expiration date.
So, the solution is easy-just keep manufacturing automobiles using the standards the manufacturers currently abide by.
Yes, many will discount California as a bastion of "elite" liberals, and many of those who poo-poo the state quite possibly have never lived or visited the state in the days before CARB and will not have any comparison of the bad old days to today.
I live in an area of Utah that is blanketed with air pollution during the winter for extended periods (some blame that on the GOP controlled state legislature-there may be something to that allegation). However, this state and the people will suffer more from air pollution should the federal government loosen pollution standards solely to satisfy the whims of Trump.
Trump's plan on emissions is just more destruction of our environment. And the GOP sits on their hands.
4
It will be interesting to see how California and activist judges will deal with the Interstate Commerce Clause & how it would apply in their state.
Trump will be gone soon and any regressive standards he implements will be reversed.
The car makers and the public know this.
1
The auto industry should do what's right for the future of our planet: keep the Obama emission standards in all 50 states. Future generations will thank them.
9
Documents of early efforts of California to fight Climate Change thwarted mostly by Republicans are at
https://www.legalreader.com/50-years-of-legal-climate-change/
If the president really wants to kill off the behind-the-ball American car industry once and for all, this is the fastest way of doing it. The Japanese, German, Korean and Chinese carmakers are all moving rapidly towards electric vehicles. Dangling the idea of allowing Detroit to continue building filthy gas-guzzlers will only wrong foot an industry that has already been much too slow to evolve and put it at a huge international disadvantage. Sheer stupidity, to say nothing of ecological vandalism--this administration is just such a hydra-headed tussle of flat-earthers and troglodytes.
9
Auto makers should show their concern for the consumers they depend on and ignore what trump is saying. The auto makers who ignore environmental concerns will be doomed to failure (I hope). Hard to sell cars on a dead planet.
3
Just to be a bit off the wall. In Europe and the UK there are growing moves to combat air pollution from cars eg ULEZ in London (Ultra Low emissions zone). So it's maybe possible to look down on the actions of the US. However, the reality is that because of the low population density in the US it's been shown that economically it's a lot more expensive for Americans to cut down on car use and emissions than it is for Europeans. It's easy for us but if it was as hard as it is for Americans without public transport being a possible alternative say as it is for us we wouldn't be so keen? Even in rural UK there are complaints about the lack of public transport and the necessity of having a car regardless of the cost to the environment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/upshot/trump-america-full-or-emptying.html#commentsContainer
1
The NJ legislature introduced legislation to respond to Trump federal rollbacks, making it mandatory that the State restore those requirements under State law. The bill is pending.
But, just last week, Gov. Murphy undermined this legislative mandate by issuing an Executive Order #63 that makes reversal of Trump federal rollbacks voluntary.
For details and links, see:
http://www.wolfenotes.com/2019/04/gov-murphys-executive-order-on-regulatory-policy-raises-major-new-concerns/
Obama-era rules. Rules.
In other words, our former president and his bureaucracy instituted rules, not laws. If you want these ‘rules’ to stick, pass a law.
A pen and a phone only cut it when Dems and ‘progressives’ want something they can’t get legislatively.
1
So the world is getting better and cleaner, and Trump just can’t stand that. Auto makers should just ignore him and carry forth as if Obama regulations remained. The minute Trunp is out of office we are going back anyway.
4
Why is this even a story? Of course auto manufacturers should stay with the more stringent standards. They will still need to meet the more stringent standards being imposed on auto manufacturing in other markets.
Why would they be led back to the past by a man who will be ranked as one of our worst presidents? Let this administration roll back standards ....manufacturers don't have to abide by them. Companies shouldn't let themselves be suckered by xenophobes who think the only market is the United States.
4
The Auto companies need to side with America not trump. Trump is a bump in the road however the rest of us will be here a long time and we need clean air. I will try very hard not to buy from any auto company I see supporting new rules that allow them to pollute our air and take away states rights.
6
The writing's on the wall and it strongly suggests trump's Pollution First agenda has about as much chance as a dodo of surviving his one and only term in office.
3
Electric cars are the future. It’s obvious.
5
They're in favor of states' rights only when it suits them. It's not just hypocritical, it's tyranny.
5
It is ironic that just as science unveils the first ever image of a black hole, Trump is unveiling this science-denying policy. And as the migration of climate refugees the world-over is ramping up to produce a border crisis wherever there is a border, Trump still denies climate change. The people who voted for this turkey should be ashamed.
3
In the next 15 years, households will own more electric vehicles, making the argument mute.
1
I assume that keeping your old car running is the best way to avoid the confusion now regarding the fuel standards for new cars.
Either that, or buy an electric/hybrid vehicle.
1
What's the problem, car manufacturers? Just follow the most environmental of rules in place, the current ones or new ones arising in certain states and you can sell everywhere. Be responsible citizens of the planet, Seems simple to me. No problem then.
4
Easy solution for the poor car companies struggling with the rollback in standards. Ignore the new rules and go for the higher standards. Our grandchildren will thank them.
4
My next car will have to provide me with at least 50 miles per gallon. If it doesn't, I won't buy it. It's as simple as that.
5
I'm looking at reducing down to one car when my 2nd car lease expires in 14 months. I can walk to many amenities now and even though my wife and I are pushing seventy, with a bit of planning I believe we can manage with one car, a 7 y/o vehicle. This is all the more plausible because the children are raised and we are retired.
2
The auto companies wanted Trump to relax emissions standards so they could pollute more. Trump thought that was a great idea and did as they wished. Now they whine that there will be 2 standards because some states, like California, care about air quality and climate change, and this will hurt their business. They got what they wanted but they are unhappy. How ironic. Maybe they should have thought this through more, something we would expect of adults. I, for one, won't be buying any of their cars because they care more about their own profits than any social good. Capitalism doesn't just mean pure profits. There is a place for profits and good. They could care less if kids with asthma are breathing dirty air or oceans levels are rising and severe weather patterns are getting worse across the US (and globe). They can win the battle but lose the war - California will be around for a lot longer than Trump, and so will I, my kids, and my neighbors.
12
What is the problem with trying to diminish the emissions from vehicles and improving gas mileage? Why is Trump, with the blessing of the GOP and a few others, doing this? Fossil fuels will not last forever. Owning a car is expensive. And the way we are forced to use them in the United States is inefficient, adds to pollution, and doesn't do anything for our quality of life when so many are forced to live 2-3 hours away from work.
We would be better served if our "president" would direct the federal government to do research into alternative fuels, into better methods of controlling sprawl, and spend money on upgrading the roads we have.
In other words, unless you're Donald Trump or someone with a vested interest in propping up a lifestyle that is becoming untenable for so many reasons, global warming being one, this latest directive is nonsense.
174
@hen3ry
Nothing is inherently wrong with trying to diminish the emissions from vehicles and improving gas mileage. Its how you go about doing it where it gets contentious. As usual, the devil is in the details.
3
@hen3ry The problem is that the means to do so is not that easy, and some of us don't want to drive expensive electrics, or small and under powered cars either. If in California they want that they can have it.
4
@vulcanalex Just for reference, my electric car payment is $250 a month, and my electric bill vs. gas bill difference is $75 in my favor. This is a popular thought about the price, but check the sticker prices on lower-end electric cars. The prices are getting really reasonable. I'm not saying you have to get one, just that it's less than many people think.
16
We literally have about 10-15 years to get our act together or it’s game over. And this is what the American auto industry is fretting over? I hope Tesla fossilizes all of you like the dinosaurs you are.
It is evil to continuing building or buying vehicles with internal combustion engines when we now have viable alternative options. Anyone who thinks their wealth will insulate them from what’s coming is a fool.
35
@Boston With over 7.5+ Billion people on the planet and growing it has been "game over" for quite a few years...just the methane released for thawing out tundra and methane hydrates bubbling up from the ocean floors alone is changing climate temperatures and providing a positive feedback loop for ever increasing temperatures. As for the population: in order to feed, clothe, house and transport items it is necessary for a country to industrialize and burn fossil fuels. Even more so with the move away from Nuclear Power Plants which have a Zero Carbon Footprint. Solar Panels and Windturbine farms do not produce enough power for the electrical grid by themselves even when combined with Hydroelectric power...As for Electric Vehicles eventually the batteries wear out and have to be replaced: these are very expensive, and the old batteries end up in landfills, as do electric switches, transformers and generators pulled from windturbine farms.
1
@Boston
Amazing that sentient beings actually think we only have 10-15 years left.
The climate change anxiety scam is working on some, it appears.
Sigh...
1
The solution for the auto companies is simple. Follow the strictest set of rules. Unless the Trump administration has the power to force them to get worse mileage and pollute more,
I don't see a problem.
12
In urban areas of California, cars must pass strict smog compliance checks. Consequently, wouldn't be difficult to bring noncompliant vehicles across state lines into California, for example.
I acknowledge, however, the drivers may simply bribe smog inspection stations, such as gas stations, to issue a pass. Also, an industry might spring up to provide fake smog-pass certificates.
Also, as other commenters have pointed out, having different parts inventories will make it more expensive for automakers to produce vehicles.
1
The basic premise written here is wrong. The auto companies will profit from weakening standards, because of cheap gasoline and consumer preferences. While the Obama standards are extreme, I myself support them, but most Americans prefer to buy expensive trucks and SUVs with poor performance. But make no mistake--the consumer is king and relaxed fuel economy standards allow automakers to provide Americans with the cars they prefer. Thus, trucks and SUVs have the highest profit margins (indisputable fact).
2
I will never buy a car from any auto company that stands in the Rose Garden instead of standing up for pollution controls for our beautiful American land.
And I will support any public backlash against any car company that stands with Trump.
I understsnd it was more the oil companies than the car manufacturers who really pushed to allow more emissions to be released into the air- still the car companies are complicit if they don’t publically come out against this last gasp of the unevolved politicians.
Remember during the gas crisis when people, average citizens, were vandalizing gas guzzlers like Humvees?
6
I couldn’t be happier that this is happening to the auto industry. They were so short-sighted and now have to deal with the consequences.
5
There’s a reason I live here. California is a global leader, and 7th largest economy in the world. California and the other larger urban centers in this country fund MAGA red states. Therefore, we should be in the driver’s seat in setting automobile efficiency and pollution standards.
21
Interesting that California and Utah were cited as examples of the potential differences in pollution enforcement.
We spent 3 weeks in Salt Lake City this winter and (on a bad day) it most reminds me of Beijing with choking smog covering large swarths of the valley.
While riding the very efficient mass transport ski bus, I asked groups of young people...how can they live here...and what can be done. Thy recounted stories of unexpected health problems and local and state government, totally unwilling to address the issues which even the Chinese government is taking steps to address.
23
I continue to be mystified why U.S. automakers have not moved to electrify large pickups and SUVs. Electric performance is startling. The "problem" described in this article is the industry's own making - the whole planet benefits from increased fuel mileage. They've had plenty of time to drive technological improvements to achieve the higher standards. If they need tax breaks for some of those costs, then ask for them - but get to the higher fuel standard.
13
@James cunningham
Take a look at Rivian Automotive. Based in Michigan with plants in both CA and IL, they're doing just that. Debuted at the LA Auto Show this year with production slated to begin next year.
5
@James cunningham It's all about the (lack of) electric range.
Pickups tend to be used in rural environments where people drive a lot, and they're boxy, especially compared to a Tesla with its drag coefficient approaching 0.20. Add to that the fact that pickups are often used for towing, which kills mileage, and you might see a pickup that weighs well over 2 tons but has only 100 miles of range.
EVs basically require the purchaser to install a 240V charger at their home in order to overcome the drip drip drip of charging on a 120V 15A circuit. That's a far bigger hurdle to ownership than most people think.
Once the demand from early adopters is fully satisfied, expect a large gap before other consumers start joining the electric bandwagon. The charging infrastructure just isn't there for the most part.
2
Alternative headline: automakers want their cake and to eat it too.
So they thought hey could pull one over on California and asked President unstable genius to force California to give up its liberty but low and behold now they're going to have to incur structural expenses helping those willing to pollute more get their way. California should sue them for negligence for enabling deteriorating health conditions like they're planning on for the oil industry.
I hope the net neutrality folks are taking note on how to fight ISPs. This is what progressive states rights looks like! Go federalism!
11
Trump is on a full assault on our country and it's people. I'm glad the California's air is much cleaner now than it was 40 or so years ago. Trump's actions if iImplemented will cause great chaos in the auto industry let alone it's impact on air pollution and global warming.
Where the heck are the GOP members of Congress? Don't they have kids, friends or relatives who will be impacted by these actions?
13
Another ill-conceived, poorly thought out, strike from the gut move from the Trump administration...At least it's consistent.
7
We who grew up in the smog of the 50s 60s and 70s where you couldn’t play golf swim run or bike because your lungs filled up with pollutants ain’t going back to the bad old days. I suggest those in favor of this idiocy be placed in a chamber breathing this gunk until they relent.
21
Here’s a thought, step up and just make all of the vehicles produce the standard mpg that was originally set in the last administration........
Make it happen Detroit, stop whining and figure it out, and if not, then we can buy from those who can.
8
MAGA = Make America Guzzle Again
No need to get in step with the rest of the world. Why don't we stop producing any EVs, and start producing the "great" cars of the 70's again? Circle the White House ( and, of course, Mar-A-Lago on weekends) with Olds 98s, Lincoln Town Cars, and the old Caddies. Turn 'em on and let them run until 2020!
10
My understanding is that the right of California (and other states) to impose more stringent standards is part of the Clean Air Act, passed during the Nixon administration. That means it would take an act of Congress to revoke that right. Neither Trump nor his regulatory agencies can do that by themselves.
Regulatory rollbacks are usually at the request of the industries they effect (often backed up with generous campaign donations from industry representatives). But it looks like these fuel economy rollbacks were Trump's own initiative, without the direct support of the auto industry. Is some other Republican donor behind it, perhaps the Koch Brothers or oil lobbyists? Or is this just Trump's personal vendetta against Obama?
Regardless of who's really behind it, there seem to be serious legal problems. Not that Trump has ever cared about the law or the constitution.
19
@Ted
good post & I agree; copy-edit note: industries are Affected. The horrid result of Trumps actions would be the Effect, since effects are things. [caps for emphasis]
The auto makers have paced their bets with Trump already, and they need him to overrule the states that would impose higher MPG standards. GM and Ford both are eliminating the lower or no profit margin small cars that they would have needed to sell each year to meet the CAFE requirements. In some cases they are closing the plants that make those cars. Higher emissions, lost jobs, less vehicles available for people looking for affordable transportation is one result. Higher profits for the auto and fuel industry is another.
3
Seems to me that auto makers should be working as hard as they can to improve gas mileage, no matter what the government mandates. Otherwise, give it a decade and Tesla’s electric vehicles will own the market. They’re already much cheaper than gas vehicles to operate once you buy them and soon the purchase price seems poised to become cheaper too. They’re also faster, accelerate better, have large, comfortable interiors, and top notch build quality.
How will gas guzzlers compete when you can buy an electric vehicle that beats it on every spec and costs the same or less? That day is not very far off.
31
@Mr. Adams
EV's are too heavy to be enjoyable on winding roads. I drive a lightweight Porsche. Teslas can accelerate as fats or faster, but they are unwieldy on winding roads. In the Northeast, few roads are straight. When you drive an EV, you have to wrestle with the car. That's why EV's haven't replaced ICE cars as track toys. Nobody races Teslas on a track. the reason is that they weigh over 4000lbs. Make an EV that weighs 3100lbs, and maybe people will track them.
3
@Anti-Marx, while I too drive a sports car, the vast majority of drivers don’t. The raw performance aspect is not important. What is? Reliability and cost to operate.
And most drivers aren’t spending time on windy roads for fun. They’re driving the Parkway to get to work or the side streets to take the kids to school.
9
@Andy Durability also favor the EV. The motor has one moving part that rotates, There are no corrosive gases. The transmission if there is one is rudimentary. Four wheel drive is just running a set of wires and installing a motor with half shafts and CV's. No transfer case needed. No vibrating rocking motor to shake the vehicle. Should last a long time. Proof? In the early 60's, Harrods was still using electric delivery vans made in the 1920's for London deliveries.
8
Why can't the automakers let Trump roll back the fuel economy standards and then simply ignore them in favor of implementing the tougher California requirements nationwide?
There is no law that would prohibit manufacturers from exceeding the minimum, though it would fall to them to recognize the benefits of acting voluntarily..
Were they to do this, everybody would win. Automakers preserve economies of scale, while we reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. And the Trump administration would look ridiculous.
34
The Trumpster is just trying to keep up with the Chinese - the pollution there is awful.
5
This is really a dumb idea. The automakers should continue their research into making vehicles more efficient because in two years this could radically change again to the higher standard again. Having two standards for vehicles will make manufacturing really inefficient along with the rest of the logistics of distribution of the vehicles and parts. It is just another reason for congress to get involved and stop this foolishness of climate change denial.
14
Way to go on accelerating climate change, Republicans!
15
California, Oregon and Washington should secede.
And bring along any other state who wants nothing more to do with the Trump kakistocracy.
12
Thank God for California!
29
This decision will cause people to die.
8
I'm all for higher mileage standards as an environmental matter given the urgency of steps to mitigate climate change, but it is likely to be an uphill challenge for California and other states to succeed in a legal challenge against the Administration's proposed action. Federal action can preempt state action in a variety of areas under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, and rules concerning automobile manufacturing and sales seem a prime candidate for such preemption. And if for example, California tried to either block or impose an extra charge on people buying SUVs in another state, or for that matter moving into California from another state with their SUVs, that could be a separate Commerce Clause challenge itself to the state action. This is a debate likely to work to the advantage only of litigators.
3
@rungus California may sue for damages as the federal standard will expose Californians to higher levels of pollutants and thus damage their lives. They could also sue the car companies. The evidence is pretty clear that car exhaust damages your health and it's pretty clear that 55 MPG is doable because many cars already do better. The argument that the hybrids and electrics cost too much is false because they are not manufactured in the same quantities as other vehicles, which would significantly lower their cost.
21
@rungus The analysis isn't that simple. The Clean Air Act has a specific statutory provision that *requires* the EPA to grant a waiver to states that impose stricter-than-national auto emissions standards, subject to certain administrative law principles. And the existence of that provision in federal law basically makes the Commerce Clause analysis--at least for the purpose of standard-setting--a footnote.
10
@Jon Exactly. Under the Clean Air Act, California gets a waiver automatically unless the Federal government can justify denying it. The only way for Trump to succeed in denying a waiver to California is to amend the Clean Air Act. Now that the Dems control half of Congress, it's safe.
13
Rolling back Obama's emissions standards will save lives and prevent injuries, particularly for those unable to afford expensive SUVs. Cars are already incredibly efficient. Further gains can only come at the expense of reduced size, weight, and crash-worthiness. Ideology can't change the laws of physics.
10
@RC
None of that is true. My car weighs 2,950lbs and is extremely safe or "crash-worthy". I've crashed my car on a track and walked away from the crash unscathed.
62
@RC This type of thinking is killing everything from our people to our planet with the endless burning of fossil fuels.... Can we not do better?
48
@RC Actually rolling back Obama's emission standards will cause misery and destruction in the long run as climate change worsens and future generations pay the price of Mr. Trump's (and your) shortsightedness.
68
The numbers touted by the government substantially exaggerate real world emissions. Trump’s standards result in an average of 29 mpg. Obama’s standards have resulted in an average of 37 mpg. The Times, the Post, and all legitimate media have publicized this fact. So we don’t get much improvement and we make it as hard as possible for auto makers to comply. Don’t expect much decline in auto emissions. Deception and incompetence are the specialty of the EPA.
Congratulations to the US automobile industry. As the world goes electric, our manufacturers will continue to push gas guzzlers. This reminds me of the late 70s, when the fuel efficient imports from Japan ate the US auto industries lunch. Electric cars are cheaper to operate and a heck of a lot more fun to drive. Even Trump can’t wish that fact away.
196
@It’s News Here about a year ago the G.M., C.E.O. announced that in ten years G.M. will produce only electronic vehicles.
9
@It’s News Here Well not fun to drive, and for me very expensive. And today there are very few gas guzzlers, at least by historical standards.
1
@It’s News Here Electrics are going to happen, mostly because China demands them--US automakers are not ignoring this at all. And electrics are not viable options in many cases, yet, pending breakthroughs in battery technology. Fun to drive they may be, but an electric pickup that could tow 5000 lbs. for more than 300 miles is a long way off.
All automakers need to balance the necessity of making money against what the future may or may not hold. Remember in 2011 when these standards were set, that gas was predicted to be more than $5 a gallon. Who knows with certainty what 2025 will look like WRT fuel, consumer tastes, and regulation?
2
As consumers, we should all pay very close attention to this. Trump can do what he likes, but the market should speak clearly.
it is time for fuel-efficiency. We must buy that way, and we must create cultural norms around doing so. Young people are on the front lines of climate change; they must lead in rejecting their parents' greed, stupidity, and indifference. Let's have society thinking about gas guzzlers the way young people now think about homophobes (for example).
President Obama put us on a good and not overly aggressive path. Let's not allow Trump to mess this up, as he has messed up so much else.
142
If I were a Japanese, Korean or any other foreign car maker I would be expanding manufacturing here, making high mileage, fuel efficient and luxury automobiles. The Chinese will be the largest electric car manufacturers in the world. Where will U.S. automakers export their low mileage high emission vehicles to? Would it surprise anyone that the automakers will simply get out of the passenger car market soon and focus on trucks and SUV's?
17
@Jay Sheehan
great observation
the gas fumes will end the lives of Americans sooner while hurting their ability to export
all of which will damage one of Trump's favorite stats, balance of payments
5
@Jay Sheehan
They already are.
3
If automakers are really truly capitalists at heart, it makes no sense for them to be making two lines of cars - more expensive and bad for the bottom line. California isn't going anywhere, and will fit Trump tooth and nail in the courts. Trump is an extremely annoying but temporary blip in history. They should just ignore him and stick with California.
162
@SKJ
The auto industry makes more money off of trucks and SUVs than other vehicles so the emission standards are hitting them in the wallet
1
Let's see if citizens will vote with their feet and purchase vehicles from states with higher emission standards.
1
DAILY REMINDER:
Tesla is, for all intents and purposes, THE ONLY 100% American medium-large automaker.
While im sure there are a few parts inside those things that are built outside of the US, we are talking about the equivalent of, at the most significant end of the spectrum, the PCBs of the various control modules and the console display.
Motors/transmission. Chassis/body. Battery. All made in America.
FCA (chrysler), GM, Ford, etc cant make the same claims as it is almost always the case that critical components like the engine or transmission is manufactured outside of the US.
Even the batteries in the chevrolet Bolt EV are not made in the US.
So any tariffs would harm the companies Trump wishes to brand himself with (because Trump is just as dumb and confused about reality as your average Fox viewer and assumes Elon Musk and Tesla are bad/democratically aligned because... well... they are not so sure why but it just feels right!)
Auto regulations are a perfect example of outrageous republican hypochrisy and irony.
Before Trump: Free markets and free trade?
Chicken Tax.... makes a European panel van cost $60,000+
After Trump?
Illegal for Tesla to sell in various red states because they dont franchise dealerships.
6
Musk also donates to Republicans, bad return on investment IMO.
1
Whatever you need to tell yourself.
Lower MPG is easier to hit and the prior targets were nigh impossible
1
I for one will not be buying a car that rolls back the emission standards, now or EVER. It’s the least I can do to help the planet. It’s like saying that cigarette smoking does NOT cause cancer.... when Trump declares that, will you pick up the cigarette habit?
17
The entire Trump presidency appears to be a 4 year vendetta against the gains of the Obama administration. All because of that correspondence dinner where Obama roasted Trump. Now we’re all suffering the fallout of this grudge match.
9
@John Morrison Retired H. S. Band Director, Metuchen
The term "match' implies that someone other than Mr Trump is involved.
This is All Trump.
Vendetta may be more apropos.
Why don’t the automakers just keep the Obama era standard of the alternative is such a nightmare?
6
Perhaps if we all took personal accountability for our carbon footprints we would only purchase electric or very high mileage plug in hybrid electric vehicles. Be the change.
6
Car manufacturers that decide to build big gas guzzlers will limit themselves at best to the US market. These cars won’t sell overseas or in Canada. The Koreans, Japanese and Germans will own the world market. I doubt there will be a Chevy or Ford on the road in 20 years except as antiques. Oh, and the ones in Cuba.
8
The automakers should stay the course and continue building vehicles that meet the California standard for all 50 states, to do otherwise makes no business sense in the long term. Trump will be gone soon enough.
4
The automobile market is entirely interstate commerce. The federal government is supreme in regulating it. Right or wrong, the federal rules are supreme.
1
@KBronson See above, as explained before, the Clean Air Act requires, absent compelling reasons, the EPA to grant waivers to states with higher standards than the federal ones. Trump's desire to undue anything the Obama administration did is not a compelling reason.
1
In California, we don’t want SUVs
I hope they ban or heavily penalize out of state purchases.
We have enough pollution.
12
Any attempt by California or other high fuel-efficiency standard state to prohibit the purchase of out of state cars would be DOA. The Constitution specifically gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. As laudable as the goal might be, that method would be blatantly unconstitutional.
2
You seem to have forgotten history. In the past California has done exactly that with its emission rules. And anyway if Trump loses the election the next guy may very well restore those rules.
9
That is but a speed bump. California (and others) would be well within its rights to add a 100% surcharge on a vehicle (purchased after a certain date) that did not meet state requirements. Like today, the tax would be due at the time the car is registered for use within the state.
15
@Bill You can buy out-of-state, but good luck getting past the states emission requirements when you inspect the car. Additionally, states can impose registration fees based on MPG.
14
Countries around the world are moving towards low-emission and zero-emission vehicles, and automakers the world over are coming out with more and more electric vehicles to serve that need. Internationally, the internal combustion engine is becoming obsolete. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is working overtime to make American car manufacturers increasingly out of step with the world market, increasingly handicapped in trying to compete internationally as well as here at home, and increasingly irrelevant. Donald Trump: making America weaker, every way he can.
73
@Jim Cornelius
Trump himself is running on an internal combustion engine, fuelled by Fox, spewing toxic fumes. That's what he understands.
3
If split market is really the worst nightmare then settle on the lesser evil and build energy efficient vehicles that can sell everywhere.
40
But, but won't people just "do the right thing?"
No, they won't, but raise fuel prices and the old economic incentive kicks in fast - and keep the prices up there, like alcohol and tobacco taxes. Small, economical car sales go down as gas prices drop. It's simple. Truck and SUV vehicle consumption increases as prices go down.
12
American car drivers will vote for vehicles with less toxic emissions and better gas millage (37 miles per gallon vs 54 with gas prices creeping up toward the $4 dollar range every year). This should be a no-brainer:
Automakers who follow Donald Trump do so at their own peril.
9
@Candlewick
Amen to that.
I don't think Japanese car makers are worried. The best strategy is to stick to the tougher standards because it will give U.S. auto manufactures a competitive advantage in overseas markets and the new technologies that will be patented to make cars more efficient will generate more income for the ones who are there first.
24
Lower Emissions benefit the environment, and they benefit people's health and well being. But there is a problem: and that problem is called the Commerce Clause in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) : The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.". Auto manufactures sell their products across the states, and when one state has requirements that are unique it affects the price of the product and its availability in other states; in essence it oversteps the bounds of the 10th Amendment (State's Rights) and interferes with the Commerce Clause in the Constitution and encroaches upon the power of the Federal Government. Then there is the supremacy clause whereby Federal Law overrides State Laws (Article VI, Clause 2). So while California and other states may have their own requirements regarding emissions, it is highly contentious that the laws mandating lower emissions than Federal Law requires is in fact: Unconstitutional. And that is a problem because in terms of practicality everyone (healthwise) and the environment benefits from stricter regulations on emissions however in terms of the legal realm: there is a problem with the Constitutionality of those State Law mandates on Automakers.
1
Instead of mandating MPG, California could just hike fuel taxes and use the revenue to buy carbon offsets. That should drive the policy results that they're looking for without explicitly challenging a federal initiative. If consumers feel ok spending >$3.50 gallon for fueling an SUV, maybe the gas is too cheap.
9
Premium unleaded is currently $4.25 in the Bay Area. Needs to be higher to encourage higher mpg vehicles and to reflect the true cost of fuel - including pollution costs
3
@Esme Anne Increasing Taxes on Gasoline will cause people to buy economy cars. However there is a tradeoff: the increased taxation of gasoline would disproportionately hurt the working poor: many of whom can only afford old cars that are not fuel efficient.
I fail to see how California can fine automakers for their activities outside California state borders. That kind of action would run straight into the Congress's commerce powers, and be almost guaranteed to be overturned at Supreme Court.
If you are in favor of such interpretation, imagine Texas suing California and New York for interfering with Texas gun makers right to sell 'Texas Legal' firearms in California and NY ....and winning.
1
@Regina
They can't. But those autos, suvs, etc can be regulated within the state. And be fined or denied registration for being against CA laws.
Which leaves auto makers a problem if they wish to sell their products in CA and other states with tougher environmental laws. If they don't meet the standards, then they leave the market to others that will meet the standards. Thus they lose business.
Plus many countries in the world are not passing the same tougher standards, which then means those markets will be lost to them.
Cutting yourself out of a large market doesn't seem like a smart business practice.
1
Rapidly advancing electric vehicle technology in a growing range of available models is quickly making future regulatory standards obsolete.
SUVs and other high occupancy vehicles are not all "gas guzzlers", though some are. The large Dodge Grand Caravan is available as a plug-in hybrid with enough range for all-electric driving for typical daily commute and family metro driving. As battery technology improves, some all-electric vehicles are already exceeding 300 mile range.
All-electric vehicle powertrains have 200 parts, compared to 1,400 for a gasoline version, meaning much less lifetime maintenance.
Global carmakers are planning for an electric future, regardless of regulatory chaos of the Trump Administration.
The real question is where electric cars and trucks will be made in the future. Electric incentives would create a larger domestic market and production, while obstacles like the current steel and aluminum tariffs cause automakers to look to other countries.
And its pretty clear that the states that move to low carbon electricity will be the same ones that encourage education, infrastructure, electric vehicles, advanced manufacturing and storage technology. Others will be left behind.
47
@Look Ahead
The Mercer Consultancy has projected that by 2050, oil and gas stocks will lose 95% of their value. This was probably not what his supporters expected when Trump promised "energy dominance".
Similarly, coal consumption in the US has plummeted since Trump took office, promising a bright future for "beautiful coal".
When President Trump talks about energy policy and climate change, it is pretty obvious he is frozen in the past.
6
I am reminded of a time before the second Gulf war when automakers were making and selling more SUVs and gas guzzling vehicles. I mentioned to someone that I thought that was short sighted and her response was that people who can afford them don't care about gas prices. When gas went from $1 to $4, it turns out they did care. Gas prices are rising again. Also, there are a lot more people who understand the dangers of climate change now and want higher fuel standards and lower emissions. I could even see people protesting / boycotting car companies that back off the higher standards. Not that people won't buy their vehicles, they will just have a smaller customer base. I fear that the US auto industry will become another business in a long line of businesses destroyed by Donald Trump.
39
A revenue neutral carbon tax (i.e., return the proceeds of the tax to people paying the tax) is supported by economists across the political spectrum and, if priced correctly, would solve our CO2 problem, ending all the hokey-pokey with regulating CAFE.
2
Ironic how Trump supporters are now in favor of Federal standards overruling States' rights. I wonder if they still believe in the right to secede for California and the other "tree hugging" states
16
@ian stuart
California is attempting to impose California standards on the rest of the states instead of allowing the other states any rights.
The states that want California standards are not "tree-huggers." They are high population density states with hideous air pollution. It is probably appropriate for them to favor EVs. What they want is for the states with clean air to subsidize their EVs via Obama ordered mileage standards. It's about the Benjamins, with blue polluted states wanting red states to contribute to their air pollution remediation.
Those of us living in states with clean air have rights too.
6
@ian stuart
Actually, most Trump supporters would be in favor of California secession. I read an article on BBC.com exploring that scenario - their conclusion was that without California US politics would move significantly to the right. The new balance point would be between what (to us) would look like 'Conservative Democrats' on the left and 'Right Wing Republicans' on the right.
1
@Regina
The economy of California would also tank. American companies headquartered there would tend to reincorporate elsewhere in the US to avoid the high tax assessments California would have to impose.
Many Californians would relocate.
California would have to compensate the US government for the one sixth of the federal debt accumulated during its statehood.
California would have to buy any federal lands from the US government or exclude them from its secession.
Their Medicare beneficiaries would lose their rights for the 40% of general revenue that subsidizes It. Their Social Security beneficiaries would lose spousal benefits.
2
Would there really be a stampede of Californians or New Yorkers crossing state lines to buy giant pickup trucks? I tend to think that such vulgar automobiles simply aren't as desirable in these 13 exempted states for reasons beyond supply. We want smaller, efficient cars because they're better for the environment, use less gas, get around more easily in cities, and don't suggest some kind of manhood compensation.
I suppose there will still be Japanese and European cars. But as with everything Trump-related, the U.S. again comes down on the wrong side of history.
29
@Brian
In 2018, Southern Californians have bought more SUVs & trucks than cars (sedans/coups). I imagine once you add inland California countries the tilt in favor of trucks & SUVs is even bigger.
4
@Brian
Obese people can't fit into smaller cars.
3
If they're going to go full-Trump, they'll have to install coal-burning engines.
64
@mja
Since 30% of electricity is generated using coal, doesn't that make EVs coal burning, at least 30%? No need to change vehicle technology, we already have Teslas, fueled by coal.
You conveniently ignore the fact that a coal powered power plant is much more efficient in converting fuel into electricity than any car is, even at 54 mpg.
5
@ebmem-In California, coal only accounts for 4% of electricity generation.
6
Well, at least I have the consolation on this side of the pond that if I think WE lack leadership, I only have to look west to cheer myself up. "Idiot" comes nowhere near. Good news for Volkswagen though. Perhaps they'll ask for their compensation money back after their emissions cheating was rumbled?
10
@Richard
Los Angeles, California and NY, NY have air quality that is poor, comparable to London, Paris and Beijing. Part of the reason is geologic and atmospheric conditions that cause pollutants to be held close to the ground for extended periods of time and the other major factor is high population density and the consequential high traffic and traffic congestion. It makes perfect sense for areas with poor air quality to favor electric vehicles, which is what is required nationwide by the revised CAFE standards Obama imposed after Hillary lost the election. Obama, as would have been the case with Hillary, governed to favor the people who elected them, and to favor their cronies.
The 37 states that have not adopted California standards already have clean air.
There is no rational reason why NY and California cannot use carrots and sticks to nudge their residents to buy EVs. The reason they prefer to impose their standards on states with clean air is because it coerces the purchasers of ICE vehicles to subsidize the purchasers of EVs.
The VW scandal is a creation of the Kyoto protocol. Diesel vehicles produce ten to 100 times the conventional air pollution as gasoline powered autos. They produce less CO2 per mile driven than gasoline powered vehicles. The EU, in an attempt to reduce CO2 production by 10%, increased air pollution by pushing residents to switch from gasoline to diesel. Thus London air quality deteriorated to that of Beijing.
1
@ebmem,
Not sure I concur with your enthusiasm for Tennessee air over that of blue states and liberal countries. Chattanooga has long had air pollution problems. And Memphis and Nashville have hazy brown skies after a string of sunny August days.
Indianapolis experiences fewer ozone alert days than it used to, probably because we Hoosiers drive cars with smog-reducing hardware arising from California's stringent controls on automakers.
3
@ebmem-Are you trying to say that Trump doesn't govern to please the people who elected him and his cronies?? At least Obama was elected by a majority of the voters. And I dare say there hasn't been an administration since Harding that had as many cronies as this one.
1
This is just the latest in a long string of evidence that Trump has either no ability or no inclination, or both, to think through the consequences of throwing reactionary bones to a base that is ignorant or selfish or racist or all of these and worse.
33
@Pete
He just doesn't care. Not much more to say or write.
4
Isn’t that funny you don’t hear of that Japanese car makers complaining about the standards . Of course they build cars someone wants to buy. If I were the American car companies I would be worried about the next generation coming. Not one of them will buy American vehicles
26
Undoing as the dastardly work of this adminstration is going to be a long and necessary laundry list. Hopefully there will be a lot of energy and enthusiasm for getting rid of the stench.
12
Trump is determined to kill millions.
12
"The industry had initially asked Mr. Trump to loosen the auto pollution rules, which were among Mr. Obama’s signature policies aimed at fighting climate change. However,..."
Often in life and in business one should be very careful of what one asks for because - you just might get it and then some!
Asking Trump for something is like asking the fox to ferry you safely across the river and I feel no compassion for the auto makers and their dilemma!
8
The VIN number can capture the environmental status of the car. When you go to register or sale it in a state with higher standards, it won't be accepted, or will have to brought into compliance. The Europeans, Japan, and China are all going stricter (and make a huge slice of the auto market). This MAGA thinking gone awry.
51
MAGA thinking. That’s the best oxymoron since jumbo shrimp.
9
@C P Saul Amusing comment, but no solution to the problem at hand.
This is the same emissions rollback plan that was riddled with errors, included forgetting to divide a critical number by four? Hopefully the administration’s incompetence will continue until we get a new president.
Something, by the way, the auto companies should also plan for lest they think about getting too Trump friendly.
16
Carmakers should voluntarily agree to comply with the Obama Administration standards. We are teachable -old folks can change- I recently bought a Chevy Bolt- fully electric- my 76 year old husband loves it and parked his CX9 in favor of the Bolt. if carmakers make 0 emissions cars that are fun to drive, folks will buy them.
62
@Regina Hertzig
Chevy took a loss of $12,000 to $20,000 when they sold you that car. The federal taxpayer gave you $7,500.
Would you have paid $19,500 to $27,500 more than you did to buy it?
Even with the huge discount, EVs comprise less than 5% of total new car sales. That means each new ICE vehicle purchased absorbed an additional $200 to cover the automaker loss.
When Obama doubled the mileage requirements, it essentially ordered the automakers to sell 50% EVs at a loss and to increase the price of the 50% ICE vehicles by a $20,000 surcharge.
People who are true believers should voluntarily comply with the Obama administration by paying full price for their vehicles rather than expecting people who may or may not have a spare $20,000 available to subsidize you.
@ebmem. Did you get your information from some right wing web site ? Most of what you state is simply wrong. Do you think electric car drivers should have to subsidise oil companies to the tune of a couple of billion a year in tax breaks for the oil industry? And by the way the 7,500 tax break for the Chevy Bolt has expired.
5
@ebmem
Of course the drivers of gas guzzling polluting climate warming cars should subsidize the drivers of sensible, responsible cars. Nothing makes more sense. At this point those harming the rest of us get off scott free and do not pay the market price of their harm. It's about time that they start.
3
Without true leadership from states like California, the U.S. would look like the dirty, polluting, dictatorship Trump is trying to turn the U.S. into. He should move to one of those countries as they already have the systems he's trying to put in place here.
95
I can still buy German/Italian/British sports cars with lower PG, right? Not joking.
1
@Anti-Marx
yes and thanks to tariffs its gonna cost a lot more
1
@Anti-Marx
MPG
Let's talk trade. How many times have we heard the president whine about the fact US can't crack foreign markets? Does he think the world is clamoring for less fuel efficient cars that pollute. With this guy the answer is probably yes.
72
It you look at Trump, you can really ask yourself the question “how much damage can a single person do to the world ?”
129
Why don’t the auto manufacturers just stick with the Obama standards for all vehicles. They don’t need to comply with Trump’s “standards”. The environment would be better off! It would also solve their conundrum.
71
@ebmem
Why are the residents of the other states to be free to confer the cost of their gas guzzling pollution and climate change on residents of the responsible, sensible states?
6
@Jim H
The Obama standards did not reduce pollution or require new technology. What it did was tell the auto manufacturers that they had to sell 50% EVs by the time the new CAFE standards were in place.
The problem is, automakers take a loss of $12,000 to $20,000 on each EV they sell, even though the taxpayer is giving an additional $7,500 tax credit. At 5% of the market, they can get away with bumping the price of each ICE vehicle by $200 so that they can still make a profit.
Once a manufacturer hits sales of 200,000 vehicles, the $7,500 tax credit drops to $3,750 for a year, $1,875 for the next year and zero the following year. Tesla is already at $3,750 and GM is a year behind them. Unless manufacturers are able to raise prices on EVs, that bumps the loss per vehicle to $19,500.
If California and the other 12 states with poor air quality are free to increase demand for EVs by raising fuel prices or increasing annual registration fees on ICE vehicles. What they are not entitled to do is coerce the residents of other states to subsidize their air quality problems.
1
it would seem to me that the smartest strategy for automakers is simply to comply with the California standards. Then they can sell all the cars anywhere they want. they can also claim at leadership on climate change.
187
Ken L: And they can also remain competitive with Japanese and Korean automakers. Why WOULDN’T they want to be competitive and keep up with consumer demands for electric/fuel efficient cars? Automakers don’t have large financial positions in oil companies, do they?
13
@Matt agreed. Why is it so difficult to get auto companies to see the solution?
2
The real problem is, how soon before he’s gone? they plan years out. Wonder why the younger generation isn’t interested in cars?
12
"car buyers simply cross state lines to buy gas-guzzlers and bring them into the cleaner-standard states"
Cleaner-standard states could impose an extra fee added to the cost of the license on gas-guzzlers bought in other states, to offset the cost of the additional pollution they produce. This would reduce the incentive to cross state lines to buy a gas-guzzler.
36
From the story:
"...said their companies felt torn between backing the Trump plan, which could hurt their bottom line, or opposing it and siding with California, which could bring retaliation from Mr. Trump."
Truly Alice In Wonderland. Donald Trump is pushing a plan that both increases global warming and pollution - while at the same time - causing automaker to make less money. And car makers recognize this, but are afraid that the President of the United States will have a tantrum and go after them.
119
@Matthew O'Brien
The auto makers lose money under the Obama plan, which is why they opposed it. [The Obama plan raises the cost of vehicles, because it increases the proportion of EVs which automakers lose money on every sale.]
Automakers [both American companies and foreign automakers] wanted to ease the standards in order to reduce the lost sales caused by the price increases. They will be better off and more profitable under the Trump rules.
However, one third of the population lives in the 13 states that are leftists, and the auto manufacturers are afraid of customer blowback, so they are pretending they don't want a rollback of the Obama standards. American brands are going to take the marketing hit, so they're making a show of being the good guys.
2
@ebmem By your reasoning they should be ecstatic that the American market would be split into two parts so they can sell coal burning SUVs in the less educated parts of the country and clean, faster EVs in the progressive parts of the country. Yet they're not. Please explain.
5
Letting CA make their own air quality rules was never a good idea. There is a good reason why some standards need to made at the national level.
1
@James
California instituted air quality controls because there were no Federal standards and residents were suffering, and health issues were increasing. The California standards made a huge difference in air quality and health in Los Angeles and other parts of the state. Similarly, California set standards for energy efficiency in appliances and buildings before there were a Federal standards. California needs to care for the health of its citizens if the Feds won’t.
216
@James
If you visited LA about 25-30 years ago you would understand why CA wanted cleaner cars. The air was un-breathable.
I'm always amazed when "states rights" advocates fold to national standards when the states don't do what you want. And vice versa of course.
114
@wa
As I said before, there are some instances when a national standard makes sense.
The automakers can (voluntarily) build cars that meet the tougher standards and there won't be an issue. :-)
77
@N. Aragon they can but they, like most manufacturers, fight not to meet standards. I remember the fights over seat belts and the third brake light. You'd've thought that they were being asked to find the holy grail.
3
The new Trump mileage standards make no logical sense, but that is not unusual based on past illogical policy proposals by the present White House. What I find puzzling with the minuscule annual 1% mileage increases after2020 is that they still lead to lower fuel consumption and pollutant emissions, which acknowledges the detrimental effect of emissions on the environment and ultimately the climate. If climate change is a hoax, as the president and many in the administration seem to concur with, why not abolish the mileage requirement altogether. On the other hand, if the administration, or rather a subset of it, belief in the detrimental effects of AGW, why would they call for a partial repeal of the Obama era mileage standards, especially since the automobile industry is opposed to the change, and only asked for a short term reprieve.
22
Does anything Trump does make logical sense?
7
How about our automakers just step up and do the right thing? Let California lead the way and manufacture all vehicles to that standard. The financial savings of running a single supply chain should offset any tariffs that the blusterer-in-chief can (only temporarily) impose.
254