Retribution doesn't allow logic.
Obama is bad. Anything his administration accomplished must be destroyed.
Anti-trust, businesses can't work together to make better more efficient products.....What?
He's going after energy companies who don't want a rollback on methane releases.
3
Sorry skippy...you can't let a state dictate the terms for the country.
That's not how this works.
That's not how any of this works.
It's how it works in the former Soviet Union and Cuba, Venezuela and China.
But last I looked, we're not flying those flags about my County Building today.
Maybe tomorrow, but that's contingent upon you getting Warren or Sanders a w in 2020.
1
@Erica Smythe
The right wing machine is so good at mischaracterizing and misrepresenting in pithy one liners that evade the truth, the facts, and the issues.
And it's not how it works in the former Soviet Union and Cuba, Venezuela and China with central. Which, is just what Trump wants. Ironic? No?
5
FOLLOW THE MONEY.
If we all would follow Deep Throat’s advice again, the answer to what is driving Trump becomes 100% clear, “follow the money.” And then there is that other piece of sage advice, “When they say it's not the money, then you can be sure, IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.”
The situation reduced to simplest terms: Trump is too dumb and shortsighted to think past his next Big Mac so when some party is willing to buy him a billion Big Mac's with fries and a Coke, he is all chips in. Even the lives of his grandkids is too blurred in his mind to think about the damage done, he just wants that last Big Mac.
Energy production is a money driven, well-greased (excuse the pun) self-preserving machine. It has spurred such things as forcing employees to put stickers on their cars stating, "Oil feeds my family" and others and one of the greediest barons feeding this crock of nonsense was the recently deceased David Koch. The whole line, so well fed by Koch, was to kill anything that caused a slow down or price drop in oil use, and to do it at any cost, human lives and even the planet, did not matter.
Big Oil has been bailing out the bad financial decisions of Trump since he became the GOP candidate. At every turn, he has given the "Go ahead" signal, even allowing the slaughter of Khashoggi. The NRA has given him money and big vote blocs also so no background checks on gun sales.
So Big Oil is simply getting great returns on Investment.
We MUST Fight Big Oil to Survive.
5
"The Auto Rule Rollback That Nobody Wants, Except Trump"
WRONG!
40 percent of "Americans" support ANYTHING Trump does or attempts...so long as it defies commonsense BUT more important, they support everything the Cage-Children Party does which endangers the survival of the United States of America.
Why are so many "Americans" anti American? Because the G.O.P. and its propaganda outlets (Fox, et al) have destroyed any semblance of moral compass their voters may have had, filled their minds with fear of nonwhites, turned their hearts with anger and hatred of nonChristians, subverted and distorted their questionable Christian beliefs with primordial interpretations of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
This 40 percent empowers the Cage-Children Party. They are an abomination to the values of America, DECENCY JUSTICE and they are an existential threat to ALL HUMANITY. They want chaos above all else, see themselves as martyrs, desperate for their pagan End of Days.
These are dangerous people who will not go away when Trump is evicted from the White House and sent to the Big House.
To this 40 percent, Trump is "the chosen one." He is worshiped as the hand of their god who they believe is punishing mankind for what THEY perceive are HIS defects in man's creation.
Trump parishioners are right about one thing: Trump is the chosen one...of Putin, the Cage-Children Party and man's pagan instincts. Poisoning the air is both a sacrifice and a sacrament in their perverted religion.
7
The auto companies should tell trump to go pound salt. If they want to increase fuel mileage on there own who is to stop them? The child in chief???? DOJ????
Everyone should thank the automakers for having a conscience, being ethical and eco friendly unlike others.
5
As is the administration, the DOJ is corrupt as well. May the first judge throw it out, onto the administration's lap.
No responsible business leader would commit his or her company to a path that depends on Trump remaining in the White House. That would be foolish.
23
This man is the grim reaper on our values, our future and our morals. For anybody to make excuses for this sociopath defies any reason. I hope to God we get through this administration. Not looking good and it is getting worse every day.
5
Trump is a saboteur and subversive. What else can we expect from Putin's "gift" to himself?
3
Realistically, when right wing knuckle heads demean science which goes against their preferences, the response needs to be loud and clear why they are wrong until all this moronic opposition to reasonable controls to reduce harm to the environment is just ignored as nonsense by all.
2
The auto industry is happy with this deal since it allows them to sell more expensive cars as a standard. How stupid you need to be to not see that? As an aside, there is that environmental plus which no one denies and which comes really handy for the automakers to make them heroes which they are not.
Ask common CA folks what they think of the cars and driving situation there, do they need more expensive cars, and not the bloated liberals sitting in the most hostile state in the US for those who do not share their haughty opinion.
1
Insane. Let's poison our children, kill the oceans, flood the coasts and cede out leadership in the world to China, Russia, India and every other nation acting in the best interest of humanity.
America has collapsed in less than 1000 days.
2
From the article: "If only the Trump administration was smart and bold enough to embrace it."
It does not comport with the influence behind the Trump Administration looking to rollback the Obama emissions plan.
That rollback does nothing to benefit the Auto Makers, and everything to benefit the Oil Companies.
As the article indicates, present Obama legislation would save the American drivers 1.7 Trillion (with a "T") by 2025 in gasoline costs.
Is there anyone out there who thinks that ExxonMobile et. al.
are in *Favor of putting that 1.7 Trillion in the pocket of the American *consumer rather than in the pocket of the Oil Companies ?? ;-D RIGHT ! ;-D
4
Suggested more accurate headline:
The "president" is trying to sabotage an enormous climate achievement that Barack Obama supports.
There, that's more like it.
The 44th President is a black man, and as such, the 45th "president" will always battle ad nauseum to see his accomplishments taken down.
The "president" is not a big man..er...he's a very, very small man.
3
It seems as if there is no logic to this pursuit other than rolling back anything Obama accomplished. The fact that the industry itself does not want it, poses the question as to Trump’s motivation. What is the benefit? Consumers stood to save thousands in gas consumption. The environment would have been cleaner. So what is the benefit other than possibly to oil companies? It has not been explained by this administration because they do not have an explanation. Trump is just a vindictive idiot. It is another act of racism because it was something that Obama achieved and his primary objective is to roll back anything that Obama accomplished even if it is damaging to the country. He has done this with the environment, the Iran Deal, the TPP, Paris Climate agreement, and DACA. Trump is a blight on America. He is the single worst thing that has happened to this country in my lifetime. We will not know all the consequences of his actions for some years and it will not be good.
1
My only consolation is that sooner, rather than later, there will be Nuremberg-style Tribunals for all of these folks who, by their criminal behavior, are condemning millions to early and miserable deaths by destroying the precious world we live in. In my mind they are are no better than the strutting SS and Einsatzgruppen. No better, at all.
1
Ahnold...(Former Republican Gov of California) stated the facts very clearly earlier this week with an Op-Ed in WaPo.
See:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-cant-erase-a-decade-of-clean-air-progress-with-a-sharpie/2019/09/08/8d6393de-d248-11e9-86ac-0f250cc91758_story.html
When the industry and consumer want the improved efficiencies I can't fathom what Trump's motive is. WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S STATED RATIONALE FOR ROLLING BACK THE STANDARDS??? This should be spelled out yet no reporter seems to want to get this into print!
3
Undo progress and anything Obama... all brought to the USA by the “pro-life” Republican Party.
Of course.
2
SoI see all these comments regarding Trump and this ridiculous attempt to throw money into the pockets of the oil industry. What are you all doing to stop this man? Are you calling/emailing your representatives in Congress? Are you joining to fight the EPA? Are you supporting those non-profits who fight for clean air and water? Are you doing anything besides commenting on the NY Times page? Come on let's get going.
3
Trump is bent on killing the planet with his ties to big oil and killing our people with his ties to the NRA. There will be nothing left for him to destroy soon.
3
Car companies may or may not care about the pending climate disaster - but don't they care about being able to sell their cars? And sell them outside the US as well?
All signs point to electric vehicles, and as a bridge low energy consuming cars.
We, the consumer can choose to buy from the companies that make those responsible cars - and boycott the gas guzzlers.
3
Trump and Republicans are all about reducing the role of the federal government and supporting what business wants, until:
1) It's something Obama did
2) The environment actually benefits
2
Oh please - anyone who thinks this is a good idea should visit and cough their way through Beijing or Delhi....
21
Hello!
This was an “Obama-era” initiative.
that is all you need to know to understand this rollback.
3
So what? The auto industry does not HAVE to adhere to federal standards. The companies can simply CHOOSE to do the more responsible thing than the government does.
If Ru$$ian Agent Orange proposed coal burning cars, would the auto industry comply?
2
Anything this justice department does is tainted. Barr has sold out to trump for what? My theory is its a trade off for a scotus seat when Ginsberg or Breyer goes. Congress needs to expose this by a thorough investigation of Barr's overt corruption. Pick a pitbull and have him go full metal jacket benghazi on this crook among crooks. There is no legitimate reason for DOJ to harass California and private industry on an issue of public health and states rights.
2
Simple! The prime directive from Putin to Trump — “ do everything you can to keep oil prices high”. A few Koch’s et al are obviously aboard for this as well.
3
Fix that headline: Trump and his oil friends who are burning an unbelievably irreplaceable asset solely for short term profits...
1
Between our need to breath relatively clean cool air while not being shot at by terrorists protected by the NRA and worry about our oversea assetts patriots maybe should start thinking of relocating our capital to the Bay area on the left coast
1
I despise him more everyday.
2
More winning.
Everything that Trump touches dies.
3
Thank you California! Stick it to Trump. You have myself and all other clean air lovers support.
3
I wish someone would tell us what constituency Trump believes he is catering to. Or is this just another example of Trump childishly reversing an Obama program? To use a relevant metaphor: The clown car is careening off the road (again).
2
@James Kidney
What constituency ? I don't believe you could go wrong by looking into Big Oil !
With "Citizens United" big money is now "free speech", and corporations are "people" under the law.
"Bring me the list of everything Obama accomplished".
1
I saw a bumper sticker:
44 > 45
4
Well, Obama was for tighter emissions standards, so Trump is against it. On any topic, that is the Trump doctrine in a nutshell. All because a black man had the temerity to poke fun at him at the correspondents' dinner. What a foundation to build domestic and foreign policy on!
3
This is central planning no doubt about it. The US is no longer a capitalist economy, would you buy a used car from this guy (name withheld so he is not getting free advertising) ?
2
It's malpractice not to mention the role of the oil industry in this. Here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/climate/cafe-emissions-rollback-oil-industry.html
11
@tanstaafl
But the energy sector is also being harassed by Trump for not accepting his gift of no longer regulating methane releases.
Let's put the blame firmly where it belongs; on Obama for humiliating Trump at a big boys dinner by making fun of him in public. The only thing on Trump's mind, besides enriching himself, is getting rid of any and all Obama policies.
2
Rolling Stones’ Mick Jagger attacks US for reneging on environmental measures--Headlines This Week and guess what--Trump just ended NC Rally with? That's right RS's You Can't Always Get What You Want--Time to Rewrite Lyrics
1
There really is little to say about this other than Trump is a lackey for Putin/Russia's and Saudi Arabia/MBS's hydrocarbon based economies plus America's Oil/Gas. A US industry that knowingly lied to us about the effect of C02 in complete disregard for future life.
Criminals?
Traitors?
Mass Murderers?
All of them? Pick me, Pick me!
4
With this one rollback, all those contributions have paid off bigly.
2
It should be no revelation by now that Trump believes he has a lot of oil to pump and sell. His blockade of the Persian and his constant extolling the virtues of drilling near National Parks (and in?) as well as the Arctic all point in this direction. If the oil companies are behind this - shame on them.
Let us hope that the automotive industry has a conscience and continues to work for cleaner cars and cleaner energy.
2
"Smart" and "bold" are not terms one normally associates with Donald Trump. "Petulant", "vindictive", and "short-sighted" are more like it. Barack Obama could have issued an executive order praising motherhood and apple pie and Trump would find a reason to revoke it.
3
Trump is the presidency as a school yard bully would using federal agencies to go after those who defy him much like a Putin/Kim style leader does his role models /heroes. Trump will use the military to advance his political agenda building his vanity wall and shooting dissidents if need be. Trump and his corrupt sharpie are at work as he looks forward to entertaining Putin at Trump's Doral the only a guest of Trump and they will share private moments and intel .
2
He’ll probably single handedly bankrupt the US automobile with this move, just like he singlehandedly bankrupted most of his casinos.
I am overwhelmed be all of this winning!
4
Trump could have been subtle about a) poking California in the eye, and b) decreasing fuel efficiency, by demanding higher ethanol content. This would have given him the added bonus of c) making his midwest-farmer base happy, and d) eliminating the billions in bribes – some would say welfare – to keep those farmers loyal while he “negotiates” with tariffs. On the other hand, subtlety exceeds the intellect of a black-ink marker.
Make trump and family breathe the air in China and India, or if you want to keep it in America, stick them in San Bernardino CA on a very smoggy few days, stuck outside for 12 hours. or more each day. If you've ever had that pleasure, you know exactly what I mean.
1
Once again the reporting describes Trump as enraged. How much of his time is spent in that state?
For a president who claims to the the supreme maker of amazing business deals, the move to attack the mileage and emissions standards scheduled to go into effect is an incredibly damaging and stupidest move that will have profound negative impacts the automobile industry in the US.
It effectively hinders the ability of US automobile manufacturers to invest in research and produce vehicles to compete with foreign vehicle manufacturers. While US companies will be crippled by this incredibly ignorant policy, foreign manufactures in Europe, Asia and most importantly in China, will continue to develop vehicles that will far surpass the technology of US alternatives. They will sell those vehicles in the US long after Trump is out of office leaving the automobile industry in ruble.
Trump is giving China, which Trump says is our prime manufacturer, the head start to develop fuel efficient vehicles that consumers will demand in the US. Think about it, is that the move of a stable genius who claims to be the king of the deal? Will his move benefit the industry? No, it is the move of an idiot whose only business success was to inherit his father’s vast wealth.
US vehicle manufacturers know where the future lies, where Trump simply lies.
2
By telling Donald to go pound sand
Four car makers are making a stand
Rules set by Obama
Rid them of more drama
Which our pres should have known beforehand
3
An Obama administration counselor on energy and climate change wants us to believe that nobody, nobody, nobody wants the automobile emissions rule (predicated on mpg for some reason) to be rolled back from unattainable levels to something more realistic.
This spokesperson implies that nobody, nobody, nobody wants the Federal government to set one standard for the auto industry to meet in the United States, stopping the foolishness of allowing California to dictate to the nation.
Mr. Freeman says that nobody, nobody, nobody wants to be able to buy SUVs in a few more years, and thinks everyone will want smaller electric cars that have limited ranges and require charging for hours at stations on a non-existent robust electrical grid.
I am not there yet, Mr. Freeman. I am not one of your believers.
You do realize, it would be possible to posit that an Administration that willingly wishes to adapt a rule guaranteed to promote sickness amongst its citizenry might not, in fact, have the best interests of said mass citizenry at heart? And why would that be?
2
A whole article on the Transportation Department without a single mention of its compromised Secretary, doling out tax dollars to family companies that support her husband, the Majority Leader.
I suppose there's no connection, is it?
3
“...companies may independently and unilaterally meet whatever voluntary standards they wish.” If this is the case, why the brouhaha over lowering standards? Except for the fact that in today’s world we have to massage fragile egos, don’t corporations do what they do best—look out for their bottom line? That would seem to be to leave standards as they are, not lower them.
Check out the plane and tractor- trailer use for the Rolling Stones tour; the tour that travels to several cities.
They get what they want.
This is Trump supporting oil industry and the Saudis. Plus it has the added bonus of tearing down another Obama mandate. Seems like a win-win to him!
3
Trump does not want anything other than fawning approval and to line his families pockets. Let's not kid ourselves, these initiative are coming straight out of conservative think tanks funded by the GOP donor base. They should be investigated deeply, because Trump himself does not have an original thought in his head or policy.
2
All I can think now whenever I see a headline like this is, "How much is this personally profiting Trump?"
It's a terrible feeling to have that any decision a U.S. president makes is based on what he will do primarily for him.
2
"If only the Trump administration was smart and bold enough to embrace it." Well, they are not...unless Trump and his minions have found a way to fill their own coffers. Follow the money and see if it leads back to Trump or some of his political cronies.
2
Unfortunately, smart and bold are not qualities you can count on in this administration.
2
There is no end to this man's lunacy.
It comes down to "I can make you do something that nobody wants, will cost everybody more money, make everybody sick, and will help wreak the environment and you can't stop me. Nay, nay, nay"
3
Act 4 Scene 5 of The Taming of the Shrew:
Whether he says 'tis the sun or the moon, Trump will tell us and we must agree or nothing will go forward.
The Trump administration, faithful to it's ignorant leader (ignorant by choice, hence, malevolent), is not bold nor courageous in trying to fight climate changes and allow technology, in the hands of wise minds, do it's job. Hats off to California, and to the car companies' efforts, for self-preservation in protecting the environment, and so assisting humanity to move on, and able to enjoy their marvels (cars) consciously.
There's more than a pattern here. Besides telling the auto industry they are going to make less, rather than more efficient vehicles, the current regime is telling citizens, the people who buy the cars, that they may not choose a more efficient vehicle over a lesser one because... why? Well, first of all, the regulations originated in the Obama administration, and all record of Obama's achievements must be wiped out. More importantly, big oil needs inefficient vehicles so they can drill more, pump more, and sell more.
It's not a coincidence that Dear Leader has also decided that inefficient, hot, short-lived incandescent light bulbs will be Americans' lighting choice, rather than cool, long-lived LED bulbs. Why? Because the lighting regulations originated with the Obama administration and thus, are by definition bad. Also, a couple of big companies that make light bulbs have gotten into Dear Leader's head and convinced him that efficient, cool and long-lived is bad, because they don't fail as quickly as incandescent bulbs. Trump doesn't really care about any of the details, he's just interested in running more scams to separate the little people from their hard-earned bucks. The gag's on us, the little people.
By the way, Comrade Don also has decided school kids really need to eat more salt, grease and sugar, instead of those dumb Obama foods. Why? You know the answer.
How many Trumps does it take to change a light bulb? I hope it's not a dynasty worth.
1
This should be another own-goal by Mr. Trump. If he prevails on this one, I expect to see nothing less than the USA automotive industry suffering the same fate as Australia's. That is, it dies.
55 mpg is not a realistic goal unless the internal combustion machine is scrapped in favor of very expensive electric vehicles which 98% of today's car buyers do not want or cannot afford. The Obama administration was trying an end run around Congress by setting a standard through regulation that only electric vehicles could achieve. I'm sure getting rid of fossil fuels would prevent a zillion tons of carbon going into the atmosphere, but it would also return us to the days when the automobile was a rich man's toy. France and Germany tried similarly drastic green policies. In Germany energy costs went through the roof and in France the rural population revolted. Americans are much more dependent on car travel than Europeans. Why does the green elite think their eco-fantasy will be accepted here?
@Steven
The "green elite" will become the green standard when people stop reflecting on the past and concerning themselves with the future. Stubborn and willful may have a forum somewhere but not one is relevant today.
Several commenters speak to how "big oil" stands to benefit from inadequate emission standards. Although the fossil fuel industry has hardly been saintly in terms of the health and environmental woes it has wrought, remember that Trump has also removed protections that the petrochemical industry had largely accepted - for example, the rollback of methane emission standards that much of the industry was on the way to implementing. It is as if future industry competitiveness has become an afterthought as Trump pushes the U.S. back to the technology of the last century on all fronts.
2
Really mess things up would be for Mexico and Canada adopt the California emissions standards.
Manufacturers want certainity and ability to sell products in any state, building to higher standard makes business sense.
“with an average fuel savings, for instance, of more than $8,000 for a 2025 model vehicle over its average lifetime.”
Perhaps this is the real reason for trumps effort to roll back the mileage requirements for new cars. To serve the fossil fuel industry; i.e., BIG OIL.
Don't forget that Trump and McConnell have been stacking the federal judiciary with judges to rule for the states against federal supervision. How will these judges rule on California's determination to control its own air quality?
3
“If only the Trump administration was smart and bold enough to embrace it.” No, the problem is not lack of intelligence or courage. The problem is that the Trump administration is corrupt in making public policy to support fossil fuel usage in exchange for dark money campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry and titans, augmented by the 2017 tax cut giveaway to corporations and the 1%. Ordinary Americans lose their money, their health, their national security through climate change, and eventually their planet. When will these ordinary Americans wake up and vote for their own interests instead of against them?
We will be shopping for a car in late 2020 and will be supporting one of the companies that has agreed to the higher CA fuel standards. Virtually every recent war has been fought over resources, mostly oil. Higher fuel standards equals fewer deaths on the battlefields.
A clear opportunity for consumers to vote with their dollars. Just buy electric. Pure speed and power, little maintenance, low cost fuel....it soon will make little sense to buy a gasoline engine anyway.
In this industry, we consumers rule the market. Buy energy efficient cars because these products are best for The People.
And let’s pass a carbon price to really set our climate protection policy.
2
@Consumer Power: “Just buy electric” isn’t a serious solution unless your kilowatts are generated using renewable resources. Otherwise all you’ve accomplished is to move your emissions from your own tailpipe to a stack somewhere else. Furthermore, a big chunk of the carbon footprint of an automobile is in the upfront use of resources and energy to manufacture the thing. If you really want to make a dent, you’d do just as well driving less and keeping a well-maintained vehicle for a decade or more instead of demanding a new one every few years with more buzzers and bells attached.
The states that require catalytic converters to reduce pollution should pay those who cannot afford to fix their catalytic converter; replacing one can cost hundreds of dollars. Car owners are forced to sell their car since it may not be worth fixing. This happened to me. And poor people might not be able to afford a newer car.
1
Imagine: every day a US President actively working to harm the health of millions of US residents and causing everyone to needlessly spend thousands more on transportation costs over their lifetimes.
The entire thing defies logic.
But then again, I forgot that anything good for the masses is a no go for this administration.
89
@klo
How to explain a decision that is irrational, unnecessary, hugely dangerous to our health, environmentally destructive, economically anti-competitive and backwards-looking?
You don't explain it. You vote against more of them happening.
12
@klo Logic? Since when have the words logic and Trump ever been with in reasonable proximity? In fact, recently I read where someone accused the Democrats of relying too heavily on logic. It's as if logic itself is passe and should be abandoned.
Yet another symptom of the way people are being led astray by those in power.
5
And harnessing the DOJ to be sure the damage occurs!
4
California is largely Democratic. California deals with unique air pollution problems due to geography. California is known for it’s long commutes. Therefore, Californians should should be very interested in, and in favor of, clean air standards. Everyone except Devin Nunes.
Simple solution. Don’t buy a new car until Trump surrenders or is out of office. That should put a crimp in “Trump’s” economy. Maybe the DOJ will investigate everyone in the state for collusion.
77
The auto companies are run by people much smarter than Donald Trump. They see the writing on the wall: ecologically-efficient cars are necessary for the long-term future of the auto industry. They also know that Donald Trump probably won't last more than another 16 months, and his successor will reinstate the pollution rules that Trump is trying to dismantle. They want stability and sustainability, not the whims of a dysfunctional autocrat. Anyone who thinks that Trump's vision of the future will outlive his presidency is kidding himself. Remember in November.
83
@Bill McGrath
"Trump's vision of the future"? Are you kidding me? Such a thing is a thing? This whole situation is Trump doing all he knows how to do - avenge perceived grievances at the hands of Obama - the future is not a thing that exists in Trump's brain, except, perhaps, a second term.
Aside for the need for certainty, for competitive reasons it is necessary for all motor vehicle companies to comply with the California standard. No company can economically support production of cars for California and states that follow its standards and a separate group of cars for the remaining states. While the dispute between California and the Trump administration winds its way through the courts there is nothing that prevents automobile manufacturers from voluntarily increasing their cars' fuel efficiencies in order to gain market share and to ultimately reach the California standard.
54
It is incomprehensible that the Administration is embarking on a systematic endeavour to hamper US efficiency and competitiveness. Auto companies have embraced energy efficiencies in part because of of past government regulations but largely because it makes financial sense. Customers are increasingly choosing energy efficient vehicles for energy and environmental savings. People are buying electric vehicles not just because they are green but because they outperform gas powered vehicles and are improving by leaps and bounds.
European and Asian carmakers will continue to make improvements in gas powered and electric vehicles. Will US companies keep up, if not it will spell the end of the American car industry.
53
@R Fishell
These companies are global and sell world-wide. They don't want to have to produce high polluting vehicles for the US market, when everywhere else is demanding efficient clean cars.
1
So, let me see if I understand this. The anti-trust division of the DoJ was silent as choices disappeared in the telecommunications, airline, semiconductor, and other sectors, to the detriment of consumers. But they are up in arms about an initiative that will reduce emissions, enhance air quality, slow climate change, and improve the health of the population. While at the same time benefiting the automotive industry. We are, indeed, living in dangerous times.
5
At the bottom of the article, this single sentence appears: "To stay competitive globally, companies know they must develop the next generation of fuel-saving technologies here in the United States."
But it's not just about the future, or nex-gen technologies. Efficiency standards in most other countries are being driven upward. Especially those that might be markets for our products. Won't Trump's "freeze" make current and near term products less competitive? These standards are chief among import requirements for motor vehicles.
So our Great Businessman, whines about trade imbalances and trade deficits, yet wants to make our cars and trucks less desirable to global markets ... seems to be at odds with his rhetoric. Again.
74
@Walt
Totally correct. Nobody in the world wants the old gas guzzling, pollution spewing cars that used to be made in America. What's next? Bring back leaded gasoline?
7
I wish this was just "politics" and I could shake my head, but the Trump administration is playing fast and loose with the fate of life on planet Earth. I can't say it's unbelievable, because at this point the president's lack of mooring in commonly accepted reality is so evident, I would only be surprised if he started acting like a measured, rational leader. These are uncertain and scary times.
77
@RC,
Agreed. I can no longer complain. Mr. Trump is meeting expectations. I would be surprised if he were actually to do the right things rather than counter-productive things.
2
There is one more group that would welcome the fuel-economy rollbacks - namely Big Oil, which stands to lose a substantial slice of its profit margins if American drivers spend less at the pump year after year.
If this move came about during any other administration, I wouldn't hesitate to suggest looking into industry connections, finding out when and where money changed hands. It says a lot about the current occupant of the Oval Office that I can genuinely believe the EPA and DOJ's current actions are motivated more by malice and ego than grift and greed.
99
@Ken
Big oil is selling 93 million barrels of oil a day. They will gladly adjust their prices when they sell less.
4
@Ken
But I do think that grift and greed are running a darn close second!
1
@Ken
I think it's more malice and ego. Check out the story on methane. I'd love to think it was just the energy sectors greedy influence, but given the methane story where they are in the same position as the auto makers, wanted to keep the higher standard, but being leaned on by the Trumpets, I conclude it is ego and malice.
What about states’ rights? Isn’t it a state’s right to protect its citizens health by providing cleaner air and lessening the threats of wildfires, flooding and heat deaths?
231
@Homer
Not under a dictatorship. I always though at least the Southern states were for state rights. I guess it depends on the issue like school integration and civil rights.
14
@Homer They are also on the hook for healthcare with an ever reduced help from the Feds. The poor air quality alone must cost them millions.
8
@Homer
Homer - you're forgetting - states' rights are only a thing when the republicans don't hold the presidency. They don't exist when a republican is president.
3
American automakers have to compete with China, India, Germany, Italy, France and who knows who else. They do not have to compete with Trump and his tame attorney general. I think it's safe to assume that they will ignore Trump's edict, and I don't think the DOJ will have a leg to stand on if it tries to fight them in court.
4
"the auto companies want to avoid a situation in which the Trump administration requires one thing, and California"
I think the situation is worse than that. The rest of the developing world, including Europe and China, are aggressively moving toward higher-efficiency vehicles. So it's not just a case of California vs the rest of the country. It's more like lower efficiency in US vs higher in the rest of the world, with CA falling on the side of higher.
222
@Santa see a lot of Volvos, Lexis, Hondas & Toyotas on road that are hybrids.
12
@Santa making US automakers products less fuel-efficient than foreign automakers will kill their sales overseas.
19
SO - Republicans are now against State’s rights and against private companies deciding how to run their businesses? Reagan is rolling around in his grave - or do Republicans even admire Reagan any longer and they will be changing their name to the Party of Trump - they should, if only to make their allegiances clear to all.
3
There are a few fundamentals about Federal and State fuel economy standards people should understand.
First, the federal standards are for the average nationwide fleet of vehicles of which California vehicles are a subset. Selling vehicles in California-standard states with better fuel economy than the federal standards make compliance with the federal standards easier. This means that vehicles sold in non-California standards can legally get lower fuel economy than the federal standards. So lower state standards do not necessarily reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions.
Second, most consumers favor vehicle attributes such as size, utility and performance over fuel economy when gasoline prices are stable. Unless all automakers are forced to meet the same minimum fuel economy standards, competition will punish the manufacturer that voluntarily sells only high MPG vehicles. If the manufacturers voluntarily meet and agree not to sell low fuel economy vehicles that consumers want to buy, that could well be considered an anti-trust violation.
The only "win" for automakers and the environment are national standards all parties agree with.
It's incomprehensible that the administration & DoJ would take on this fight. States and private companies which would like to decrease emissions are told they may not? That it may amount to conspiracy? This would benefit nobody but big oil, which already has enough federal subsidy.
265
@Jim
The answer to Trump's edict on efficiency is for ALL the car companies to ignore Trump and continue to make high efficiency vehicles.
107
@Jim
It’s not at all incomprehensible Trump would intervene. He is the great leader who sticks his nose in everywhere. He is a genius so can solve any problem. Just ask him.
11
@Jim
This fight has everything to do with Trump's fragile ego being hurt when California and the 4 auto makers rejected his rollback. Nothing more.
20
It is easy to understand when a politician tries to satisfy his donors, his rich friends, or cater to voters in order to win an election. But none of that seems to apply to trying to get people to waste their own money on gas while destroying the environment (causing death from air pollution and global warming) that even the car companies don't want. Even Trump supporters prefer to get 40 miles a gallon rather than 20.
The only explanation I can think of is a need for destruction, to tear things down with no other goal in mind. Like those mass murderers- the apolitical ones- who kill all they can just to kill. I fear that Trump's musing about shooting someone on Fifth Avenue is not only a reflection of his belief in the loyalty of his supporters; it also expresses a deep desire of this soulless man.
That is our President Trump, and I am afraid some of his supporters who identify with him. Destruction for destruction sake.
6
For American car companies to survive the next decade, they must compete with China in electric cars, bullet trains, and green air and ocean travel, run by A.I. This infrastructure change, greater than the interstate highways, requires not only car companies to be forward looking, but the Federal government to legislate and invest. Trump is an extreme neo-liberal capitalist, tunnel vision on the Dow Jones, ignorant of the future of the country. To say nothing of preventing the climate induced collapse of civilization from global agriculture, food security, refugee, and war crises.
1
Gotta to love the hypocrisy on what is supposedly a core conservative philosophy: states rights.
States right, like everything else, is only championed by the right when it suits them.
6
How ironic, or hypocritical. The Republican party used to argue for "market-based" solutions--e.g. Obamacare, which they vehemently oppose, originated with a Republican idea--but now, to appease our crybaby, narcissist president, they reject "market-based" agreements between automakers and California. As with the use of NOAA to "defend" Trump's inaccurate claim that Alabama was at risk from Hurricane Dorian, now the Justice Department is going to investigate automakers for daring to upset Trump's tragically dangerous anti-environmental agenda. Reality is inverted. The fact that many utilities are phasing out coal, automakers are working to improve mileage and emissions standards, all goes against Trump's lies ("beautiful coal") and climate-change denying, anti-science, anti-intellectual, and immoral worldview. I never thought I'd be rooting for the automakers on an environmental issue, but on this one I'm with them.
4
That the Trump administration would get itself involved in such a ridiculous, fruitless and counter productive attempt to sabotage the Obama era 'Auto Rule', should really set alarm bells ringing inside our heads if they are not already.
They just never stops. One day it is methane gas emission controls, the next it is the National Monuments or the protection of species regulations. It goes on and on, day after day, the gradual erosion of everything that stands in the way of the powerful extraction industries having a free hand.
In fact it is anything that stands in the way of a small coterie of rich and powerful individuals doing whatever they want at our expense.
3
Do Trump and his enablers not worry the slightest about the wold they're leaving for their children - one that's more polluted, more damaged by climate change, and increasingly on a backwards trajectory? Clearly not. But actually requiring private companies to pollute more is a whole other level of deranged thinking. I hope the automakers fight this with everything they've got.
3
The Koch corporation and other energy providers own American government. They make their billions by selling fossil fuels. The rules of the swamp ensure that Trump must follow their orders, which he does so gleefully.
None of this is difficult to follow, except the ignorance and compliance of the US public.
1
It's tempting to think Trump is just trying to roll back these standards because they're a product of the Obama administration, and Trump has a jealous and probably racist hatred of President Obama. That hatred certainly exists, but I don't think it's the primary motivation here. It's also conceivable that Trump is doing this just to be evil and world-destroying.
But I think the truth is, Big Oil pushed Trump into this. He's not too hard to persuade into doing things, with enough flattery and money. Back in the Bush administration, Big Oil's influence was readily apparent in the form of Dick Cheney. But now, they are just getting what they need done without being visible. Trump grabs the cameras with his wacky weather forecasting lies and attacks on famous musicians and actors, and all the while the oil lobby is whispering in his ear, talking him into these highly profitable moves.
Reducing auto standards directly enriches oil companies. Eliminating rules for energy efficient lightbulbs does the same thing, most electricity is still produced from oil. Reducing all sorts of EPA regulations, opening up areas to drilling, really a huge amount of the things Trump does aids oil companies above all else, so try to figure out who is telling Trump to do these things, and get those rich, old, white, oil execs into the spotlight. Wouldn't surprise me if one of them is Dick Cheney.
1
Donald Trump appears determined not to deny the threat of global warming, but to accelerate it! This can be seen as another facet of the mental derangement that drives him in his self-obsession and cruelty.
Incapable of love himself, Trump can never be admired, loved or worshipped enough. As a result, he hates everyone alive for their inability to repair the void that exists where a soul should be. Perhaps his war on the environment is his ultimate revenge.
1
The Trump/GOP compulsion to poison and destroy the Earth is driven firstly by theological motives ("only a God has the power to destroy the planet, and we are God; we'll show them"), and only secondarily by financial motives (not that these aren't also important to them).
1
"If only the Trump administration was smart enough to embrace it"? Seriously? Trump and smart should never appear in the same sentence. Venal, petty, and dumb, these are the words that fit...
I t will be interesting to see if the auto industry can hang tough, and get itself a little street cred with those of us who like the idea of cutting car emissions in half and saving $1.7 trillion in gasoline (more, probably, as reduced consumption drives the price down).
3
The Republicans love to talk about States' Rights until it involves something they don't like.
Sort of like their being against deficits until they make them worse.
3
Like his hurricane pronouncement, this is a losing issue for Republicans who most likely want it to fade away because it paints the party as anti-environmental, anti-consumer, obstinate and immature.
1
Obviously, this country will be far better off without Trump, without Pence and without their enablers in the House and the Senate.
2
This is the behavior of a sociopath, to want to dirty our air, which will in turn cause annually thousands of premature deaths and tens of thousands of additional childhood asthma cases. Trump thinks he's erasing Obama's legacy of clean air, but he isn't. Obama's legacy WAS clean air. Trump's legacy will be the polluting of our air.
1
“This mess is the opposite of what the auto companies want.”
This is totally untrue. Auto industry executives went to Trump early in his administration to specifically ask him to roll back the Obama era standards. In fact, even before he took office they were asking him to roll back the standards. Those facts were quite explicitly and extensively reported here and everywhere. They DID want this.
What they inconceivably assumed and grossly miscalculated was that Trump could simply wave his tiny hand and California, fifth largest economy in the world and progressive powerhouse that’s setting environmental standards for the nation, would submit, roll over, and just give away our power to the Neanderthals pining for the Dark Ages. Stop defending automakers and instead call them out for their blatant moves against the environment. They absolutely asked for this mess and California is more than happy to make them wallow in it. We’ll see them all in court with egg on their faces and Trump long gone from office.
2
To be clear, automakers asked for a delay in the timeframe for the 55mpg standard by 2025, not a rollback. Their task for the higher fleet average is complicated by the American market's clear preference for large, heavy vehicles that skew the average downward. States and the federal government are in direct conflict with the higher target by maintaining low gas prices that ensure the dominance of trucks, SUVs, and other gas-guzzlers over lighter, less-powerful vehicles preferred in Europe and Japan where high petroleum taxes have for decades shaped the market in favor of fuel-efficiency. And since the world's largest auto markets outside of the U.S. (including China) demand increasingly higher fuel-efficiency, automakers have no choice but to reach for the higher standards regardless of American regulations. The auto industry, which has already invested heavily toward that goal, is therefore not opposed to achieving higher fuel standards.
The state of CA and these automakers should stand their ground and dare Trump to do something about it. Trump will be gone soon enough.
3
Just as he refuses to comply with the Rule of Law and refuses to acknowledge the power of Congress, everyone should simply refuse to do what he wants.
Defy him to the point of being locked-up if that's what it takes. It's time for some serious push-back on this charlatan and his stooges. Just say "NO!"
2
"If only the Trump administration was smart and bold enough to embrace it."
The Trump administration does not make smart decisions that benefit the American public. The Trump administration doesn't make decisions. It follows the knee-jerk reactions of an ignoramus who uses his pique to upend anything or anyone that goes against his self narrative of being emperor.
1
Speaking plainly, the only explanation for this administration's universally unpopular action is that it's driven by Trump's pique and hatred for all things Obama and Californian.
Such inefficient, infantile, selfish and vindictive flailing is of no value to anyone and opposition to it can be be a fine way to unify even the most polar of political opposites.
@Jack Malmstrom
Notice how trump punishes California by not setting foot here? Is he afraid that citizens here will come out in enormous numbers to protest? He might finally get the crowd size he desires. Other states might want to follow suit and free themselves of trump's contamination. He obviously fears California and this fear manifests itself in trying to undermine that which is good for the populace. Whenever push comes to shove trump folds. When will the intelligent republicans catch on? Trump ruins everything he touches.
FOLLOW THE MONEY.
If we all would follow Deep Throat’s advice again, the answer to what is driving Trump becomes 100% clear, “follow the money.” And then there is that other piece of sage advice, “When they say it's not the money, then you can be sure, IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.”
The situation reduced to simplest terms: Trump is too dumb and shortsighted to think past his next Big Mac so when some party is willing to buy him a billion Big Mac's with fries and a Coke, he is all chips in. Even the lives of his grandkids is too blurred in his mind to think about the damage done, he just wants that last Big Mac.
Energy production is a money driven, well-greased (excuse the pun) self-preserving machine. It has spurred such things as forcing employees to put stickers on their cars stating, "Oil feeds my family" and others and one of the greediest barons feeding this crock of nonsense was the recently deceased David Koch. The whole line, so well fed by Koch, was to kill anything that caused a slow down or price drop in oil use, and to do it at any cost, human lives and even the planet, did not matter.
Big Oil has been bailing out the bad financial decisions of Trump since he became the GOP candidate. At every turn, he has given the "Go ahead" signal, even allowing the slaughter of Khashoggi. The NRA has given him money and big vote blocs also so no background checks on gun sales.
So Big Oil is simply getting great returns on Investment.
Another industry that America has dominated, and trump is destroying. This piles on the downfall of Boeing, with trump's ridiculous tariffs on Deltas CS100, handing that program to Airbus as the A220. His tactics with Huawei forced Huawei to develop their own operating system, threatening Apple's and Google's dominance. trump, can you find any other American industries to destroy, you still have over a year to make America a third world dictatorship.
Just another obvious deranged policy attempt to reverse already approved policy simply because it was put in place by President Obama. The current administration just can’t accept good and thoughtful policy from the previous administration. Brings to mind the paraphrase “Methinks Trump doth protest too much”!
I hate them, but I understand Trump's tax cuts, I understand his racist immigrationi policies, and I understand why he wants to hide his tax returns, I can also imagine the reasons for his compromised relatioship with Russia, and his obtuse trade war with China. This president is the exact opposite of complex and nuanced. He's an arrogant and incopetent amateur: while he does not ready any, he is an open book! With very few pages and lots of photographs, I might add.
What is really hard to understand is why Trump and the GOP would want to oppose climate science and legislation that is supported by the great majority of Americans (indlucing a majority of their own voters), AND by the auto industry itself.
Forget the future, and the common-sense goals of leaving our children with breathable air and drinkable water. If it's not about money, why on earth would they want to have more pollution, less fuel efficiency, AND go against business interests?
It's beyond supid. It's mind-boggling.
1
How far are we going to carry the notion of corporate “persons” that they should be allowed to negotiate in secret with the governor of a state in order to advance their own private corporate interests? Where were the real people and their elected representatives during these secret meetings? Who represented them? It makes no difference how benign and noble-sounding the NYT tries to make it out to be. These companies were not elected by the people and don’t have to go back to them every two years. They are accountable only to themselves and their shareholders and have no right to usurp the power of the state legislature in proposing rules and regulations. They can lobby the legislature but they can’t replace it at least not yet. Or are we now to be governed by them and what they think is best for us?
Apart from being horridly wrong of itself, as so many have clarified, what of the irony of the gross hypocrisy? The Republican Party has, and still does, support "states rights," to wit, with respect to abortion rules. To oppose California's fuel-efficiency initiative is to oppose states rights, flagrantly.
The idiocy of the Trump administration is stunning and without comparison in our country's history. Seriously, if this person stays in office another four years, he will do irreparable harm to so many facets of our society and country's well being for years to come. His ignorance, stupidity, narcissistic, pathological tendencies and outright capacity and desire to plunder our resources are destroying our country. Register and vote in the next elections.
This is a policy motivated purely by spite. If only we could dump the excess six billion metric tons of emissions on Mara Lago and Doral...
2
Trump is just mean. Enough with pretending this is “pique” or another semantic twist to avoid calling him out for what he is. He’s mean. Plain and simple.
1
Trump's dopey behavior is a threat not only to the American people but to all God's children, regardless of where they live on this planet.
1
I know one thing for sure, if Trump wants something, it means there is money for him personally in the deal.
Mick Jagger at Venice Festival this past weekend----"We are in a very difficult situation at the moment, especially in the US, where all the environmental controls that were put in place -- that were just about adequate -- have been rolled back by the current administration so much that they are being wiped out," I'm just waiting for Jagger to personally play one song to Trump when he loses 2020--"You Can't Always Get What You Want".......
So begins the partition of America into one half that moves forward with technology and culture and one half that resembles The Far Side cartoon.
1
"If only the Trump administration was smart and bold enough to embrace it."
Last line in the column says it all... if only...
So much for the Republican obsession with states’ rights.
1
I'm so confused. In 2016, the so called "Green" Party candidate, Jill Stein, told her followers that Clinton and Trump were the "same". Was she perhaps being a demagogue?!!!
Seriously, will the Earth survive "Green" Party election year antics?
This maneuver by the president is a power play against his presidential superior Obama. The courts will rule for CA.
1
Ranking the idiocies of this administration is a challenging task, but this one is at least in the top 5. It hurts the environment, is opposed by one of the largest US industries, and violates the law and longstanding practice. President 45 needs not only to be defeated and rebuked on policy grounds, but spanked and put to bed without his cheese burger and cell phone.
@Cal Prof
Professor, I fear spanking him will only result in fulfilling one of his fantasies.
And Putin. Don't forget that Russia's chief export is oil.
He clearly doesn't not believe in state's rights.
You only THOUGHT he was a conservative.
The auto manufacturers know that if they don't make more fuel efficient cars, their competitors will and in the end, they will lose out. It happened in the 70s, they don't want it to happen again...even if Trump wants to throw buckets of cash at the oil sheiks, spit in Obama's face over the rule, and sic Billy "Cover-up" Barr on them.
1
So good to know that the Trump Administration is working to the benefit of all of Trump's constituencies which amount to, at most, the fossil fuel industry.
What a terrific idea to sick the DoJ on the auto manufacturer's for attempting to help humanity as if they were colluding to fix prices or diminish competition. Does it get any more logically inverted than this?
Hey Bill Barr: try to be on the right side of history before history condemns you to its trash bin.
1
Leave it to our conservative friends to resist all efforts to conserve important stuff.
The auto makers and California should now work in concert to undermine Trump and cancel his absurd agenda.
1
This whole conflict is based on Trump seeking to undo yet another achievement won by the Obama Administration. He's still mad about being mocked at the correspondents' dinner and he will do anything to diminish Obama.
He is such a mean-spirited petulant human being demonstrating a lack of grace at every turn.
What will they do as lame ducks after a 2020 loss?
This is just Trump playing to his base. He will come to Iowa, Kansas and Texas and tell the story of how California, Obama and the Democrats want to force hard-working Americans out of their F-150s and into Priuses, but he stepped in to save the day. It won't even matter if he ultimately fails; it will still play huge at the rallies, and that's all that matters to this president.
Consumers have choices in opposing the various attempts to reverse climate change regulations. I find it hard to believe, whatever a voter's political leanings, that they would prefer gas guzzlers and incandescent light bulbs to the money saving and convenience benefits of more fuel efficient cars and LED bulbs. As the prices of both have come down significantly in the last few years, I'm hopeful that most of us would have gotten used to spending less money on gasoline and making fewer stops to fill the tank. The same goes for light bulbs, now that we've gotten used to lower electric bills and not having to replace bulbs as often. Why would any normal person want to comply with the preferences of a man who due to his own privileged life has never had to fuel his own car or change his own bulbs? Trump seems to assume that everyone else is as ignorant and out of touch with reality as he is. I fervently hope that on election day in 2020 I'm not proven wrong.
7
But the oil industry will be hurt. We can't allow that.
2
Will someone please explain to me why the auto companies can’t simply make their own decisions about what emission system they will use? Can’t they build whatever type of vehicle will sell? In other words, so what if the feds roll back the standards? Surely a given auto company can exceed those standards if it chooses to. So why all the kerfluffle?
1
"To stay competitive globally, companies know they must develop the next generation of fuel-saving technologies here in the United States."
Trump, the Justice Dept, the DOT and EPA can all go stand on their heads and whistle Dixie. The auto companies know they are out of business if they don't stay competitive with overseas manufacturers.
5
It's time for the other big automakers to get off the sidelines and make their position known on this important issue. GM, Toyota, Fiat Chrysler: end your tactical silence. If you don't speak up soon, I'll have to assume that you quietly support Trump's emission standards rollback. This decision will have an impact upon my next vehicle purchase.
13
We drive 2 hybrids. When they need to be replaced, they will be replaced by hybrids or EVs. I don't care what the emission standards are or will be in the future, I buy the least amount of gasoline I can get away with. Works for me.
9
I hear the President is thinking of starting an auto company that will specialize in coal-powered cars.
15
The headlines for this ongoing news story always refer to the benefits of the pre-Trump policies as being linked to climate. The climate benefits of the improved auto efficiencies are of course massively important. But let’s not forget two other key benefits of improving auto mileage standards: improved public health through better air quality from fewer non-greenhouse gas emissions, and consumers saving money by needing to purchase fewer gallons of gasoline. Those benefits need to stay in the headlines as well. Not buried deep in the articles.
8
Score another point for the oil industry. We will be fighting a war with the oil guys that makes the fight with the failing coal industry look like a food fight at a preschool. Coal has been going down for years, even the bosses know that. The demand is not there & alternate sources of energy are taking over. The sad thing is that none of the coal miners, or coal workers of any kind are being trained to move to other industries. Coal miners are entitled to their pensions and health care, that is a priority. Now the companies that dug coal out, profited it are going belly up, claiming no responsibility to the miners, filing bankruptcy. But all those young miners could be trained to install solar panels, wind farms, all sorts of alternatives to coal. We think breaking the bond with the oil industry will be easy? Even the auto manufacturers maintain they want to keep the restrictions, thinking that it would be financially bad for them to have to retool the lines, but big oil led by the likes of Dick Cheney will get a strangle hold on the government much like the NRA, let common man pay for it. I have a 2013 car that gets 39 MPG. I could get a new car, I could get one of the electric vehicles but I live in a rural area where plug ups are nonexistent. So my little gas miser gets used often. Even when I go to town for business or groceries I only fill up about every 2 months. But it gravels me that I usually park next to a very large gas guzzler who supports the oil industry.
13
@really fishy lady
The government still uses oil subsidies to favor exploration. Yes, supported by the 'anti-socialist' Republicans, who believe in socialism when it benefits them. Trump isn't the outlier for so-called 'conservatives' but the peak 'conservative' extremist.
The tyrant has seized EPA policy, military funding and even the weather agency for unpopular and selfish reasons. When will voters stand up against the rich?
3
Well, the oil industry certainly appreciates the idea of a rollback. And they pay well, too!
8
I think it might be the increased gas mileage and saving gasoline that is driving Trump's position. His buddies in the oil industry are probably frightened by the concept of a declining market for gasoline.
14
@Brookhawk I thought that was the likely case too, but then remembered he is driven by petulance. He wanted to set the rule, and they made him look bad.
9
Follow the money to Trump's pockets. The fossil fuel industry owns the Republican Party. Trump does whatever they tell him to. Campaign funds will pour his way from these corporate environment destroyers. Yet again, Trump is using the Justice Department and the disgraceful William Barr to serve his own personal needs. Trump thinks the USA is just another company in his portfolio of failed family businesses. He is indeed the mascot of the Republican Party.
Global warming is truly a serious threat to mankind. The youth of America must rise up in protest to throw Trump and his Republican enablers out of office. If not, these younger generations will pay the heaviest price for the destruction of our planet.
47
@Jefflz They can vote with their wallets, and their purchases, as we have been doing. Buy hybrid or electric cars only, or buy NO car if you live in the city. That's what our kids have done. We are 50-50 electric and gas in our whole family, with 2 of our three kids not owning a car and not seeing any need to anytime soon. Trump can be a jerk but if all the young people buy the most fuel efficient vehicle they can the car companies will keep moving that way anyway
3
The emissions issue is just one of many examples of Trump and his Administration attempting to drag the US back to some imaginary perfect world of the 1950's. An era when America made big gas guzzler cars with thick American-produced steel bodies that sported giant tail fins.
The envy of the world then; a laughingstock now.
All Trump and his crowd are really accomplishing is to stunt future technological development in the US to the point where America will become a follower nation rather than a leader. One simply need to witness the massive investment China and Germany's auto companies are making in electric vehicles to see where the competition really is.
Oh yes, I know. The Trumpists will simply put tariffs on those Chinese, German and other electric vehicles in order to keep them out while we switch back to gas guzzlers.
Sure that will work fine. See how much good his crazy tariffs are already doing for us? Our exports are declining. Our vaunted technological edge is dulling. And yet there's a good chance this guy and his crowd will get re-elected!
Simply amazing....
20
@George
Right on, George, except for one detail. Our big tail-finned gas guzzlers were not the envy of the world, but the laughing stock even back then. While we were driving them, Europeans were driving tiny, fuel-efficient cars (Rolls-Royce and Mercedes produced big cars for the ultra-wealthy--they were rarely seen on the roads).
3
So we'll become a giant nation with really old cars. Kind of like Cuba with 330 million people, while the rest of the world moves on.
Good going GOP- you guys are a disaster.
@George And don't forget TEL (Tetra-ethyl lead) which was an additive for years - lead polluted smog was a factor in every city kids life. What about that little "memento" of the 50's ? Trump is a wacko
Green technology is cheaper and more reliable, it is close to the tipping point where there’s no turning back. Without the regulations the auto industry will collapse when that happens, with Asia and Europe ready to step in. Trump thinks like a crooked landlord, no understanding that the upside of listening to customers.
14
@Gary cheaper? No. Just compare prices for Audi's A3. The hybrid electric version is $8,000 more for equivalent base models.
More reliable? That remains to be seen, given that electric cars are new to market. But hyrbid cars have two power trains which adds complexity.
Electric versions tend to be heavier than their Internal Combustion counterparts and rely on electric generated from dirty sources like coal and natural gas with the kicker that there are major energy losses in transmission and battery efficiency that add to the CO2 footprint.
Delivering gasoline to cars is far more energy efficient than electricity and don't get me started on how the materials for batteries comes from destructive mining techniques.
1
@Matt Not so fast Matt. Costs averaged over a four year period will have the EV owner spending thousands less. Audi's A3 is a single example and not indicative of the market as a whole. Compare a Tesla Model 3 to an equivalent sedan, factor fuel, service and maintenance, and the Ev is much less.
My son drives on and save $300 a month just on fuel compared to his BMW.
If you're going to trace the electricity source to its origin for electric vehicles, you must do the same for the internal combustion engine as well. Once one looks at the massive infrastructure needed to supply a typical gas engine car, from crude to refined to individual stations, and compare that to a centralized power generating unit for electric, the old gas guzzler, or sipper doesn't fare so well. Also, battery and transmission line efficiency do not impact an electric car's carbon footprint. That's like penalizing a car for the state-of-tune of the tanker delivering the gas. You also ignore the the vast solar (public and private) use as in California and Nevada. Lastly, the reliability of hybrids and EV's is not in question.
9
@buddhaboy
Add to those costs the military interventions to protect the flow of oil from the Middle East.
7
I suggest that Trump remain permanently enraged. Then he wouldn't have to have mood swings abd tantrums.
11
In this case, I would love the media to stop blaming Trump and dig deeper. Who is really responsible? Trump is a lightning rod, a willing target. Is the auto industry playing a double game? How about some investigative journalism?
2
This is Trump’s ego, pure and simple. There’s no advantage for the auto industry in creating chaos and uncertainty in the market. And there’s absolutely no advantage in getting sued by the federal government.
15
@Lorenzo ??? This is really pretty easy to figure out. I don't think we need any investigative journalism here
Regardless of Trump and his madness, we the people are welcome to call the automobile manufacturers and tell them that we demand fuel efficient vehicles. Demand drives supply. Stop buying gas guzzlers, and they will stop making them.
37
@Laurence Hauben
Admirable thought, LH, but look around you. Americans drive what they want, and the roads are clogged with big American steel, V-8 powered pickup trucks and SUVs, and RVs the size of apartments, mostly empty except for one insecure American who wears the vehicle like armor. The smaller vehicles in between are NOT very efficient or durable. Add the behemoth cargo trucks full of plastic junk, beer and exotic fruit. Look carefully and you will see an electric vehicle now and then, a hybrid here and there. Demand drives supply. Americans, male and female, demand macho vehicles to inform the world that they are powerful and require powerful equipment to power their powerful lifestyles. Insecurity drives the American car industry.
Trump must have had his aides prepare a whiteboard with all of Obama's accomplishments. He probably rewards them every time they can erase one from the board.
The auto rule rollback is just one more erasure.
33
@Tom . Trump's contempt for Barack Obama transcends the common good. His denial of man made climate change and mockery of attempts to lessen its effects extend all the way to pushing plastic straws and incandescent light bulbs, petty little man that he is.
He is a reality show star bumbling his way as President.
He is unfit and must be voted out.
3
Although written by a Harvard Law Professor this is the same old dishonest talking points on this case being pushed by all the other Op-Ed writers. The true part of Ms. Freeman's analysis is the following:
"Antitrust prohibits companies from conspiring to restrict competition. But under well-established legal principles, they may jointly lobby government for rules they prefer, and comply with those rules once adopted. And companies may independently and unilaterally meet whatever voluntary standards they wish."
So this means: (1) Car Companies can (and must) follow any valid California law *in California;* and (2) Nothing Trump or the DOJ is doing prevents the companies from any *voluntary* and *non-collusive* decision to meet higher standards if they want.
What is illegal is exactly what they did -- form a cartel that requires its members to sell a limited selection of models (presumably at higher prices). Cartels always pitch their agreements as promoting "safety," or "quality," or "higher standards." But these companies are not altruists and, as noted, they could always sell any low emission car they wanted without an agreement.
This is a classic and flagrant anti-trust violation. The DOJ would be utterly negligent not to investigate the pact. Which is all the more reason it is irresponsible "fake news" to claim that Trump ordered the investigation. Pure speculation, and most likely untrue.
No, this isn’t an anti-trust case. A classic anti-trust case is brought when companies conspire against the public interest, not when they work toward the public interest.
As the author says, California has been able to set its own auto emissions standards since the Clean Air Act, and the Supreme Court has already ruled that CAFE standards can be covered under this rule. No other state has to follow California’s standards—they only apply to California, unless a state wants to sign on. If an automaker decides they don’t want to comply, they would opt out of the California market (no automaker has ever done this).
The Trump administration knows they’re going to lose this case in court. The purpose of the suit is to intimidate the four automakers and set an example, not to win the suit.
30
@Chorizo Picante
What needs to be investigated is the Trump/Republican collusion with the fossil fuel industry to force more use of coal and oil and the transfer of trillions of dollars from the pocketbooks of American citizens to the ledger sheets of international oil and gas cartels, and the transfer of the liabilities for the environmental and public health damage the production and burning of these fuels creates from the very same ledgers of the very same international oil and gas cartels to the public ledger. These oil and gas cartels destroy the environment, declare bankruptcy and leave the cleanup costs to the taxpayer.
This is the clear "classic and flagrant anti-trust violation" -the difference is that the violation is being committed by our government on behalf of their corporate puppet masters.
Wake up, America! You're being had! It's time to vote the bums out before they steal the rest of the country!
1
@Chorizo Picante
Form a cartel...? Requires its members...? Classic and flagrant anti-trust violation...? What you talkin' 'bout, CP?
The car makers in question made a joint statement of opinion. Nothing more. The statement made no threats, and contained no policy other than their desire for a reasonably consistent regulatory environment.
Where did you get the assertions above? I have to inform you that your rhetoric, especially the cry of "fake news" and defense of Mr. Trump's abdication of responsibility, makes it clear to the reader where your motivations lie: if Donald Trump calls for dirtier air, more CO2 emissions, increased use of gasoline, and support for fossil fuel producers, then you twist truth and logic until it fits the program, and sic the cops on the enemy! Pathetic.
2
it is all about more money for trump and his money donating buddies. the graft in washington is not even hidden by this administration. unfortunately the republican party looks the other way because the graft benefits them.
17
Can we expect the Confederate battle flag support group to back California and the other 13 states rights?
For the concealed gun permit issue as well?
8
Aside from making big oil happy, getting rid of the higher efficiency standards for vehicles are a Trump target for another reason: They were enacted by the Obama administration and Trump seems to be obsessed with destroying any Obama legacy. Hopefully Trump’s detrimental regulatory rollbacks will get tied up with litigation long enough to get a new president in the White House.
14
Why isn't McConnell stepping in here? What about some of the other GOP representatives whose states or districts include auto manufacturers? Where are they? Have they developed sudden bouts of disinterest in companies that have supported them in the past, that have provided jobs for their constituents, that are, in this case, interested in doing the right thing? Has every GOP member come down with severe fear of challenging Trump or telling their constituents why they cannot support what he's trying to do?
Trump is proving beyond a doubt that he has no grasp of how businesses work or plan for the present or the future. Yet the GOP is willing to let him have his way. I'd like to say I can't believe my ears and eyes here but that's not true. If this were Obama or Clinton carrying out these foolish actions the GOP would be all over the news about it and on every talk show explaining and expostulating about the illogic of the whole enterprise.
What has happened to our country? We took a large step in voting in an African American president for two terms. And now we have a president whose sole strategy consists of tantrums for attention. Can we sink much lower into the swamp?
9/9/2019 5:40pm first submit
15
@hen3ry McConnell has become one of trump's Imperial Eunuchs co-opted by trump's appointment of Elaine Chou to a Cabinet position. Mitch has always operated in his own self interest and was easily lured by trump whom he thought could be easily controlled an manipulated. Mitch originally hails from Alabama which of late seems to be a source of many of this administration's conundrums.
2
@hen3ry
The GOP is on a death march.
2
No one is bribing, I'm sorry, "donating", money to Donald Trump or the GOP not to do these things, so why not? It's the only explanation I can think of.
2
@Chicago Guy One of tRump's major incentives to do anything is to rescind everything Obama put in place. If such rescissions happen to further enrich the family coffers, double-win for him.
11
What about states with vehicle production? Rob Portman, Mike Braun, Todd Young, Lindsey Graham, Tim Scott, Marsha Blackburn, Lamar Alexander, Richard Shelby. What are you going to do about this? You are going to let this administration harm your large employers to feed one man's ego or to benefit oil producers?
Pat Toomey, Susan Collins, their states follow California emissions standards, where are they on this?
Everyone wants reliable standards, and the only thing standing in the way is the current administration and its enablers.
17
How unfortunate not only for Americans but also for the rest of mankind that even California, the sixth largest economy in the world, can't do anything about reducing harmful emissions coming out of the Oval Office.
21
Why isn't McConnell stepping in here? What about some of the other GOP representatives whose states or districts include auto manufacturers? Where are they? Have they developed sudden bouts of disinterest in companies that have supported them in the past, that have provided jobs for their constituents, that are, in this case, interested in doing the right thing? Has every GOP member come down with severe fear of challenging Trump or telling their constituents why they cannot support what he's trying to do?
Trump is proving beyond a doubt that he has no grasp of how businesses work or plan for the present or the future. Yet the GOP is willing to let him have his way. I'd like to say I can't believe my ears and eyes here but that's not true. If this were Obama or Clinton carrying out these foolish actions the GOP would be all over the news about it and on every talk show explaining and expostulating about the illogic of the whole enterprise.
What has happened to our country? We took a large step in voting in an African American president for two terms. And now we have a president whose sole strategy consists of tantrums for attention. Can we sink much lower into the swamp?
9/9/2019 5:40pm 11:56pm 3rd submit
3
Yes, because the auto industry are such moral pillars. An industry built upon building vehicles with faults known to cause death or disability and permitted to continue simply because the litigation and settlements is cheaper than fixing the problems.
The guys in bed with big oil who knew, KNEW, since the 60s that climate change was a thing and they were responsible for the lion share of it.
Oh yeah, Trump is the real villain in all of this.
@Coots. No one is arguing that the auto industry is made of pillars of morality. But some of them do seem to be figuring out how their business is going to survive in the future.
8
@Coots
Nobody is accusing the auto industry of altruism, believe me.
@Coots
Ah, yeah Trump is a villain in this.
1
As much as it matters to me and Planet Earth on an environmental level, I just won’t ever understand on a financial level, why ANYONE would prefer lower mileage from their car. Auto manufacturers may have a different perspective, but the percentage of people who work in the industry is far outweighed by people who drive cars. Even djt's cult members would benefit from needing to buy less gas.
9
We are calling on American car companies to reject this wrong-headed rollback.
Rejecting Trump’s offer to make emission standards more lenient would show that companies understand the science behind climate change and are prepared to do the just and socially responsible thing here.
Stand up and do the right thing, corporate America. You are responsible to more than your shareholders and short term stock prices.
3
I can remember the air pollution of the 1970's in LA--far fewer cars on the road than today, but the air was so toxic on hot summer days that it burned your eyes, nose and lungs. Back then, lead was a component in fuel, and fuel efficiency was not a topic. California became a leader in cleaning up the air, which in LA is cleaner by comparison, with a lot more vehicles on the road than ever before.
We must never go back to the old pollution levels.
11
@Susan Smog was addressed by catalytic converters - not fuel efficiency regulations. But both are desirable.
1
@Matt Wrong again Matt. It was the combination of different fuel, emission controls in car, and less fuel being burned in each vehicle. It's like a diet. Produce cleaner food. Eat healthier options. And eat less.
2
There is nothing stopping the Auto makers from maintaining a higher standard
Their objections are a pretense
7
Trump has complained in the past that eu countries or japan won’t buy American cars- there’s a few reasons for this- a lot of European cities are a few hundred years old and two F150’s are too big to pass each other going in opposite direction in the average town- and also with gas costing $5-6.00/gallon (imperial gallon at that) - who could afford to run them? Sales in large trucks and SUVs have only increased in the USA now that oil is $40.00/ barrel- if it goes back up to $100.00- future planning anyone??
15
@Provo1520
Many streets, parking places, the few garages are to small for American car or trucks.
We had a 1977 Toyota corolla in Augsburg Germany. to big
4
Generally when you want to find out a political entity wants a rule passed you find out who in industry wants the rule and will benefit from it. Follow the money.
In this case, the only "entity" pushing for the rule is Trump's ego.
12
@Hank and his sheer & utter disdain for Obama
Auto companies, do the right thing and agree on high fuel economy standards and lower emissions. There is no law that states you cannot exceed Federal standards. If the manufacturers association sets it’s own high standards, the government cannot stop it. It is not ant-trust if it is voluntary.
7
Good summary.
The Democratic candidates should pay attention. And even if not asked a direct question about this, just address it anyway.....with any question about climate change or regulations or even executive power.
If it can be boiled down to a 3 minute fact-based statement, just explaining that California and those 4 auto companies want to have "cleaner" cars...and the Trump administration is trying to, literally, sue them, for wanting to do that.....then all voters who care about this issue will give major points to any candidate who can explain the federal versus state problem in a way that is easily understandable.
6
Nothing here that 4$ per gallon gasoline won't solve. The problem is as much the American public as is is Trump. Raise the federal gasoline tax to keep gasoline at a level where fuel-efficient cars become desirable. Europeans learned that a long time ago, Americans not so smart or responsible.
29
@Ohio MD: For what possible reason would Trump raise the federal gasoline tax?
2
My guess is Charles Koch wanted it, as I don't think Trump truly has any policy ideas of his own.
26
Smart automakers know the more carbon efficient their products are, the longer their brand will hold its value. The oil and gas industry is also trying to preserve the value of their filthy, outdated brands, but this move will likely backfire wildly against the carbon kings.
12
The world over increased fuel efficiency and reduced emissions are consumer objectives. Trump's disturbed obsession with undoing Obama era standards will be an abject failure. Like so many other Trump wants have proven to be.
17
I’m just curious...how many opinion pieces each day are about Trump? 60-70%? Almost 3 years now?
I truly believe the press will still keep writing about him all day, every day even if he loses. You won’t know what to do with yourselves.
And I voted Barack and Hillary!
4
@Emily As a former little boy who had little boy friends, I posit: how does one bake an ant with a magnifying glass? Not by removing the heat.
No ants were harmed in the formulation of this response.
15
@Emily I agree that there’s a preoccupation with Trump that has squeezed out numerous other crucial stories, many of which are the actual social, cultural, and political issues that may keep him in office for a second term.
Yet I also understand that Trump's propaganda apparatus is gargantuan, and that the uninterrupted daily flow of lies and deceptions from the White House demands 24/7/365 journalistic accountability. There are less than a handful of national news organizations with the resources to undertake the level of reporting that the NYT provides, and it’s imperative that they continuously document the crimes and disgraces of this administration, and the damage it is perpetrating upon the US and other countries and international organizations.
Oh, and I would guess that it’s pretty good for the newspaper business, too.
11
It’s not about Trump. It’s about clean air and avoiding catastrophic climate change.
Nobody wants? Ask any Conservative and they will back Trump no matter what he says.
8
Auto-makers prize good public relations, and the absence of fines. The Obama mileage rule turned out to be a sham. The rule had 2017 interim standards. The industry approached the Obama administration in 2016, because it could see it was going to miss the 2017 standards by a meaningful amount. Obama did nothing, and Clinton was silent. The sum total of Obama's climate policy was a war on fossil fuels AND a "delay-linger-and-wait" approach to achieving automobile efficiency improvements. A joke.
1
@Tom
Are you saying that makes it okay for Trump to make things worse?
@Tom there is only 1 joke being referred to in this op piece ....
The main reason Trump is trying to overturn these standards is that they were developed by Obama. With no strategy or moral compass, our wrecking ball of a president seeks vengeance against those he doesn’t like, particularly those who don’t kowtow to him. And as we saw with his weather map, he’ll go to any lengths to be “right” and get his way. He is now surrounded by enablers in his cabinet and on his staff, and the cowardly Republicans in Congress fear his tweet-wrath too much to stand up for what at least some of them must know is right and true.
20
It’s clarifying to accept the truth:
45 is literally trying to kill us, our children, our loved ones. To 45 we’re completely expendable cannon fodder in his fight to the death for his political survival.
As California goes so goes the nation. First they came for the Californians...nope not being paranoid. Enron taught us that.
44
there is nothing less at stake here than the complete repudiation of Obama's legacy. Trump would issue an executive order forbidding tomorrow morning if he thought Obama had scheduled it, and that may yet happen.
25
The fossil fuel industry has planted the bug in the president's ear. It is the only private interest opposing the more efficient fuel standards.
Let the killer storms rage and the fires burn out of control!
7
The current Administration is trying to pick winners, and the winners happen to own or run fossil fuel companies.
The losers? Who drives? Thousands more of your dollars going into oil company pockets.He's tried (and failed so far) to force us to use expensive coal energy, too, which pollutes and costs more than wind or gas these days. He did manage to make mining more dangerous by relaxing safety rules, so miners should remember that.
Contrast the moves he's making with the fact that Obama signed stricter fleet efficiency standards in 2010 - with car and truck executives standing by him.
"Mr. Obama was joined on Friday by environmental leaders and representatives of major truck manufacturers who supported the new policy. Among them were the chief executives of Volvo, Daimler Trucks North America, Cummins and Navistar, the head of the American Trucking Association and a garbage-truck driver in his uniform.
Manufacturers want a single national standard set over the long term because that is easier to comply with than the patchwork of state and national regulations that had been imposed in the past."
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/business/energy-environment/22fuel.html
7
Folks are all amazed Trump is in this fight. It’s very simple - follow the money!
Whether it be inaugural ball or PAC contributions, hotel and/or golf outings at his resorts, or something else entirely, it is related to his personal wealth or leverage over him.
22
9 US cities are suing the fossil industry for climate damages. NY is currently suing ExxonMobil. MA is suing Exxon for defrauding the public by spreading disinformation about climate change. In CA, fisherman are suing oil companies for their role in warming the Pacific Ocean. In Juliana vs USA, 21 youth plaintiffs filed suit against the government for violating their constitutional rights by pursuing policies that intensify global warming.
It’s time for American citizens to take legal action against politicians and fossil-fuel executives and hold them accountable for crimes against humanity by planning, carrying out, or participating in decimation of the climate. These people are criminals and should be treated as criminals. The international law precedents set in the Nuremberg and IG Farben trials provide the framework. At the very least, the fossil-fuel industry and pro-fossil fuel politicians should be barred from international climate negotiations and any national-level climate policymaking discussions, just like the tobacco industry and its representatives are barred from World Health Organization talks.
33
Miles per gallon don't mean much. The problem with the California standards -- and the inherent fraud -- is that they only deal with tailpipe emissions and do not include the "upstream" emissions. Fore example, electric vehicles powered by electricity generated by coal are responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than a gasoline vehicle but the California standards ignore that reality. If the EPA standards, as reported, include upstream emissions, the lower MPG will be realistic and possibly more strict in terms of greenhouse gas emissions than standards that ignore upstream emissions.
2
@Robert Atkinson
"The problem with California standards..."
The problem is everyone else's standards are worse.
15
@Robert, I am skeptical to say the least, so please provide credible sourcing for your assertion that electric vehicles powered by coal emit more pollution than internal combustion vehicles. Also, keep in mind that coal is not the only source of electrical power.
8
@Robert Atkinson: You are guilty of a straw-man fallacy. You should research the percentage of electricity generated in this country by energy source. Coal accounts for only about 27%, so it's inaccurate to claim that upstream emissions due to coal are worse than burning gasoline in an engine. Your analysis also fails to consider the effects of localized fuel burning. Air pollution in densely-populated areas is ameliorated by low-polluting cars.
5
Hey, Trump gets "enraged" over something daily. Therefore, ignore our over-sensitive president, follow the initial goals, and help avoid some of the climate change damage to our world. After 2020, we'll all begin to undo the damage that Trump has done to us and the rest of our nation and world. Until then, do what is best regardless of what he says.
16
As regards the MPG, automakers who go with the California standards are automatically fulfilling the Trump ones. If your vehicle gets 50 mpg obviously gets 39 mpg!
6
“But under well-established legal principles, they [the auto companies] may jointly lobby government for rules they prefer.” Not right. They may lobby the legislature not the “government” directly to pass laws or rules that they like or to change others they don’t like. They do not have the legal right to negotiate directly with the governor in secret as they did in this instance or under any circumstances. Only the people’s elected leaders, not private companies acting for their own interests, may do so. This so-called “agreement” is, therefore, ultra vires or beyond the powers of the state to enact or enforce.
2
Please share a credible source for this claim.
Trump has investments that benefit from gas guzzling. His pocket book is guiding all his decisions-not climate change, not future generations to suffer, not asthmatic children, adults, it's his pocket book.
15
The Obama rules would have no significant impact on the climate of the planet, since the US has only about 4.4% of the Earth's population, and increases in population and vehicles over the next decade ensure the claimed benefits would not be met. Rolling back the Obama rules will save lives and prevent injuries, since cars are already highly efficient and further gains require smaller and lighter vehicles. Ideology can't trump the laws of physics. The root cause of our environmental disaster is overpopulation, but there is no leadership to address it.
9
@RC. The world isn’t over populated. But even if it were the world population is set to rise to a certain amount and then shrink. Models only differ on when the shrinkage will occur. So there isn’t any reason to worry over the population of the world. It’s going to decline all on its own.
4
The Obama standards may be only a drop in the bucket, but they are not meaningless. In any case, (Ronald Mc)Donald’s reaction to the Obama standards, and California’s (and other states’) ability to set their own standards, is the real story.
3
@RC
Larger populations are more easily kept in the dark and manipulated. What incentive do the politicians have to change things?
1
Other than the oil industry - who own Trump - who is against getting 55 miles per gallon of gas, breathing less pollution and developing even more efficient (electric, hybrid, etc.) automobiles? Apparently not the auto industry. So what's the problem Donnie?
24
@logic
Yes, logic, you are correct!
As I wrote in a letter to the editor of Business Week [March 28, 1994]:
"We are in the earlier stages of a dramatic shift in automotive energy systems --- away from oil and toward electric. And thus, over time, the interest of the oil industry and the automobile industry will diverge."
7
@logic depends on how the car makers get there. The mileage rules are for fleets so a bigger truck's emissions are offset by they economy car.
Americans like their SUVs which work against the mileage targets. So either you buy more Ford Focus' (oh, been discontinued do to low demand) or you can forget about your Ford Expedition.
Other tradeoffs include smaller engines with Turbo chargers which add cost, complexity, at the expense of reliability.
Electric vehicles get a pass on the CO2 emissions of the powerplant, but it's actually higher than gasoline for the same vehicle platform. You're just shifting the location of the emissions with more energy losses along the way.
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
1
...that much of the car industry supports.
1. Not true. Neither GM nor Ford signed up
Of the big 3 US companies , two did not join
2. The passenger car standards passed by President
Obama are laudable , but increasingly irrelevant
Based on 2018 sales data released by the carmakers on Thursday, 2 million U.S. consumers gravitated to three major pickup brands:
909,330 Ford F-Series
585,581 Chevy Silverados
536,980 Ram Trucks
The appetite for trucks grew slightly from 2017, when consumers purchased:
896,764 F-Series
585,864 Silverados
500,723 Rams
https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2019/01/04/ram-trucks-chevy-silverado-ford/2473422002/
As gasoline prices fell , American increasingly switched
to Pick Up Trucks, and Giant SUVs
The first passenger Car to show up on the most sold
model list is # 6
3. Far more significant would be to increase the gasoline
tax to EU levels
Emission, CO2 per capita, latest data from Word Bank
US 16.5 metric tons per capita
Britain 6.5 metric tons per capita
France 4.6 metric tons per capita
The largest US emitter of CO2 is transportation. The data are unambiguous. To move to EU levels, the US has to tax gasoline at EU levels. And , if you look at the companies that joint, 3 out of 4 are from high tax on gasoline countries.
9
@Woof Excellent post. In the end, demand drives supply. If consumers want lower emissions, all they have to do is shun vehicles that don't get at least 40 miles per gallons. Nothing Trump could do about that.
2
@Woof
1. Ford wants the higher California standards. (VW, the largest automaker in the world, does as well.)
2. I believe the MPG standards are for the entire fleet eacb company manufactures. Trucks count.
9
@Woof
I am all for European gas taxes in the US. And I lived in Europe for a couple years.
2
If any of the innumerable idiocies created by trump and his
enablers best illustrates the pointless harm that will ensue from their implementation, it is this purely gratuitous mpg rollback. Few in the industry now want it, no one in California wants it. So what is its point? Only
the minions of trump via a complete farce of a figleaf DOT study on safety (without any apparent sharpie drawn diagrams to help make its utterly convoluted points) insist upon it at their boss' direction.
So how to get it realized? There is only one way. To sue in court that California's right to set its own mpg standards
violates federal law.
This will take years to adjudicate, assuming the worst happens in Nov. 2020, and leaves no one
in a good position except the initiator of the suit, who, once
again, as always, requires personal vindication, no matter the harm to others, by way of the courts. This will take years.
In the meantime, it places the auto sector in a difficult position about allocating resources to produce for the American market, about which trump really couldn't care less. Presumably they'll do what they've
already agreed to do.
Such is life when a petulant child is granted the power to rule like an autocrat.
Are there really no congressional trumpicans who find this so absurd, self defeating, and contrary to the country's interests (i.e., the well being of the automobile industry) that they feel compelled to say as much in public?
14
Trump just wants to be able to say he supported "Team Truck" to his base come election time, as another battle in the culture wars.
Is doesn't have to be this way, however - and the auto manufacturers are clearly aware of it.
It is possible to dramatically scale back CO2 emissions and move towards a significantly less carbon-intensive economy. This is happening in California, along with a move to much cleaner air courtesy of regulations for fuel that have transformed the air quality of large cities in the state. California is ahead of its already ambitious 2020 goals, and it is amazing to contemplate that the goals for 2030 could almost entirely be met by converting the existing vehicles on the road to electric power from renewables.
If the existing subsidies to the oil, gas and coal industries were applied instead to renewable energy, battery and electric vehicle production....
Well, just imagine.
13
So Trump is planning on making US cars unsellable to much of the world. Great idea! Japan will thank him.
91
WOW. Fuel efficient vechiles make environmental and economic sense. Great for consumers, helps the car industry develop technology, and reduces impact of human economic activity on the environment. The right side of politics has truly become imitation of Monty Python.
They also seem to forget these resources will eventually deplete, possibly in their own life time.
5
@Ben Williams
The GOP Hawks know that. Why do you think they started the Iraq war? So that Iraq could reward the U.S. for "liberating" them by turning their country into a gigantic gas station for Americans.
Is it possible that Trump and his family have financial interests in oil companies and foreign oil-producing countries such that improved automobile fuel economy would reduce their income? Just asking...
41
@Connecticut Yankee Trumbull I have an IRA and 401k just like many people. Don't you think these funds have interest in the energy sector. Just asking...
2
Private companies represent their own interests and should not be negotiating in secret with the state as if they are elected representatives. There is a name for collusion be tween government and companies. It’s called fascism. It doesn’t make any difference how noble the goal is.
1
@Edwar Thus the DOJ is now investigating car companies for anti-trump violations. Car companies are not making laws just investing in the future it is going to cost billions, as for "their own interests" the government is protecting the oil / donor class.
9
@Edwar
No it isn't fascism. Great word but the wrong one. Indeed what you identify with this loaded term is exactly how America does business with corporations, whether at the federal, state, county or municipal level.
3
What secret negotiations? There’s nothing secret about them and they’re not negotiations. The state updates its standards annually and automakers sign on.
What's stopping the automobile industry from producing the most efficient products that it can simply because it's the right thing to do?
14
Because it may put them at a competitive disadvantage. If all auto makers have the same standards they compete fairly and we all have cleaner air and lower fuel costs
10
@Mark Marks
Competitive disadvantage?
Have you any idea what the rest of the car world is working on? ALL of them are going for lower emissions. Only the Americans want worse gas milage and more pollution.
19
@gratis
It's not "only the Americans." Most of us want better efficiency, which means fewer emissions. This attempted rollback of standards is entirely on Trump.
I guess I don't understand. If auto makers can meet or exceed standards, which they were going to do anyway, how does anything Trump does have any effect.
Auto makers would have to hold or roll back their standards to what the DoT says? I don't think so...
6
Mexico Mike, a legitimate question. Not all of the auto manufactuers have signed on. Rolling back this very well negotiated deal will reward the very bad actors like Fiat Chrysler who are essentially doing nothing. The auto industry has a long history of falsely claiming that any regulations including seat belts, air bags, and improved fuel standards would destroy the industry. It is extraordinarily encouraging that at least part of the industry has come to its senses, and we should be supporting the good guys. I suspect that you are reasonably safe there in lovely Guanajuato, but global climate change is going to affect us all.
11
What's interesting here is the private sector is arguably ahead of the public sector on climate change. That's very significant.
8
Trump wants to rollback the Obama standards, not because it will benefit the car companies, but simply because they are "Obama" standards. It's clear he wants to undo everything Obama accomplished - even if he doesn't understand what he's doing and how it will affect the planet. If Obama mandated cleaner more fuel-efficient vehicles, then Trump will require carmakers to develop coal-burning vehicles. Believe me, they're coming.
91
note to car manufactures: trump will be voted out in 13 1/2 months. stand in place. we want energy and fuel efficient cars.
179
If indeed the automakers truly welcome these standards what is preventing them from continuing to work towards them? As long as they meet the required safety standards they should be well within their rights to produce cars as efficient as the public wants. I also see no need to produce separate lines of cars for different parts of the country. Make the most fuel efficient cars possible and that's it. Pollution doesn't respect state lines afterall.
23
@Scott Stroud It would cost companies more (in research, testing, etc.) to create cars that are more fuel efficient. They would be at a competitive disadvantage unless other manufacturers are also required to produce more fuel efficient autos. So automakers could be in favor of fuel-efficiency standards, but only if the same standards were required of all manufacturers.
8
@cholo
They might save by developing inferior cars, but they will not sell as many as they think. Just like the 1990's when Americans made the worse cars in the world.
1
@Scott Stroud
Pollution sometimes respects state lines. The Los Angeles basin sits on a coastal plain next to a cold ocean, with the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, the San Bernadinos to the northeast and the San Jacinto Mountains to the south. The southern San Joaquin Valley is also surrounded by mountains on 3 sides, and both areas suffer from concentrated pollution in the summer.
2
If the rollback is completed, the rest of the world will not buy our 2025 autos. Could that be a problem?
67
If you understand enough about science to listen to your Doctor's advice then you need to listen to scientists about extreme climate change and its dangers. Your personal health from cleaner air is a plus on this also.
26
Let's be clear. It is California AND 13 other states that support the "California" standards.
That is States supporting 35% of the population with rumor of other states joining that group. Moreover, "The White House has repeatedly pressured auto company chief executives to support his plan, yet not one has publicly endorsed it ... "
This is EMPEROR Trump launching his edict and angry that it hasn't been welcomed with trumpets and fanfare.
This is Trump and Trump alone who is proposing reductions in fuel standards (for his petroleum industry cronies?) who is behind this insanity. Trump and his sycophants might try, just once, to see what the people think before launching a major imperative that he and only he supports, recognizing, of course, that his "advisers" are simply mirrors to reflect Trump's ideas back on him, heaped with praise in the process.
Or perhaps, maybe they could wait until he and his base are successful at cancelling the Constitution.
74
@DGP Did not vote for Trumputin in 2016. Did my homework - his past venality readily apparent and it continues to this day. This rollback of fuel efficiency standards confirms my 2016 judgement. For 2020 -- will use my wallet and my ballot to send this confirmed idiot down the road. Dump Trump, Ditch Mitch, bar Barr, send our T- Party crew for a swim in Boston Harbor. Register, contribute, no apathy, vote. Make America Great Again.
1
The Auto companies do not want to lose customers. The environment is a big issue with them and they have to appear green. The direct engines they're using to meet these standards are expensive build and repair and are not reliable. Are they going to be able to meet the new standards?
Protestors in Germany demanded BMW sell smaller cars that would be more eco friendly. BMW sells performance luxury vehicles. Small does not equal luxury. How long would BMW last if justice democrats ran it?
Ford is not building sedans anymore except the Mustang, a muscle car. They are concentrating on SUV's where even the smaller ones are bigger, heavier and less efficient than what they are replacing.
GM is discontinuing the all electric BOLT. It has also announced a new mid engine Corvette Stingray a performance car.
The Smart a micro car is no longer for available for sale in the USA.
I haven't visited for a while but do the people of New York and California drive many Micro cars. Note driving a high performance electric car should not give anyone social credits. That should be reserved for more practical vehicles.
What you say to a national 55 mph speed limit?
1
@JoeG
GM hasn’t discontinued the Chevrolet Bolt. That line will be expanded. Chevrolet discontinued the Volt, a plug-in hybrid.
16
@JoeG - you should do your homework before posting.
Ford's planning to sell an all-electric F-150 by 2021. Most popular vehicle in the country, with an electric version? That will improve Ford's fleet mpg.
Along with your error that Tim pointed out about the Bolt, you seem uninformed about BMW, too.
Here's the BMW i3 - a hatchback family car, all-electric, and available in the USA for five years already.
https://www.bmwusa.com/vehicles/bmwi/i3/sedan/overview.html
2017 used models for sale in the $20k or less range.
Regarding the "discontinued" BOLT, here's Car&Driver's review of next year's model.
https://www.caranddriver.com/chevrolet/bolt-ev
You could call Chevy and remind them they cancelled it. Call BMW, too, because someone's building a smallish electric with their name on it.
@Tim
My mistake and good news.
1
As we plunge further down the rabbit hole, the republican enablers remain quiet.
My question is...how do so many people pretend that any of this is normal? The gaslighting continues and we act as if it isn't happening.
Are we going to wait until they cause some catastrophe that can't be undone, and I'm not talking about the slow motion catastrophe of climate change, I'm talking about something immediate like WWlll.
124
Not to mention the car buying public that really does not wants to spend more on gas. Besides the tariff inflated prices and the northeast's higher taxes are already unwelcome burdens.
36
@Patrick
Same in Italy. However, gasoline motor fuel itself costs about the same worldwide. Distribution and taxation and profit result in differences in retail price.
In the US, if Cal and other states mandate higher overall efficiency, slackening demand should reduce gas prices in other states (red states) so drivers there can fuel gas guzzlers.
Shouldn't that please Mr. T?
1
You do realize the US is and has always been paying for heavily subsidized gas? Travel anywhere in the world and see what a gallon of gas costs. Here in Japan it costs equivalent of $9/gallon. If anything, the US should be paying the true cost of gas, maybe that would motivate people to stop driving rediculous and unnecessary vehicles.
40
"This mess is the opposite of what the auto companies want. They supported the Obama standards and joined the administration in federal court to defend them because they delivered certainty and predictability. . ."
I suspect that some of those same DOJ attorneys who "joined the [Obama] administration in federal court", have difficulty sleeping at night. Do they follow their conscience, at the risk to their livelihood?
5
@Phil Hurwitz Conceivable that this issue will give us ultimately a clear understanding of what Mitch Machiavelli McConnell has accomplished with his stacking of the Supreme Court. Landmark case coming up.
10
@Phil Hurwitz
Why? Because they didn't want cleaner air or because ???? Which DOJ attorneys? The auto company attorneys?
Don't understand your point.
The controversy over the NWS's ability to make forecasts based on science and to communicate accurate forecasts to the public, demonstrated that the government is willing to cause harm to assuage the colossal presidential ego.
The fight with the automakers goes a step further. Trump dictates who are winners and losers in business; he's promoting oil and siccing the Justice Department on auto makers. And all because automakers have decided that their market is best served increasing fuel economy and reducing pollution.
Siccing government investigators on businesses who do not fall in lock step with the Byzantine machinations of our chief executive is a very dangerous step.
It goes beyond regulation by fit of pique, and becomes more. Government threatens enterprises that don't tow the line with prosecution. That is the thought process of a tyrant, a dictator, not a chief executive.
157
@Cathy this is Feds interfering with what private business can do
1
The idea of an anti-trust suit to prevent greater fuel efficiency and emission abatement could only be concocted by somone(s) with money to lose. I can only imagine the questions from the court and the Trumpian responses:
" Your honor it is our obligation to compel consumers to purchase gas-guzzling-fuel-inefficient-polluting vehicles."
139
@Candlewick
Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh will agree. Roberts will say it's not the court's job to combat stupidity on the part of the executive branch.
1