backtop

Print 107 comment(s) - last by Drewjk.. on Jul 18 at 12:28 PM

A new bill could block states' right to regulate "gas guzzlers" and demand stricter fuel economy standards.  (Source: South Park Studios/Comedy Central)

The bill also has amendments that harm conservation efforts, including blocking funding to the classification of endangered species.  (Source: Google Images)

Another amendment interferes with the EPA's ability to regulate mercury emissions from power plants. Mercury is well established in peer-reviewed literature to cause brain damage and fertility issues, particularly in cases of childhood exposure.  (Source: Reuters)
Amendment to spending bill has an uncertain fate, debatable legality

The Republican-led House Appropriations Committee, amid much partisan debate, on Tuesday passed [press release] a spending bill [PDF] for the U.S. Department of the Interior and Environmental Protection Agency.  The bill included a 7 percent cut to Interior Department funding, dropping it to $9.9B USD, and a 18 percent cut to EPA funding, dropping it to $7.1B USD.

The cuts were not popular with Democrats.  Even as the bill seems set to be approved by the Republican-controlled House, it looks equally likely to be shot down by the Democratic-controlled Senate.

I. Spending Bill Bans States From Deciding Fuel Economy?

While the spending cuts were somewhat controversial (Democrats would ostensibly likely to see funding cut elsewhere, such as defense and eliminating high-income tax cuts), the bill's amendments make it even more so.  While officially a spending bill, Republicans seized the opportunity to unload what House Rep. Jim Moran (D., Virg.) deemed a "virtual dump truck" of special interest issues.

The highest profile one would be a provision banning California and the EPA from proposing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.

Banning the EPA from the process, would be a shift as typically both the EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) craft two separate proposals, which are merged into a single CAFE proposal that gets voted on by the U.S. Congress.  

Notably the bill does not block the NHTSA from proposing CAFE regulations for the 2017-2025 window.  It merely blocks the EPA from making its own, separate proposal, which the bill calls "duplicative and unnecessary fuel economy regulations".

II. Is It Legal?

The issue of banning California from setting its own stricter standards is more contentious than the EPA prohibition.  Particularly from a state rights perspective, it represents federal Republicans continuing to take selective stands on the topic of whether states should have the right to broad self-governance.  Many Republicans have run on campaign platforms of expanding state rights, yet in this case, they're looking to prevent multiple states from self-governance (the ban would apply to other states as well).

The claim that the proposal would be "duplicative" also seems questionable.  If California adopts its own fuel efficiency standard, it will almost certainly be stricter than the federal standard.

Lastly, the amendment to the bill stands in direct contradiction to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. the Environmental Protection Agency, in which Justice John Stevens delivered the majority ruling, writing, "This is a suit by a State for an injury to it in its capacity of quasi-sovereign. In that capacity the State has an interest independent of and behind the titles of its citizens, in all the earth and air within its domain. It has the last word as to whether its mountains shall be stripped of their forests and its inhabitants shall breathe pure air."

Without a direct repeal of the Clean Air Act, or a new Supreme court ruling, it appears that Congress does not have the legal authority to block states from setting their own fuel economy standards.  Of course it could try to do so, until such efforts were brought to federal court, but given the Obama administrations' support of state standards, that seems unlikely.

Automakers are supportive of the amendment, and wish that it did have the power to pass.  Ford Motor Company's (F) chief executive, Alan Mulally, recently voiced frustration at separate standards, calling for a single national standard.  However, automakers are also lobbying for lower CAFE targets in the new round of regulations, which makes states like California less willing to embrace their single-standard argument.

When examining a higher target, states have been more cooperative.  Indeed, California agreed to adopt President Barack Obama's stricter CAFE standard for 2009-2016, which was passed into law by Congress.  In doing so, they voluntarily forfeited the right to set a higher standard during this period.

III. Fuel Economy -- The Big Picture

Ultimately the spending bill amendment serves a prelude to the fight that may occur between Democrats and Republicans sometime later this year, when the new CAFE standards are officially proposed for Congressional review.

President Obama wants as much as a 5 percent increase per year, but automakers are hoping for something closer to 2-3 percent.  While the higher target would save consumers on fuel prices, automakers fear it would kill sales, thanks to higher costs on new vehicles.

If House Democrats, the President, and automakers can reach a compromise on a fuel economy bill, as they did in 2009, it may be hard for the Republicans in Congress to block.  After all, automakers need time to prepare for the regulations, and blocking them could interfere with their business.  Of course, that's a big "if" given the current state of negotiations.

And even if a deal is reached, that's not to say there won't be a fight over the issue and a fair deal of political posturing -- particularly given that it's the year before a Presidential election.

IV. Examining the Other Provisions

The bill has plenty of other controversial provisions as well.

Namely it has multiple amendments that interfere with conservation efforts.  For example, one amendment by Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R., Wyom.) prohibits the Interior Secretary from designating government properties as "wild lands", which affords them certain protections.  It also blocks funding for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to list new species under the Endangered Species Act.

And there's also amendments designed to weaken the ability to regulate pollution from industrial facilities and power plants.  

One amendment from Rep. Lummis postpones the adoption of new EPA standards on the level of mercury from power plants.  Mercury is widely acknowledged in numerous peer reviewed studies as causing brain damage, fertility issues, and other problems, if ingested from the water supply in sufficient quantity.

It also looks to block ash from coal fired plants as being classified as hazardous waste.  Peer reviewed research has indicated that ash and other fine particulate air pollution fro coal burning plants contributes to asthma and other respiratory track disorders.

Lastly, it institutes a one year delay of the EPA's plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions of power plants and other industrial facilities.  While many in the public may appreciate this measure it is essentially "duplicative" as House Republicans already have passed a bill in an attempt to block this.

The bill does have a handful of amendments which some less radical environmentalists could find more palatable.  For example one amendment looks to allow mining of uranium on the outskirts of the Grand Canyon, preventing the Interior Department from banning mining on 1 million acres of property.  Allowing mining could be a boon to America's nuclear industry, which has struggled under public pressure post-Fukushima tsunami and nuclear accident.

Overall the bill's amendments appear crafted damage state rights in some cases, damage conservation efforts, and prevent federal regulation of substances that peer-reviewed literature has proven harmful to human health, amid a handful of more moderate provisions.

In that respect the bill seems unlikely to survive the Senate.  It would be interesting to see if Republicans in the House would approve a Senate bill with similar budget cuts, but without the long list of amendments.  It's unclear, though, if the Senate democrats would be willing to test those waters.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Never Happen
By tng on 7/13/2011 2:53:40 PM , Rating: 5
This is what you get when to many of the people we elect to congress (both the House and Senate) have never read or maybe heard of the Constitution..... Basically they are saying that they can restrict States Rights in any way they please.

As much as I would like to see CARB (California Air Resources Board) go the way of the dinosaur, it is not going to happen like this. According to CARB if an automaker was to sell their cars in CA, at least 10% of their line had to be EV by the year 2000. Had to recall that directive since it was clear to everyone except CARB that it was not going to happen.




RE: Never Happen
By frobizzle on 7/13/2011 3:33:48 PM , Rating: 1
What is the point of this article?

Mick even states up front...
quote:
Even as the bill seems set to be approved by the Republican-controlled House, it looks equally likely to be shot down by the Democratic-controlled Senate.

In that, he is correct. So essentially this the classic "tempest in a teapot" and for now, likely to be a moot point.


RE: Never Happen
By mcnabney on 7/14/2011 9:46:58 AM , Rating: 2
Lesson 1 in lawmaking.

House passes bill that restricts.
Senate passes bill that does not.

The two bills are 'worked out' in a joint committee. That combined bill that goes on to the president will have aspects from both the House and Senate bills. A compromise in that committee will have either the House or Senate version for this restriction in it - so even if the Senate doesn't support it, this language may be in the final legistlative action that gets signed into law.


RE: Never Happen
By tng on 7/14/2011 10:09:37 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The two bills are 'worked out' in a joint committee.
I personally like it when the whole thing just stalls and gets thrown out. I feel it is much better for the average American if the people in Washington spend their time pushing bills that never go anywhere, rather than justify their time passing crap because the feel like it....

My opinion only, but I think that if the President is a Dem, all of congress should be controlled by the Republicans and the other way around as well. That way only really important things have a chance of making it through.


RE: Never Happen
By Kiffberet on 7/15/2011 8:31:28 AM , Rating: 2
The important things are the things the two parties disagree about the most...

Raise taxes to pay for things. No lower taxes and the increased 'growth' pays for it.

So no taxes get raised, no growth happens and nothing gets done.

Meanwhile China sells billions of dollars of cheap plastic cr@p to America and more jobs are lost, because Americans can't afford to buy American any more. And the cycle goes on...
WAKE UP AMERICA!!


RE: Never Happen
By Solandri on 7/13/2011 3:45:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
According to CARB if an automaker was to sell their cars in CA, at least 10% of their line had to be EV by the year 2000. Had to recall that directive since it was clear to everyone except CARB that it was not going to happen.

Incidentally, for those who didn't know about this footnote in history, this was why GM destroyed the EV1, not the many anti-corporate conspiracy theories you see about automakers killing the electric car. Basically GM was the only company which built a car that qualified for CARB's ZEV (zero emissions vehicle) requirement - the EV1. I think Honda had a hydrogen fuel cell car, but it was nowhere near production-ready like the EV1.

GM was sitting pretty while the other car companies were sweating bullets. But a year before the ZEV requirement was supposed to kick in, the other car companies managed to talk CARB into dropping it in favor of hybrids. That effectively turned GM's entire EV1 R&D investment into a writeoff. GM destroyed the EV1s as a "screw you" to California - no point letting the state reap the rewards of GM's R&D if they weren't going to let GM reap the profits from it.

This is a good lesson to any businesses basing their existence upon government requirements. Governments are fickle, and can change their minds. This can cause you big problems if your business model is based on them not changing their minds.


RE: Never Happen
By tng on 7/13/2011 6:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
at least 10% of their line had to be EV by the year 2000.
I misspoke here, CARB was not requiring just 10% of the line to be EV they were trying to require that 10% of sales be EV in CA. They figured that if they "Decreed" that it be done, it would happen.


RE: Never Happen
By Yames on 7/13/2011 4:57:47 PM , Rating: 3
Silly Feds, Rights are for States!


RE: Never Happen
By Targon on 7/13/2011 7:36:26 PM , Rating: 2
While I am all for states rights, it would also be foolish to have every state have its own set of requirements for the auto industry. Just picture, in California, you need ALL cars to have a 50mpg city for the fuel economy, while in all other states, the requirements are not nearly as high. So, every auto maker suddenly has to make a special set of cars, or limit what cars are sold in California just to meet the requirements. Oh, New York now has a new requirement for 30 percent Ethanol, so auto makers need to make a special version of all vehicles sold in NY that can handle that crap gas, along with the lower fuel economy that comes with it, and then have to fight because the fuel economy standards for MPG can't be met in New York. Other states could have their own requirements which the auto makers suddenly need to make special versions of their cars for.

As it stands now, the auto makers need to make a special set of PZEV vehicles that are slightly different than the normal model, and that already causes its own set of problems.

Where does it end, unless the government steps in and says what the minimum common denominator should be for the type of fuel used? States should have the right for a certain degree of pollution controls, but seriously, if California is going to do this, then auto makers may need to decide not to sell ANY cars in a given state since it is too much of a nuisance to the production process to bother with. Do we REALLY want to see auto makers decide not to sell ANY cars in a given state due to stupid over-regulation? Do you really think the majority of people in ANY state would have voted for Ethanol to be REQUIRED in our gas?

I am in NY State, and already feel like I want to declare war on the state over the requirement of Ethanol, which reduces fuel economy and doesn't help the environment in any way. When politicians set laws that NO ONE wants, that is when people start to feel like government itself needs to go away.


RE: Never Happen
By Reclaimer77 on 7/13/2011 8:18:30 PM , Rating: 2
Another good post being rated into oblivion by some liberal environmentalist wacko.

If this was about regulating toasters or microwaves, nobody would be waving the "states rights" banner. Because these people don't care about that.

Cars have become so politicized it's just sickening.


RE: Never Happen
By FauxNews on 7/13/2011 11:16:00 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
if California is going to do this, then auto makers may need to decide not to sell ANY cars in a given state since it is too much of a nuisance to the production process to bother with. Do we REALLY want to see auto makers decide not to sell ANY cars in a given state due to stupid over-regulation?


This would be a good point if it didn't defy economics.

If 95% of the people want a cleaner vehicle, then guess what, the market is going to cater to them.
A LOT of people live in CA. Hence, the car mfg's are going to cater to them, even if it costs them extra to do so.

The CEO that says "We're going to cede a massive market to our competitors because we're too dumb to figure out how to make a profit or we're not making enough profit" is a CEO who isn't going to last very long.


RE: Never Happen
By Spuke on 7/13/2011 11:52:38 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
This would be a good point if it didn't defy economics.
You would have a good point also if it didn't defy reality. No one in CA voted or wants car manufacturers to:

1. Not sell cars here because of over-regulation.
2. Have ridiculous regulations on cars in the first place.
3. Have the over-regulations drastically increase the price of cars.
4. Any other such government retardedness.

In case you don't reside here, the CA government operates in direct defiance of the people of CA.


RE: Never Happen
By Zoomer on 7/14/2011 11:01:08 AM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't such regs only apply to sales in CA? Neighboring states would reap a windfall as everyone rushes out of state to buy cars.


RE: Never Happen
By tng on 7/14/2011 11:22:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Neighboring states would reap a windfall as everyone rushes out of state to buy cars.
No.... it doesn't work that way here.

Bringing in a car from out of state that is not an "approved" CA car means that you may have to spend the money to get it CARB approved before you can register it in the state....

Of course I know of many people that have a cabin on the NV side of Lake Tahoe and use that as an address to register their cars in NV. I also know a few people who have just a PO box somewhere in NV for the same reason. Registration is expensive in CA.


RE: Never Happen
By tng on 7/14/2011 11:42:28 AM , Rating: 2
I also forgot to add that if you bring in a NEW car purchased out of state to CA, it used to be that the Cal Franchise Tax Board would try to make you pay CA sales tax, even if you paid sales tax in the state where you originally bought the vehicle.

I don't know if they try to do this anymore. Seems some time ago there was a protracted legal battle in the courts where the CA Tax Board lost.


RE: Never Happen
By tng on 7/14/2011 11:27:16 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
In case you don't reside here, the CA government operates in direct defiance of the people of CA.
I don't think so, after all we elected a governor in the last cycle that was called clueless by Bill Clinton, and who's greatest accomplishment the last time he held the governors office was dating a rock star.

I think that the people of CA get exactly what they vote for.....


RE: Never Happen
By Ghost42 on 7/13/2011 5:13:57 PM , Rating: 4
CARB in it's current form in horrendous, and it's why the next car I buy for myself is going to be a pre-1975 vehicle.

With CARB your car can produce less c02 then a tree and be deemed illegal if the parts you installed don't have one of the EO#'s issued by CARB.

It's a waste in every sense of the word, no matter which way you look at it.


RE: Never Happen
By Manch on 7/13/2011 5:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
That's another issue with fricken CARB. A lot of aftermarket parts ie turbos, superchargers etc aren't CARB legal. Not because they wouldnt pass the certification, but because the certification is so damn expensive. My model car (S197 mustangs) has been around since late 04, and up until a few months ago, very few turbo kits were CARB legal.And even then they're a bit nuetered


RE: Never Happen
By Ghost42 on 7/14/2011 1:46:25 AM , Rating: 2
Try and find a CARB legal CNG conversion kit for a 1990 GMC Truck with a TBI 350.. I found one on their approved list and that company has stopped offering it for sale, and don't seem to offer anything for sale on a consumer level anymore.


RE: Never Happen
By robertisaar on 7/13/2011 6:07:20 PM , Rating: 1
i get what you're saying but:

quote:
With CARB your car can produce less c02 then a tree


trees absorb CO2, not generate it.


RE: Never Happen
By Camikazi on 7/13/2011 6:29:41 PM , Rating: 2
Think that was the point of the post... emission doesn't matter, only the expensive certification number on the part does.


RE: Never Happen
By Ghost42 on 7/14/2011 1:50:48 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Aftermarket parts only get CARB approved if the company that makes them feels that it's worth the $10k+ to have anything tested.


RE: Never Happen
By mcnabney on 7/14/2011 10:14:20 AM , Rating: 2
Most governments do want to test something before approving it.

Or should the law state that parts are approved if the company 'promises' they meet the standards? Following your logic the MPG a car manufacture can advertise can be whatever the company says it is. That is why cars are tested to show their REAL MPG, not a companies bogus claims.


RE: Never Happen
By Ghost42 on 7/14/2011 12:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
Totally different ballgame here. This a kin to how for example the Compaq tablet my step daughter has will not recognize a USB CD/DVD Rom drive unless it's on the approved compatibility list, yet every other laptop/tablet/desktop has no problems with it.


RE: Never Happen
By Manch on 7/13/2011 8:57:12 PM , Rating: 2
I get what you're saying but:

Trees do generate co2 but its usually far less than the Oxygen they produce overall.

It happens when the respire at night and for some trees they produce more during the fall when all the leaves start dropping off(evergreens its a more balanced process however). the quality of the soil and the availability of water can also imbalance this process and lead to a net gain of co2 over oxygen although this is usually seasonal and short lived.


RE: Never Happen
By FITCamaro on 7/13/2011 6:05:41 PM , Rating: 1
The problem is stricter standards in one state pretty much means that those standards have to be followed by all. Because automanufacturers can't afford to develop two different cars essentially to meet the standards of two different areas of the country.

Now I'm all for states rights. But if you're going to mandate fuel economy (which I don't think the federal government should do to begin with), then there should be one standard. Then the states can handle it and companies can respond by not selling vehicles in that state. This will make the people more accountable by realizing the consequences of their decision when voting.


RE: Never Happen
By fic2 on 7/13/2011 7:28:46 PM , Rating: 3
Not exactly true. If Wyoming decided they were going to mandate stricter standards they would find that nobody would sell cars in Wyoming.

California, Texas, New York and Florida could certainly do this. Probably the top ten states by population could. Maybe even the top half.


RE: Never Happen
By Manch on 7/13/2011 9:30:37 PM , Rating: 1
What you're saying is about right but, If you look at the bill it's aimed at CARB. California is a significant chunk of the auto industries business in the US. What they set as a standard usually applies for all 50 states.

The sticker that came with my SC says CARB certified 50 state legal. The only certification it had to pass was California's. No other state made them jump thru hoops and pay a sh!t load of money to be certified. CARB is just a way for California to scrape money from the auto and aftermarket industries. CARB mandates affect all states not just California's bc you're right they will not build two differetn models to satisfy one state.

If you look at it form that point of view, they have overstepped their rights by imposing it on the other 49. I understand the want to limit control over this bc it affect everyone not just one state, but they need to go about it differently.

they will not reach their goal by targeting CARB. CAFE standards needs to be put forth and ratified by each state thru their respective congresses and signed by their governors. not voted on in US congress.

by doing this they will push the issue to each state, and they will all have to answer individually in response to it. Also the EPA shouldnt draft it's own proposal. They have proven to be nothing more than a tax payer funded left wing activist entity. The NTHB should have control of the process and take inputs from all states, the EPA, auto manufacturers and consumer groups.

By doing it this way, they can avoid the dangerous premiss of stripping the states of their power, and force a unified national standard


RE: Never Happen
By FauxNews on 7/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Never Happen
By Reclaimer77 on 7/13/2011 11:47:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What you seem to take issue with is that these companies are DECIDING to standardize on the toughest standards and sell that model everywhere. No one is forcing them or imposing anything on them - but they choose to do so because it's CHEAPER for them.


No, it's absolutely ESSENTIAL for them to do so. Do you have even the slightest clue how businesses work?

quote:
France has different regulations than the US, is it unfair for France to have more strict regulations than the US? No? Then why is it different for CA vs. NY?


Okay please tell me you smoked a lot of something when you sat down and wrote this. I think the simplest answer to your question, if it could be called that, is that regulations in France do NOT have an impact on the lives of U.S citizens daily. Seriously, are you high?

And please, don't pretend that you or anyone else would be fine if automakers cut off California. You would be the first to line up and demonize the "evil money grubbing corporations". You people should just be honest. You support California in this because you think there's some environmental benefit. You could care less about how it impacts the auto industry and everyday citizens of other states.


RE: Never Happen
By FauxNews on 7/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Never Happen
By Manch on 7/14/2011 9:10:41 AM , Rating: 2
economies of scale. Seriously look it up. If they did what you suggest you would be pissed when you have to pay up the arse for a car when the previous year was much much cheaper.


RE: Never Happen
By theapparition on 7/14/2011 2:46:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's pretty obvious companies have to spend extra money they otherwise wouldn't have to if France had the same regulations as the US did.

And those companies pass that cost on to us, the consumer.

Do you seriously advocate letting each state set it's own requirements? Besides logistics, it would be a nightmare to regulate. Not too many people moving from France to North Carolina, are there? But how many people move from Virginia to NC (just an example). What happens when the dealership in the adjacent state has the best price, but oops, not allowed to take it into your state.

There are already regional emmission models that drive cost. Unless you want to pay thousands more then there is no reason to not have a unified standard.


RE: Never Happen
By Manch on 7/14/2011 9:06:25 AM , Rating: 2
You're missing the point. If the auto industry pulls out of California, your 30K car will cost 40K, If they make a California version for each vehicle the car will cost you 45K. As it stands now CA mandates increase the price for everyone. It's called economies of scale.

France itself as a country doesnt have multiple standards, so why should the US?

France's regulations are tied to everyone elses in the EU. By Defining one standard for all member states the auto makers can mass produce 1 version of said vehicle which reduces the price for everyone.

If you read my post, I do not think they should try to strip CA of their rights, nor should it be a federal regulation. I'm saying 1 standard needs to be apporved by all states. They should do the same thing for gas. It would make it cheaper too.


RE: Never Happen
By Reclaimer77 on 7/13/2011 7:38:16 PM , Rating: 2
Every once in a while an issue comes up that challenges a Conservatives beliefs. One where it seems like to make the right decision, you have to abandon a core belief or become a hypocrite. This is one such issue.

I have thought long and hard about this, and have done much research, and I have come to the conclusion that this is not a states rights issue. That states do not, in fact, have the right to arbitrarily set a de-facto standard for the entire nation. Which is what California has been doing for decades, especially when it comes to fuel economy.

States also do not have the right to pass unfunded mandates onto auto-makers, which again, is what this is. If California tomorrow decided that all cars operated in California must attain 200 miles per gallon, who is absorbing the cost of delivering such technology to the consumers? Does California have the right to pass such mandates? Every time California sets a fuel economy standard for the auto-makers, they are passing an unfunded mandate.

You bring up the Constitution, but can you quote me the clause or article that allows California to dictate manufacturing terms for the entire nation, and pass unfunded mandates onto consumers and manufacturers all across the nation? Because I certainly can't find it.

States Rights is a tool for a minimalist, non-centrist, Federal Government. Not the end goal. States do not have a right to use regulation as a blunt force instrument to arbitrarily decide standards for the entire country.

California's legislature more resembles gangsterism than a body of government ensuring the Freedoms and rights of it's populace. To be honest I'm glad this is now a Congressional issue, because I believe this needs to be clarified at the Federal level.

So there you go, bash me and call me a hypocrite or whatever. I just have to go with what is right on this.


RE: Never Happen
By Belegost on 7/13/2011 9:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree with your assertion that this imposes a de facto standard nationwide.

To take your example, should CA impose unreasonable restrictions on fuel economy (or any other metric, perhaps they require that all vehicles be able to withstand 90mph head-on collisions with zero injury to all occupants.) the auto manufacturers are completely within their rights as corporate entities to simply not do business in CA, or only restricted sales. (i.e. only sell sub-compact and hybrid vehicles that meet regulations.)

This would be an economic decision based on the expected cost of meeting the requirements, and the expected revenue loss from being unable to sell to the CA population. The fact that auto companies have generally chosen to abide by the CA requirements nationwide suggests that the economic benefits of sales in CA outweighs the penalties imposed by meeting the requirements.

Since the CA government is ostensibly a body controlled by democratic process, (Feel free to argue on that, inasmuch as the entirety of Western Democracy is far less than representative.) then I feel this is an example of a large population body using their combined effort to effect change in the world, and as such exemplifies the democratic principle.

Further I vehemently take issue with your assertion that the states do not have the right to pass unfunded mandates onto businesses that operate within their borders. (Let's be clear here, automakers are just another business and deserve no special treatment.)

I should think that requiring a mining company (with nation-wide distribution) to not foul a river with hazardous tailings is well within the rights of a state. However, by your logic if the federal goverment made no such mandate (perhaps because DC is very far from the river being polluted, or the state has a population small enough to not carry sufficient weight at the federal level) the state should be restricted from it.

There is an important reason that we have multiple levels of governing bodies that have power to enact laws and regulations within their spheres of influence - precisely so that the demands (or apathy) of distant or larger groups cannot force localities or states to suffer from undesirable effects.

At this point I foresee an argument that CA enacting such regulations has the effect of imposing undesirable effects on others. Which brings us back to our first disagreement, in that the automakers are free to not peddle their products in CA if the state restricts them onerously. If they see profit in doing business in CA under the restrictions then that is their choice . Complain to the companies that they are choosing to serve the desires of the CA population over that of you.


RE: Never Happen
By Manch on 7/13/2011 10:22:38 PM , Rating: 2
That's the problem tho. none of the auto makers can afford to stop selling cars to Cailfornia without significantly cutting their production and therefore raising the prices of cars. the penalities would be to go out of business. none of the major manufacturers could survive pulling out of CA. They would have to abandon the entire US market bc they would have to produce so little comparatively that they could not compete on price. CARB is not just pushing unfunded mandates to businesses within their borders, they are pushing it to other states, which is outside their authority.

personally, i think one agencies should control the CAFE process and get buy in from all concerned, crete the regualtion and send it to each state to be ratified by their congresses and signed off by their governors. This way you protect states rights, no state can say that another has infringe on it or pushed it's autority outside of its borders.


RE: Never Happen
By FauxNews on 7/13/2011 11:40:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
That's the problem tho. none of the auto makers can afford to stop selling cars to Cailfornia without significantly cutting their production and therefore raising the prices of cars. the penalities would be to go out of business. none of the major manufacturers could survive pulling out of CA. They would have to abandon the entire US market bc they would have to produce so little comparatively that they could not compete on price.


So, how is this any different than how Wal-mart operates?

Nobody can afford to stop selling at Wal-mart without going bankrupt. So I suppose you want the Government to intervene there too?

quote:
CARB is not just pushing unfunded mandates to businesses within their borders, they are pushing it to other states, which is outside their authority.

No, they're not forcing any business to do anything outside their borders.
Those businesses are doing that because they make more MONEY that way.
The government does not have to guarantee that something be PROFITABLE.

If gasoline in your state costs $4 and gasoline in my state costs $2, I'm not FORCED to do business in your state.
If it's not profitable then maybe I won't do business there.
If I buy a more fuel efficient lawn mower/delivery vehicle/etc because of the higher gas prices and do business in both states, that's MY choice.

The government is under no obligation to intervene and say "Hey, he HAS to make a profit, so you can't have more expensive gasoline!"
Sorry, the free market decides.


RE: Never Happen
By Reclaimer77 on 7/13/2011 11:55:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So, how is this any different than how Wal-mart operates? Nobody can afford to stop selling at Wal-mart without going bankrupt.


Sigh, another pot smoker. Wal-Mart doesn't carry EVERY SINGLE PRODUCT known to man. I'm pretty sure there are retail companies who DO choose to not sell their goods at Wal-Mart. Did you have a point?

quote:
Sorry, the free market decides.


If you really believed that, you wouldn't be in favor of ANY fuel economy standards. Because, hey, let the free market decide what vehicles get made. Not California or the EPA.

If everyone wanted maximum economy, you wouldn't need these standards, because consumers would simply not buy trucks, SUV's, or luxury/sports cars and those products would die off. But that's not happening, is it?

But hey, why let the free market decide something when you can put a gun to the manufacturers heads. Which is what you seem to be supporting while touting the "free market" from the other side of your mouth.


RE: Never Happen
By Reclaimer77 on 7/13/2011 11:32:01 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I disagree with your assertion that this imposes a de facto standard nationwide.


Well sorry, but that's what it is. Because every auto maker follows suit. Even ones not based in the U.S. They're forced to.

quote:
the auto manufacturers are completely within their rights as corporate entities to simply not do business in CA, or only restricted sales. (i.e. only sell sub-compact and hybrid vehicles that meet regulations.)


So "states rights" means depriving California citizens, through legislation, of goods and services enjoyed everywhere else? Or just bending an entire industry over the proverbial barrel until they see things their way Hmmm...ok. That's an interesting view on rights. I didn't know states had the right to bully corporations on an international scale.

quote:
The fact that auto companies have generally chosen to abide by the CA requirements nationwide suggests that the economic benefits of sales in CA outweighs the penalties imposed by meeting the requirements.


Well of course, but that's not the point. The automakers aren't going to eat the costs of meeting the requirements, they just get passed onto every citizen who purchases one. Nation wide! Thanks California.

quote:
I should think that requiring a mining company (with nation-wide distribution) to not foul a river with hazardous tailings is well within the rights of a state.


That's a terrible example. You're comparing polluting a water supply to increasing the costs of vehicle production without state funding? Really?

quote:
However, by your logic if the federal goverment made no such mandate (perhaps because DC is very far from the river being polluted, or the state has a population small enough to not carry sufficient weight at the federal level) the state should be restricted from it.


Again, what? No, that's not "my logic", not even close. Protecting a states citizens from direct harm from polution is damn well within their rights. You cannot compare this to some arbitrary MPG standard.

quote:
If they see profit in doing business in CA under the restrictions then that is their choice .


I think you need to be more of a realist here. If the automakers decided to cut off California, there would be the biggest legal crap-storm you've ever seen. People would be outraged and California would attempt to litigate (sue) the automakers into oblivion. The courts would be tied up for years, if it even came to that.

You make it seem like the automakers have an option here, no offense, but I find that laughable. They realistically don't.


RE: Never Happen
By FauxNews on 7/13/2011 11:50:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You make it seem like the automakers have an option here, no offense, but I find that laughable. They realistically don't.


Baloney.

Nobody forces GM to sell cars in Estonia, or France, or Canada, or CA, or anywhere.

If France bans diesel, are you going to whine that it's hurting you and France shouldn't be allowed to do that either?

If Canada imposes 50mpg limits, are you going to whine because car manufacturers might have to design different models for Canada then the US?

What if car Mfgs decide to use that same Canadian model in the US? Are you going to protest to the Canadians about how they're "forcing" their standards on you?

I think you are the one that needs to be the realist.


RE: Never Happen
By Reclaimer77 on 7/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Never Happen
By Fritzr on 7/14/2011 1:53:11 AM , Rating: 2
Unless you live in California, then France is just as relevant as California if you are talking about Ford or any of the other manufacturers that sell cars in US, California and France.

Due to the French and North American markets being big enough to independently support an auto industry, Ford is able to fund 2 (actually more as Ford UK and a couple of other Ford national manufacturers exist) R&D programs that share information. There are also completely separate model lines to comply with the most restrictive regulations within each market. French Fords & English Fords require modification when the enter the US due to differences in regulation. They are NOT required to be modified further to meet California standards until & unless they are imported to California. Even Canadian Fords may require modification when imported to US.

US automakers have for what they consider perfectly good economic reason decided that since a California Ford is legal in the rest of the United States, that they will manufacture only California Fords for the US market. This is likely due to California being too small a market to support an independent auto industry and too large a market to ignore.

You need to understand that the choice of not setting up a subsidiary California auto industry was a business decision and that US law does not require cars to be built to meet the most restrictive laws of any state or territory...only the one the car is registered in. It is simpler and cheaper to survey the restrictions of ALL the states, territories, DC & the Federal government and sell a single unified design that is legal in all jurisdictions.

Many years auto manufacturers did design and build cars separately to meet California standards for sale only in California...it is no longer done and no it was not government regulation that ended the separation of the California market from the rest of the country.

The point is that automakers define a market zone. Design a car that is legal in all parts of that zone and establish a subsidiary to design and sell vehicles for sale in that zone. They may be built outside that area, but they are legal inside the area. Japanese cars with US left hand drive for instance were built to US legal requirements in Japan and sold in US.


RE: Never Happen
By Belegost on 7/15/2011 1:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
So I am going to blanket reply to multiple posts here.

quote:
Another stupid France example, listen to me very closely, I do not live in France. Why would I "whine" that France is banning something?


Well for one thing, CA has economic power similar to that of western European countries, though with a somewhat smaller population. Go look at the CIA world book if you'd like. So, with a similar sized economy why could there not be differing product lines similar to the way the UK gets different product?

quote:
Because every auto maker follows suit. Even ones not based in the U.S. They're forced to.


Forced to what? Sell to CA? I highly doubt it, there are dozens of overseas manufacturers that don't sell to CA - or the US at all - and somehow they manage to keep their companies going. Forced to abide by state laws if they wish to do business in the state? Absolutely, that's the bloody point of laws.

quote:
That's an interesting view on rights. I didn't know states had the right to bully corporations on an international scale.


That's one of the primary purposes of government! To restrict the behaviour of corporations on behalf of the population they represent. What is the difference between a state or federal government doing it? To my mind both are equally valid governing bodies.

quote:
Well of course, but that's not the point. The automakers aren't going to eat the costs of meeting the requirements, they just get passed onto every citizen who purchases one. Nation wide! Thanks California.


Why not internationally!? Maybe the people in Brazil should be up in arms because the US is causing their cars to be more expensive! (Note that Brazil has a smaller economic base than CA.) I mean really, is it so hard to imagine a case in which for restricts F150 sales in CA to only have the 6 cylinder ecoboost engine, but maintains the other engines for the rest of the nation? This would effectively increase the fuel efficiency of the fleet in CA without affecting the rest of the nation. (Since Ford has already sunk the money into developing all the engine designs, the only loss to them would be the potential sales of low efficiency engines to CA residents.

quote:
You're comparing polluting a water supply to increasing the costs of vehicle production without state funding?

Very nice how you conflate the justification for regulation and the results of regulation.

You could see this two ways: 1: I am comparing the state raising the costs of ore production without state funding to increasing the costs of vehicle production without state funding. This compares the results of regulation.

2: I am comparing directly polluting a water supply to indirectly polluting an air supply. The compares the justifications for regulation.

For the record I was making an argument based on the first comparison. The results of regulation are the same regardless of the justification. The argument after that devolves into deciding when regulation is justified, a matter that should be left to the people to decide through elected representation.
quote:
Protecting a states citizens from direct harm from polution [sic] is damn well within their rights. You cannot compare this to some arbitrary MPG standard.

Why not? There is a very valid argument that less fuel efficient vehicles produce increased volumes of pollutants - chemistry requires that the products of reaction go somewhere, the more reactant in, the more product out for the same reaction. So why should the state be able to protect their citizens from one form of pollution and not another?

Let me tell you, as someone who lived in LA during the late 80s early 90s, and lives close to there now, the pollution levels have dropped substantially, greatly improving the quality of life for all that live, work, or visit. This is in large part due to strict regulations put on automobiles, and you are delusional if you think the automakers would have spent the money for research and development of cleaner more efficient vehicles without pushing. However, if you would like to live with less pollution regulation, feel free to move to China. Shanghai now has smog that made the worst day in LA back in '86 seem like crisp mountain air.

quote:
Earlier this year, a proposition voted on by millions of California citizens to define marriage was struck down by a federal judge. Was this a states rights issue? Did the Federal Government usurp California's right to self governance? Do those supporting California's "right" to set economy standards also support California's attempt to ban gay marriage? Me thinks not.


You know, I voted against Prop. 8, I think marriage as a legal institution should be open to any pair of responsible adults of sound mind who wish to enter into such a compact irregardless of religion, race, gender, etc. However, it seems that the majority of voters disagreed with me. Such is life.

However, I am outraged that the federal government saw fit to interfere in the rights of the state. When I took vows, the line was " ... the power invested in me by the State of California ..." NOT the bloody federal government, NOT the bloody supreme court. Even further than that I am absolutely incensed that legislation voted into being by the majority of the voting population was overthrown by an extremely small number of judges! I fail to see the purpose of representative government when the express desire of the people is subverted by the government that is meant to represent them.

quote:
You make it seem like the automakers have an option here, no offense, but I find that laughable. They realistically don't.


Really? As example, Ford makes a wide variety of vehicles, and most come with a variety of engine sizes, with differing fuel efficiencies. Taking the specific example of a Ranger truck, they offer two engines, one that averages 25MPG, and one that averages 18MPG. Was Ford to simply not sell the less efficient engine model in CA they would instantly improve their fleet average. If they further stopped sales of the E, and F series trucks/vans and the Expedition to CA, the fleet wide fuel economy would be instantly "boosted" by around 20%. And I fail to see what reasonable (of course the current US legal system is anything but) litigation they would open to. Those models don't meet CA requirements, and it would be illegal for Ford to sell them. If your assertion is that the development of those vehicles is entirely dependent on sales to CA... well, that is a LOT of economic power.

As far as I can tell, you have some problem with the situation that a large (but not majority) economic block has used its power to enforce regulations within it's sphere of influence, and the corporations have chosen to extend the effects of those regulations outside that sphere.

You have repeatedly, and in my opinion erroneously, suggested that independent corporate bodies are somehow being forced to 1: do business within CA state borders, 2: extend the results of CA regulation outside CA borders. You have offered no argument to detail why an economic group as large as CA does not warrant different product lines when other similarly sized economic groups do, and not even the slightest justification for the assertion that any corporation is forced to do business in CA, outside nebulous claims of possible litigation.

You argue about the justification of the regulation being insufficient to allow for regulation when it seems obvious to me that such a decision belongs to the voters in CA, who by consistently voting in officials that continue these regulations have encouraged them. And somehow you seem to think the very right to make regulations is tied to the justification.


RE: Never Happen
By gixser on 7/15/2011 4:29:55 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you! A well reasoned and well written response.


RE: Never Happen
By Spuke on 7/14/2011 12:04:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think you are the one that needs to be the realist.
I think Rec77 is right on this one. And he's being pretty reasonable about it to boot.


RE: Never Happen
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/2011 6:25:50 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you Spuke. I think I've said all that needs saying about this issue, except for a few more points.

Earlier this year, a proposition voted on by millions of California citizens to define marriage was struck down by a federal judge. Was this a states rights issue? Did the Federal Government usurp California's right to self governance? Do those supporting California's "right" to set economy standards also support California's attempt to ban gay marriage? Me thinks not.

See I'm just concerned because I think the arguments here are really based on politics and emotionalized leftist environmental activism, and not so much states rights.

"States rights" was also used by some states during the civil rights era to ignore federal anti-segregation rules and continue racists policies against African Americans. But Reclaimer, you say, that's crazy to compare the two. Yes, but clearly "states rights" doesn't mean a state can do whatever it wants to do.

Another poster was using France as an example on why my thoughts on California were wrong. Which reminded me, didn't we have a major war in this country because we didn't want North America divided into 20+ different countries, all with different rules, Constitutions, and militarizes etc etc? That thing called the Civil War? Imagine if EVERY state had the "right" to legislate as California is on this issue. If there were 50 lines of each car model, refrigerator, X-box etc etc. Would that be Ok with you, Fauxnews? You're basically advocating that the states can do whatever it wants, pass whatever it wants, with no regard to the country as a whole. It sounds to me like you want the states to BE their own countries.

So clearly we're on the proverbial "slippery slope" here when it comes to how much "rights" California has to set de-facto standards for the nation, pass unfunded mandates, and set fuel economy standards in excess of Federal standards. "States rights" simply can't be a rallying cry to arbitrarily do whatever a state wants to do.


RE: Never Happen
By tng on 7/14/2011 8:08:24 PM , Rating: 2
I understand your line, but it is a fine line that you are talking about. Unfortunately now days "rights" are often defined by long drawn out court battles where emotions are high and not by careful study of what the founding fathers intended in the Constitution.

I think that while you are correct, it is environmental activism, the Constitution allows for the CA state government to impose stricter standards than what is mandated at the federal level. Problem is that we here in CA continue to elect people who support the people who do this.


RE: Never Happen
By Black1969ta on 7/14/2011 12:47:36 AM , Rating: 2
You posters ignore one thing, this isn't about regulating cost, its about regulating a standard. Does CA regulate that a Sylvania 60W incandescent light bulb use the same energy as a GE 60W incandescent light bulb, the FTC does! That's the Federal Trade Commision.
We are 50 states not 49 plus CA, next thing you know CA will require a passport to cross the state lines!

State rights are to protect the citizen's of a state over and above the Federal Level. Everyone forgets that the automotive industry is an interstate industry. CARB has been reduced to a profiteering division of a irresponsible sibling that can't control its spending and tries to bandage the wound with another credit card.

The 50 states should agree on emissions and efficiency rating and be done with it.


RE: Never Happen
By Fritzr on 7/14/2011 2:04:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We are 50 states not 49 plus CA, next thing you know CA will require a passport to cross the state lines!

That's was done in the days of the dustbowl.

Today California maintains manned border crossings to enforce California import/export laws. These border crossing on the borders with other US states have nothing to do with Federal laws.


RE: Never Happen
By fic2 on 7/13/2011 7:39:31 PM , Rating: 3
Ahh, the hypocrisy of politicians. Pretty sure that one of the things the Republican party says it supports is states rights. Of course, they support it as any of the states don't support stricter environmental regulation, drug legalization, etc.

And the Democrats are just as bad.


RE: Never Happen
By Drewjk on 7/18/2011 12:28:47 PM , Rating: 2
This is stupid and dosent make any sense. Mr. Hwang and the rest of the environmentalists are crazy to think that automakers "owe it to the American people to increase fuel economy after how much the government loaned it to keep automakers afloat during the recession". Its the governments fault for causing the recession in the first place. Lets not forget that people. All the over spending for pointless things like the $1-billion Obama spent for a trip to watch the "festival of lights". Im glad I can pay for that with my taxes when he didnt even take me along. After the government tanked the economy people had less and less money to spend on goods and services one industry for example, automakers. All these requirements forces automakers to follow suit, in turn driving up the cost for manucacturing and hiking up the price anywhere from $2,000-$8,000 per car on average. Now in the current state of the economy consumers already have a tough time spending the money for a new car let alone more money. This drains the used car market as well because people are holding on to their cars longer due to lack of budget. This will drive costs up all across the board. From a service stand point to the manufacturing level, supply and demand. I dont know about you but the auto industry is how I make a living as well as many others. Making it harder and harder to put food on my families table. I dont inderstand how politicians can punish an entire industry for something the government started. MPG's will increase on its own due to a copmetative market and constant fight for top manufacturer. Force feeding is never the answer, try it on your 2yr old and see what the outcome is. By letting nature take its course, the problem will work its self out, and cost alot less for the American people in the long run. Oil? How about we tap into our own oil? We have more under the U.S. soil than the entire Middle East put together. Im sure that will solve the national debt, and our reliance on forgin oil.


Republicans = idiots and/or evil individualists
By BZDTemp on 7/13/2011 2:54:13 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry for the harsh headline but there is not kind way of saying it.

What I so do not get is why so many middle class people vote for the blue side when it is clear the Republicans only care for the rich.




By ClownPuncher on 7/13/2011 3:14:30 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, most Republicans are populists. At least when it comes to "moral concern". There is also nothing wrong with individualism, in fact, I would say collectivist/populist agendas tend to be more heavy handed and obtuse. Most politicians from both major parties are populists.

Personally, I have mixed feeling about the EPA. While I think there should be some regulations on how much industry can pollute, we should not be so rash as to completely stifle the private sector, which leads to job loss. Preventing companies from dumping toxic waste left and right is fine, but some of these mandates are unrealistic, unwanted, and I would go so far to say "unconstitutional".


By phantom505 on 7/13/2011 3:32:37 PM , Rating: 1
No they are not. If you think the ones that believe in religious tyranny and big controlling government are populist, you're really clueless.

The small government Republicans are sorta populist, and in the small small minority. Just ask the Republicans if they are populist and they'll tell you hell no. The represent far right Christian extremists, the rich, and corporations. How is that even remotely populist?


By ClownPuncher on 7/13/2011 4:28:19 PM , Rating: 3
Obviously because they use moral populism to try to restrict things like gay marriage, fight against intellectual elitism, try to represent the "average working class Joe", forward religious romanticism and nationalism. Pushing for traditional values to supersede individual values.

Perhaps I should have used collectivism over populism, though they are similar concepts. Coporatism and religion would fall under this category.


By Starcub on 7/14/2011 12:17:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obviously because they use moral populism to try to restrict things like gay marriage, fight against intellectual elitism, try to represent the "average working class Joe", forward religious romanticism and nationalism. Pushing for traditional values to supersede individual values.

If they cared about any of those issues beyond use as bargaining chips, we wouldn't have the SCOTUS that we now have.

This issue, as well as just about everything else the kings touch is all about money.

This volley may fail, but keep in mind that the federal govt already gifted the auto industry with large amounts of public money, and oil has deep pockets. However, if the public continues to be dumb enough to listen to republican rhetoric (and just so you know, I don't like the democrats either), the lobbying industries may decide to gamble on the next election cycle.


By gorehound on 7/13/2011 3:40:27 PM , Rating: 1
yes i agree with your heading.one thing is for sure the group of pricks has never and will never get a vote from me.
and to all those poor and middle class folks who vote for them i say you are just as bad as the jerks you vote in.
and now you can all pay for it and suffer like the rest of us.


RE: Republicans = idiots and/or evil individualists
By MartyLK on 7/13/2011 9:42:32 PM , Rating: 2
Well said. If a Repub has to suffer what they dish out, it just isn't fair! They should be allowed to stand in judgement over the populous and themselves be exempted from that same judgement. Just ask them, they'll tell you how righteous they are. They'll tell you they are the "right hand" of God. That means they have authority to do anything they want, even murder, stealing, lying, cheating and all manner of corruption because they are doing it in the name of God! And for a good purpose!

Just ask them if doing something evil like destroying the fiscal livelihood of a person in order to save his soul is wrong. They'll tell you no! They will, in God's name, murder, rape, rob, destroy any life in order to bring them to Christ! The ends justify the means! If a man's livelihood is destroyed so that his soul can be saved, that is well and good with the Repub! But ask them how they know how the end of that man will turn out. Suppose that man is so destroyed that he commits suicide...his soul goes to Hell. They will say it's his fault! They were acting on behalf of God for the man's good! They should never be held accountable for their actions, no matter how evil those actions are. Because they did all that evil with good intentions! And they did it while on God's side! That, alone, gives them license to do it.

Yeah, I agree...


RE: Republicans = idiots and/or evil individualists
By Manch on 7/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Republicans = idiots and/or evil individualists
By MartyLK on 7/13/2011 10:45:08 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you! For proving my point. I was hoping for a response like yours. I got it! :D


RE: Republicans = idiots and/or evil individualists
By Manch on 7/13/2011 11:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
You were hoping someone would call you a dumb@$$?


RE: Republicans = idiots and/or evil individualists
By MartyLK on 7/14/2011 12:05:28 AM , Rating: 2
Not really. Did you want to do that? Far be it from to interfere with your need to assault. No, what I was referring to is the scathing nature of Repubs and religious ones who feel superior to everyone and believe they have all the rights there are to condemn and punish.

Your response showed this to be true. If a conscience isn't pricked, there won't be retaliation. If a conscience is pricked, retaliation...exactly like yours...will result. The only way for a conscience to be pricked into retaliating is if that conscience is guilty.

The Repubs and religious ones stand up all day and denounce the actions and behavior of everyone else and do them harm in many ways. Why? Because they need to in order to set themselves up above the rest of us in an effort to sooth their conscience into the belief that they are above reproach or chastisement. That they, themselves, don't do what the heathen and sinful do and are, therefor, not subject to judgement.

I apologize for drawing you out into the light of day.


RE: Republicans = idiots and/or evil individualists
By Manch on 7/14/2011 9:28:31 AM , Rating: 2
So you can spout off scathing remarks and hateful BS about religious people, but damn if anybody who disagrees with you do it. Nice. You are by the very definition a hypocrite.


RE: Republicans = idiots and/or evil individualists
By MartyLK on 7/14/2011 12:08:22 PM , Rating: 2
So you are saying a victim cannot speak about the evil done to them? I speak of what has actually occurred and has taken place. You speak in an effort to defend the criminals.

I'm speaking about harms the Repubs and religious ones have caused in the name of God and self righteousness. I'm not denouncing how people live their lives. The Repubs and religious ones stand in condemnation of anyone who doesn't meet their approval. They literally destroy people's lives and call it God's will.


RE: Republicans = idiots and/or evil individualists
By Schrag4 on 7/14/2011 1:44:42 PM , Rating: 2
Marty, you're being quite vague about how these republicans and religeous people are literally destroying people's lives. I could come up with some examples that might qualify, but could you, for the sake of your own argument, provide some specific examples that you have in mind that illustrate what you're talking about? That might go a long way toward clearing up any confusion about this tangent you two have gone on. Thanks! *grabs popcorn*


RE: Republicans = idiots and/or evil individualists
By MartyLK on 7/14/2011 2:03:23 PM , Rating: 2
Have you not seen the state of the nation? How many businesses have failed and how the economy is ruined because of the previous admin? Isn't that enough detail? Do you not know that Bush claimed it was God who wanted him in power? And what did he do with that power? Did he not destroy the lives of many in this nation by destroying the economy and also committing to illegal wars? Was he not acting above the law when he rebelled against the UN resolutions?

These are examples of Republicanism on a national level. I have my own example on a personal level, how the Repub/religious destroyed my life. And did it in the name of God and good. All because I voiced my disapproval of Bush and belonged to a Christian denomination they didn't accept...in their view of how the Christian faith is.

I won't go into detail about my personal experience, but the national experience is there for everyone to study.


By tng on 7/14/2011 2:14:06 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, pretty vague on that evidence (grabs more popcorn and munches).

So basically you are saying that the economy is in shambles because of God and Republicans.... Have I got that right? All because Bush believes in God and you opened your mouth to voice your disapproval?


By Schrag4 on 7/14/2011 2:27:45 PM , Rating: 2
You're still being pretty vague on everything except what you call illegal wars, which D's in congress authorized. I'm sorry, but the "If you don't know I'm not going to tell you" tactic is reserved for use by girlfriends/wives.


By Manch on 7/14/2011 11:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
No you're spouting diatribe and making no specific point. You've done nothing but name call.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/13/2011 8:09:36 PM , Rating: 2
Uhh I am "middle class", and why is the choice of what car I can purchase being swayed by a state 3,500 miles away that does NOT represent me? California is driving up the cost of EVERYONE'S car, weather you pay taxes there or not. That is not right.


By Fritzr on 7/13/2011 9:21:32 PM , Rating: 2
California does not dictate requirements for other states. That is entirely the manufacturer's choice. Contact the CEO of your preferred manufacturer and tell them you won't purchase a car if it is engineered for fuel economy and minimal pollution :P

If they want your money, they will have to invest still more in R&D for a second design that meets the Federal requirements, but ignores California requirements. Very likely the cost on both designs will then rise :D

The answer to your question is implicit in what I said. One design that is legal in all US states, Territories & DC is cheaper than multiple designs.

Second problem. The car is legal in the state in which it was sold & in states with less restrictive regulation. Move to a stricter state & you will be buying a new car.

Most purchasers planning to keep their car long term will then opt for the model that meets all the requirements they might have to meet. Today that means being California legal when sold in New York, because the owner might take it on a road trip or change jobs.

Vehicles imported into USA after being purchased abroad already run afoul of these regulations. Many foreign models must be modified before being registered in US. A street legal vehicle in one country may be banned in another.


By PaterPelligrino on 7/13/2011 8:13:19 PM , Rating: 5
The average Repub voter is not the brightest bulb in the room.

Why is that?

The core concern of the real powers behind the Repub Party has always been more money for me - me being the mega-rich - and screw everyone else.

They can't come out and openly admit that because then no one would vote for them.

Therefore, they're forced to invent a fake party platform to dupe people into electing them into office. (It is an inevitable consequence of participatory democracy that candidates are encouraged to lie.)

However, the intelligent voter knows full well what the Repubs are really about and isn't fooled by all the simple-minded and mendacious sloganeering.

The Repubs are therefore forced to appeal to that segment of the American population too dumb to see through their lies.

That is why the Repub party platform aligns perfectly with - or rather, panders to - the most ignorant segment of American society.

All you need do is take a representative sample of dumb America, ask them what they are most concerned about - guns, Jesus, abortion, immigrants, gays, the minority menace, the socialists stealing their manhood - and there you've got the fake Repub Party platform; it's no coincidence that the two match up perfectly.

Think of the fake Repub platform as an IQ test where the those that score the lowest become Repub party faithful.

It doesn't matter if some of the Republican politicians believe the fake agenda as long as they vote for the real agenda when elected; i.e., lower taxes on the rich, do away with inheritance taxes, remove all legal constraint on the accumulation of wealth, abolish any gov't program that doesn't directly benefit the rich, and neutralize the ability of organizations such as unions to challenge the power of the rich. This explains the plethora of nutjob Republican pols like Palin and Bachmann. In fact, the more fervent and cartoonishly right-wing pols like Palin appear, the more they appeal to the base, and the more they serve to parry the accusation that the Repubs only really care about the rich.

The whole thing has set up a kind of self-reinforcing feedback loop of dumbness. Is there any other country in the world where displayed intelligence is considered a liability in a politician?

You've got to admire the brilliant execution of this strategy, and despair at the ignorance of the people who swallow their crap. The Repubs have convinced the conservative voter to support the very party that works tirelessly to undermine his ability to have a decent life.


CA The Great Progressive Laboratory
By Radiomachine on 7/13/2011 2:38:57 PM , Rating: 4
The insane asylum known as the CA state legislature and environmental regularatory agencies can't chase businesses out fast enough...they truly act as malignant tumors....not apparently realizing that if the host organism dies, they die too. But hey when you work in government where money magically falls from sky you can afford to make policy based in the world of theory and computer models.




RE: CA The Great Progressive Laboratory
By phantom505 on 7/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: CA The Great Progressive Laboratory
By idiot77 on 7/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: CA The Great Progressive Laboratory
By ClownPuncher on 7/13/2011 5:39:30 PM , Rating: 1
Wouldn't you just relocate LA if environmentalism is your primary goal? Building a city in a valley that traps pollution and particulate matter isn't reason enough to impose draconian regulations on an entire state, let alone country.


RE: CA The Great Progressive Laboratory
By Fritzr on 7/13/2011 9:29:05 PM , Rating: 3
You're correct. The other reason is that we do not want to export LA's pollution problem. Actually it is not just LA...One of the more famous examples, London, was well known for black fogs when coal was popular.

Personally I do not wish to see black fog and support the idea of not generating them.


By ClownPuncher on 7/14/2011 11:58:37 AM , Rating: 1
We alreaady have rules against that type of pollution.


RE: CA The Great Progressive Laboratory
By Reclaimer77 on 7/13/2011 11:41:33 PM , Rating: 1
50 years from now idiots will still be using LA smog in arguments. Just ignore them, it's the best way.

LA doesn't even have LA smog anymore. And what they have is natural. If they didn't have the worst highway design leading to the biggest traffic jams in the country, thousands of cars idling for hours, smog wouldn't have been an issue in the first place.

quote:
Building a city in a valley that traps pollution and particulate matter isn't reason enough to impose draconian regulations on an entire state, let alone country.


Winning!


RE: CA The Great Progressive Laboratory
By FITCamaro on 7/14/11, Rating: 0
By MartyLK on 7/14/2011 12:45:00 AM , Rating: 1
Only if it flutters the bedsheets your wife lays under.


By Manch on 7/14/2011 11:17:07 PM , Rating: 1
No but you should drive by LA in your camaro, throw a match out the window and haul ass!


No red tape, no regulations
By Uncle on 7/13/2011 3:43:09 PM , Rating: 3
No red tape, no regulations. This is about corporations not wanting to deal with governments at the state level, such as California. They have more politicians in their pockets at the federal level. Its much cheaper to have a federal level law passed then to pay politicians in all fifty states.




RE: No red tape, no regulations
By Manch on 7/13/2011 9:34:56 PM , Rating: 1
state level federal level...most politicians from either are in the pocket of somebody.


Haven't read it and I know already....
By The0ne on 7/14/2011 3:00:40 AM , Rating: 2
It's about my state and about shutting us up. Who's pushing this through, well...you be surprise. It's going to be hard for CA to have it go through and hard for whomever is trying to shut it down. There's a lot of "green" loving people here who will buy into anything even if they don't know about it and/or don't know how to use it...Prius is a good example.




By Ghost42 on 7/14/2011 1:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
Prius and Versa.. The two cars I come across all the time that make me want to push them off into the ditch on the highway. The smug bastards that buy those cars think the rest of us should drive exactly like them and they do nothing but cause more issues. Kinda like C.A.R.B.


Typical politics
By cruisin3style on 7/13/2011 2:56:04 PM , Rating: 2
Seems like a 180 from the health care bill days when states should be allowed to decide for themselves, now California shouldn't be allowed to set fuel economy standards.

Typical politics, whatever is convenient is the policy.




RE: Typical politics
By Targon on 7/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: Typical politics
By JackNSally on 7/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Typical politics
By Targon on 7/13/2011 11:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
Ethanol....if it reduces fuel economy and is not any cleaner for the environment, then the only purpose that anyone would consider legit would be to reduce our dependance on foreign oil(Middle East).

Now, how do you fund all of the troops being sent in AT THE REQUEST OF THESE FOREIGN COUNTRIES? Oh, we just borrow more money from China, right? What about the foreign countries that have asked for our help giving us something we as a country need in return, such as....oil?

I am not advocating that we go to war to get oil, but if Libya, or any other country with natural resources asks us to help them, why shouldn't we charge them for it? They have oil, we have military resources. If it costs us $1 trillion, then we should get $1 trillion worth of money and resources, given back to the government. In that way, it should end up costing us a net $0.

Spending money to help others without getting anything in return when the government is broke(pay attention to the whole debt cap issue) is why the government is broke and has a huge debt in the first place. Europe....we forgave their debt after World War 2....when the government was running a deficit already. Giving money to charity when you are behind on your mortgage is just as foolish since if you are homeless, feeling good about saving the starving people in Ethiopia will REALLY have helped, right?


All I have to say is
By DigitalFreak on 7/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: All I have to say is
By heffeque on 7/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: All I have to say is
By MeesterNid on 7/13/2011 2:27:42 PM , Rating: 2
I know! What the crap Congress!? We need to do more...just look at our environmentally-conscience friends in China!

Seriously though, though I don't agree with giving EPA unilateral ability to chop businesses off at the knees on "environmental concerns" taking away rights from the states is totally the wrong way to go here. There needs to be an overall balance.


Marauder
By Etern205 on 7/13/2011 3:39:41 PM , Rating: 2
The Marauder makes that Hummer look like a mini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwy6nY78sZk




an explanation
By rika13 on 7/13/2011 4:14:06 PM , Rating: 2
If states are allowed to set their own standards, two problems will arise.

1. The state with the highest standards will effectively set the standard for the other 49. Automakers sell a product to all 50 states and having separate designs for every state won't work.

2. States are not as predictable or slow as the federal government. The state legislations are far more agile and fickle than Congress. A state can decide on one timetable and the scrap it for another a month later because the state next door put one out that requires more MPG than theirs.

The combination creates a situation where every state wants to be the one that can effectively dictate to the other 49 states and ever climbing targets that can easily be quite unreasonable or outright impossible.




ccxzcz
By vavavangv on 7/13/2011 11:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.benzlogo.com
I tide fashion Good-looking, not expensive Free transport




ccxzcz
By vavavangv on 7/13/2011 11:40:23 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.benzlogo.com
I tide fashion Good-looking, not expensive Free transport




By Drewjk on 7/18/2011 12:27:28 PM , Rating: 2
This is stupid and dosent make any sense. Mr. Hwang and the rest of the environmentalists are crazy to think that automakers "owe it to the American people to increase fuel economy after how much the government loaned it to keep automakers afloat during the recession". Its the governments fault for causing the recession in the first place. Lets not forget that people. All the over spending for pointless things like the $1-billion Obama spent for a trip to watch the "festival of lights". Im glad I can pay for that with my taxes when he didnt even take me along. After the government tanked the economy people had less and less money to spend on goods and services one industry for example, automakers. All these requirements forces automakers to follow suit, in turn driving up the cost for manucacturing and hiking up the price anywhere from $2,000-$8,000 per car on average. Now in the current state of the economy consumers already have a tough time spending the money for a new car let alone more money. This drains the used car market as well because people are holding on to their cars longer due to lack of budget. This will drive costs up all across the board. From a service stand point to the manufacturing level, supply and demand. I dont know about you but the auto industry is how I make a living as well as many others. Making it harder and harder to put food on my families table. I dont inderstand how politicians can punish an entire industry for something the government started. MPG's will increase on its own due to a copmetative market and constant fight for top manufacturer. Force feeding is never the answer, try it on your 2yr old and see what the outcome is. By letting nature take its course, the problem will work its self out, and cost alot less for the American people in the long run. Oil? How about we tap into our own oil? We have more under the U.S. soil than the entire Middle East put together. Im sure that will solve the national debt, and our reliance on forgin oil.




If Obama does it, I'm all for it!
By MartyLK on 7/13/11, Rating: 0
Such a raft of unsubstantiated crap
By torpor on 7/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: Such a raft of unsubstantiated crap
By Reclaimer77 on 7/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: Such a raft of unsubstantiated crap
By Krotchrot on 7/13/2011 3:37:25 PM , Rating: 4
Reclaimer77. Too much said.


By gixser on 7/13/2011 8:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
I don't normally do this...but....+1


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki