Jump to content
Create New...
  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • William Maley
    William Maley

    California Moves Ahead To Protect Emission Rules From Rollback

      Still is vowing to work with the national government to establish a national standard

    On Friday, California regulators voted to require that automakers stick with the Obama-era emission regulations for vehicles sold in the state, no matter the efforts of the Trump administration to weaken the standards. This basically means vehicles built for through 2025 model year comply with the state’s standards and can legally be sold there. Beginning with the 2026 model year, vehicles have to meet the stricter standards if automakers want to sell vehicles in the state, along with the 12 other states and Washington D.C. that follow these regulations.

    This is the latest salvo in the fight between California and Trump administration over emission standards. Back in August, the administration unveiled a new proposal that would freeze fuel efficiency requirements at 2020 levels through 2026. This proposal earned a large amount of criticism and a lawsuit filed by a group of states led by California.

    In a statement, California Air Resources Board's Chair Mary Nichols said the state would “continue to work to keep a single national program,” but that the vote “ensures that California and 12 other states will not fall victim to the Trump administration’s rollback of vehicle standards should its proposal be finalized.”

    Source: Reuters

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Of course they did.  And really CA just needs to drag it out until 2020 and then if Trump loses they get their wish.  If Trump wins they can keep fighting, and if they can't agree on anything 2025 shows up eventually.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The Trump administration would be wise to drop the lawsuits against CARB for those emissions requirements and even smarter if that administration dropped the lawsuit against CA new net neutrality rules.  I doubt they would do that but one can hope.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    He will win reelection.  California is simply showing themselves to be what they are.  Will be interesting to see how a long-needed parent eventually defuses the petulant child that is... California.

    • Agree 1
    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    14 hours ago, ocnblu said:

    He will win reelection.  California is simply showing themselves to be what they are.  Will be interesting to see how a long-needed parent eventually defuses the petulant child that is... California.

    How much does CA need so-called flyover country?  Especially given that CA is a net donor to federal coffers while most of the South are net recipients of federal dollars.  (Not sure about TX or FL.)

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Fully 36 states are net recipients, only 14 put more in than take out, and they're pretty much spread across the nation.
    CA barely squeaks in under the break-even point- there's a lot of welfare programs getting tapped in CA. The Golden State gives the Gov't about $1.02 for every dollar they receive.
    The other 13: Mass, WY, OK, NJ, UT, CO, NY, Kan, OH, Neb, ILL, Minn & DE.

    Edited by balthazar
    • Thanks 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Rivian has opened a new 8 stall 350kW fast charger station at Lynnwood mall plus a 9th Handicap fast charge stall. Seems when remote service is being done they are tagged red as two of the units are. They take credit or debit cards on top of if you setup a Rivian app account.  There are now over 100 fast charge stations within a 5 mile radius of where I live.
    • Happy Birthday!!! Cheers!!!  
    • Yes. Ferrari was always a company selling towards the top tier rich.  I am not sure about Porsche's marketing after 1945, but I do know that Porsche wanted to go up market, really up market,  to sell to the rich in the late 1990s.    Rolex watches were always expensive.  But not always being a  chic jewellery accessory.  Rolex watches were expensive time pieces because they were highly precise time pieces meant for professions that required time pieces that were precise in time telling. Also, Rolexes were also engineered to be tough and not break in those job environments. Therefore the high price tags of them were because the high standard of engineering that went into them.  The value of the brand went up because of the people that bought them praised them. It was after the quartz movement of the 1960s and 1970s that Rolex needed to re-invent themselves as battery powered watches were MORE precise ate their lunch. So...like many other "swiss" automatic watch makers launched their new image as luxury time pieces. It was easy for Rolex to do as Rolex was coveted as a great engineered watch to begin with.   Like I said...its a boys club that they want to be known as and bought by (rich) people that have bought into that boys club mentality.  It aint for you or for @ccap41.   Even if you or @ccap41 had the money, its obvious that you guys have not fallen for this marketing gimmick.  Its barely for me either.  1. I cant afford Ferraris, Porsches or Rolexes. 2. I do not want to be in a Porsche Boys club.  I like Porsches and all, but Im not in their camp.  Not because of the boys club marketing schemes. Its just that I am not a rabid Porsche guy fanatic.  3. If I had 1% money, I am not sure Id be a Ferrari guy either.  After deep thought, I am more of a Ferrari guy than I am a Porsche guy.  But maybe not enough for me to fall for this kind of sales scheme either. 4.  Rolex...   I do like a Rolex.  But I am not one to boast about what kind of time piece Im wearing. So...nix me on that club as well. 5. It looks like I am aligned with you and @ccap41's take on this, but with me, I shrug it off.  I see why the companies want to go down this road. And I see why there are some people...rich people...that do not mind giving their monies away to these companies. And at the end of the day, its what makes them happy and superior to the rest of us as we do not have the time or money or will to buy into any of this. And kudos for them for buying into that lifestyle.    At the end of the day, whether we are talking about Ferrari or Porsche or Rolex, some of their product, past and present, have been REALLY REALLY EXCELLENT product. Whether we are talking about looks and style or engineering and technology, all 3 have styled and engineered awesomeness.  We could talk about their products that were failures, but wouldnt that signal some sort of sour grapes analogy on our part? Its a company's right to mold their brand image as they wish.   Whether we agree to it as individuals is irrelevant. What is relevant though is how collectively we ALL feel about it.  In Ferraris case its a huge success. Porsche and Rolex have to work on it just a tad more. But I feels its successful.  If there is a downfall for Porsche, I think it has more to do with their decisions to being a sports car maker ALONGSIDE being a (rich) family grocery getter/soccer mom SUV maker.  The failure of having two opposing identities is killing Porsche.  And it is a double edged sword.  On the one hand, if not for the SUVs, Porsche would have been gone by the early 2000s.  The inevitable was prolonged?  Rolex... Too many boutique time piece makers have propped up in the last 15 years that took their place in some areas of the really expensive realm.  Quartz time pieces keep on being a nuisance to them. This time around its the fashion watch trend. The name brand watch sellers like Michael Korrs and Hugo Boss and even Porsche that have taken some of Rolexes market share.  The advent of smart watches also hurts them.  So they decided to change it up in the sales realm.  Are there enough Rolex worshippers out there that will buy cheaper Rolexes or older models just to get that one highly anticipated limited edition time piece? Well...although watches are strictly fashion devices today, there are more than enough fashionable time pieces around for people to by-pass Rolex fandom.  Some have their own unique look to them and are sought after and some just emulate Rolex but watch brand snobs are too few today so Rolex has a steep hill to climb because most people that wear watches dont give a shyte what kind of watch you wear.  Unlike cars, car snobbery actually still exits...  Hence why Ferrari is still king of the douchiness and going on strong. Stronger than ever Id say.    
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search