Obama Looks to give States the rights to set Emissions and Mileage Standards

[gm4life]

You can do plenty to keep the country safe without resorting to terrorist and Nazi interrogation and prisoner keeping techniques, and spying on your own citizens.

Back to the topic

At any rate, if the government is willing to fund these developments (25 billion was supposedly already allotted, but I suspect more will be needed) then go for it. However I feel this should wait until the economy recovers and the automakers have some actual cash reserves.

Disagree but that is okay. I agree with you bottom statement tho, at least put if off, or let the market drive it.

Edited January 26, 2009 by gm4life

[Drew Dowdell]

At any rate, if the government is willing to fund these developments (25 billion was supposedly already allotted, but I suspect more will be needed) then go for it. However I feel this should wait until the economy recovers and the automakers have some actual cash reserves.

Agreed. I have no problem with increased fuel economy standards or emission standards. I just want one national standard.

[Drew Dowdell]

Disagree but that is okay. I agree with you bottom statement tho, at least put if off.

You can't keep the country safe without resorting to becoming a Nazi?

[gm4life]

You can't keep the country safe without resorting to becoming a Nazi?

Ahhh Olds your a goof. Now I didn't say that.

[toesuf94]

Getting back on topic; by not making a NATIONAL standard for fuel Economy or MPG for the cars, Obama has opened it up for each state to mandate it's own standard, which the automakers will be unable to meet. Further, if states feel they need to raise money for budget shortfalls, they will just tax new cars that do not meet the standards that they set. (See Federal Gas Guzzler taxes) When they place a tax on the new car, the people who need a car will now go buy a USED car rather than the very expensive NEW car that keeps people employed in US factories. The Used car, presumably will not meet the new standards set by the state, so in essence it will be a gross polluter versus what the now expensive and unsold new car WOULD have been.

So, net effect of changing CAFE or CARB standards will be an increase of USED and older car sales, a DECREASE of new car sales, a larger state government for each state to MONITOR the emissions standard and a larger Federal government to monitor the states...and more unemployment for the workers in the auto plants world wide. Oh, and the SMOG problem will be the same or worse due to the older cars being on the road longer or in greater numbers.

There are reprecussions to making mandates and changes to energy policy. By leaving it to the states, he has opened a Pandora's box of legislation and taxes on the state level and decreased your freedom of choice at the dealership and done NOTHING for cleaner air anywhere.

Edited January 26, 2009 by toesuf94

[Intrepidation]

You can't keep the country safe without resorting to becoming a Nazi?

I was like as well. But then, I've been shocked several times by multiple people in this thread today.

[Intrepidation]

I said:

You can do plenty to keep the country safe without resorting to terrorist and Nazi interrogation and prisoner keeping techniques, and spying on your own citizens.

You said:

Disagree but that is okay.

Then you said:

I agree with you bottom statement

There was only two parts to my post.

[gm4life]

Getting back on topic; by not making a NATIONAL standard for fuel Economy or MPG for the cars, Obama has opened it up for each state to mandate it's own standard, which the automakers will be unable to meet. Further, if states feel they need to raise money for budget shortfalls, they will just tax new cars that do not meet the standards that they set. (See Federal Gas Guzzler taxes) When they place a tax on the new car, the people who need a car will now go buy a USED car rather than the very expensive NEW car that keeps people employed in US factories. The Used car, presumably will not meet the new standards set by the state, so in essence it will be a gross polluter versus what the now expensive and unsold new car WOULD have been.

So, net effect of changing CAFE or CARB standards will be an increase of USED and older car sales, a DECREASE of new car sales, a larger state government for each state to MONITOR the emissions standard and a larger Federal government to monitor the states...and more unemployment for the workers in the auto plants world wide. Oh, and the SMOG problem will be the same or worse due to the older cars being on the road longer or in greater numbers.

There are reprecussions to making mandates and changes to energy policy. By leaving it to the states, he has opened a Pandora's box of legislation and taxes on the state level and decreased your freedom of choice at the dealership and done NOTHING for cleaner air anywhere.

I agree.

[Drew Dowdell]

Ahhh Olds your a goof. Now I didn't say that.

Dodgefan :

You can do plenty to keep the country safe without resorting to terrorist and Nazi interrogation and prisoner keeping techniques, and spying on your own citizens.

GM4life

Disagree but that is okay.

Then 'splain it to me Lucy.

[Intrepidation]

Agreed. I have no problem with increased fuel economy standards or emission standards. I just want one national standard.

I agree with a that as well. Let's just pick the highest, and aim for that...without wanting to change it to 600mpg 7 months later.

[gm4life]

I said:

You said:

Then you said:

There was only two parts to my post.

Yeah the fuel economy comment to wait. Or not do it at all.

[gm4life]

I have been suprised too that some people around here actually agree with me.

[Intrepidation]

WTF? Dude, do you read what you type before you post it?

[Robert Hall]

I agree with a that as well. Let's just pick the highest, and aim for that...without wanting to change it to 600mpg 7 months later.

+1. A single standard to build to, and realistic. Maybe 30 fleet average mpg by 2025 or something like that.

[Intrepidation]

+1. A single standard to build to, and realistic. Maybe 30 fleet average mpg by 2025 or something like that.

If the government wants to help 45mpg could be achievable. It's all about getting the funding, which automakers have little of currently.

Or magical fairies could drop off 100 billion on each automakers front doors, the meaning of life, and how to get 100 mpg...but I think government aid is more realistic.

[Robert Hall]

If the government wants to help 45 could be achievable. It's all about getting the funding, which automakers on there on have little of currently.

Or magical fairies could drop off 100 billion on each automakers front doors, the meaning of life, and how to get 100 mpg...but I think government aid is more realistic.

I'd be happy if I could have a RWD, 4000lb, clean diesel luxury sedan with lots of torque that gets 40 mpg.. (Actually, the BMW 335d is pretty close to that, but it would be nice to get one in an American brand and size). Maybe I should be looking for a CPO '05+ Merc E320CDI.

Edited January 26, 2009 by moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

Yeah, it's not like Bank of America has only gotten $80 billion so far......

[Intrepidation]

Yeah, it's not like Bank of America has only gotten $80 billion so far......

Silly man, they are Banks, they are the most important thing ever. Plus these money infusions, whose usage is being vigorously tracked, allows the banks to start lending money again.

Oh wait...

[SoCalCTS]

I love how everyone blames Obama and the liberal left.

The CARB is a bipartisan state agency.

These environmental standards are being pushed by the REPUBLICAN governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Yes, the same Arnold Schwarzenegger who never misses a Republican photo op.

Could it be that conservatives like Rick Warren and Arnold Schwarzenegger also want to save the environmet?

I dont think this issue is so one sided. So please stop blaming Obama. The federal government has let California set its own pollution standards for over 30 years. This is just a return to normal. It only shows you that Richard Nixon was more enlightened than George W. Bush.

[Intrepidation]

Dodgefan :

GM4life

Then 'splain it to me Lucy.

Yes, please enlighten us.

[Oracle of Delphi]

Better fuel economy standards and clean air legislation are extremely important, but I wonder if ending up with 50 different emissions standards isn't a heavy certification-dollars burden on OEMs...

Oh it will be way more than 50 different emission standards, Washington, D.C, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Marshall Islands, and all the other U.S. possessions, Portugal for instance.

[pow]

I love how everyone blames Obama and the liberal left.

The CARB is a bipartisan state agency.

These environmental standards are being pushed by the REPUBLICAN governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Yes, the same Arnold Schwarzenegger who never misses a Republican photo op.

Could it be that conservatives like Rick Warren and Arnold Schwarzenegger also want to save the environmet?

I dont think this issue is so one sided. So please stop blaming Obama. The federal government has let California set its own pollution standards for over 30 years. This is just a return to normal. It only shows you that Richard Nixon was more enlightened than George W. Bush.

Wow, the voice of reason. Thank you.

[black02]

I used to be very much against this kind of governance, but after living in California for the past several years I see the necessity of it. See, CA has to suffer some of the worst pollution in the country. I say "suffer" because the vast majority of the air pollution is a direct result of the twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach--the ships that until recently idled, the idling filthy diesel trucks that receive the imported goods, the belching diesel locomotives that ship the goods across the country...to where? Oh yeah, all 47 other contiguous states.

California has come so far since the 1970s when smog was so bad you couldn't even see downtown from a mile away, or the tops of skyscrapers when you were right next to them on the Harbor Freeway. That said, there's a lot more improvements to air quality that need to be made, and also a social justice aspect as well--poor people who can only afford to live next to the freeway shouldn't have to be plagued with noxious air. Their children shouldn't come inside from playing in the backyard covered in diesel soot. Hell, you can't even park your car outside for an hour without it being covered in filth.

It's for reasons such as these that the current standards are not strict enough for many states. If California wants to regulate its emmissions with tougher standards, then I have no problem with it because of all the good that will come out of it. The fact that 14 other states want to join on, though, speaks volumes to me of how what I have seen and observed out here more than likely is mirrored across the U.S.

Do you realize the standards being talked about have nothing to do with smog or air quality? They're essentially mileage standards, and the goal is to reduce global warming. It's essentially a second CAFE, though based on carbon output instead of gallons of fuel burned.

[pow]

How is that calculated? I assumed they took each vehicles average MPG and weighted it by the sales volume.

Yes, that's what they do - but the vehicle's average MPG for CAFE purposes is not the consumer EPA mpg, it's the "raw" mpg, which is usually higher by 25% and excludes the newest high-speed driving cycle.

Even cars like the Cruze should help out.

A big part of the problem is that they have wasted so much R&D on the Volt (which is too niche to matter) instead of doing something timely. They started running commercials for the Volt in 2007 and yet they won't have a competitive small car until 2010 or 2011. Now they have to argue that it is too expensive to be fuel efficient when they have apparently spent one billion+ dollars on the Volt.

Agreed. That's why I think Ford will be more successful than GM in the short run - they have a strong portfolio of class-leading small cars. But all manufacturers are developing electric cars; with California's EV mandate, I think we'll see mainstream electric cars in fewer than 10 years.

And, ya know, the 200C EV is not exactly a cheesewedge-shaped eco-box... the future of motoring can still be very bright. It's up to the automakers how they adapt to these changes and the new realities of today. The first Model T wasn't a luxury sports sedan, but over time, the ICE-powered automobile evolved into something amazing.

Edited January 26, 2009 by empowah

[Intrepidation]

GMs Volt may hurt the company short term, but its technology will pave the way for others, and eventually the price will come down to reasonable levels.

[black02]

I used to be very much against this kind of governance, but after living in California for the past several years I see the necessity of it. See, CA has to suffer some of the worst pollution in the country. I say "suffer" because the vast majority of the air pollution is a direct result of the twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach--the ships that until recently idled, the idling filthy diesel trucks that receive the imported goods, the belching diesel locomotives that ship the goods across the country...to where? Oh yeah, all 47 other contiguous states.

California has come so far since the 1970s when smog was so bad you couldn't even see downtown from a mile away, or the tops of skyscrapers when you were right next to them on the Harbor Freeway. That said, there's a lot more improvements to air quality that need to be made, and also a social justice aspect as well--poor people who can only afford to live next to the freeway shouldn't have to be plagued with noxious air. Their children shouldn't come inside from playing in the backyard covered in diesel soot. Hell, you can't even park your car outside for an hour without it being covered in filth.

It's for reasons such as these that the current standards are not strict enough for many states. If California wants to regulate its emmissions with tougher standards, then I have no problem with it because of all the good that will come out of it. The fact that 14 other states want to join on, though, speaks volumes to me of how what I have seen and observed out here more than likely is mirrored across the U.S.

Do you realize the standards being talked about have nothing to do with smog or air quality? They're essentially mileage standards, and the goal is to reduce global warming. It's essentially a second CAFE, though based on carbon output instead of gallons of fuel burned.

I don't want to get into the discussion of whether tougher mileage/carbon emission standards are a good idea, but I do want to correct what the conversation is about.

[black02]

I love how everyone blames Obama and the liberal left.

The CARB is a bipartisan state agency.

These environmental standards are being pushed by the REPUBLICAN governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Yes, the same Arnold Schwarzenegger who never misses a Republican photo op.

Could it be that conservatives like Rick Warren and Arnold Schwarzenegger also want to save the environmet?

I dont think this issue is so one sided. So please stop blaming Obama. The federal government has let California set its own pollution standards for over 30 years. This is just a return to normal. It only shows you that Richard Nixon was more enlightened than George W. Bush.

During all 8 years of W, California had its own pollution standards, so this is not a "return to normal". Carbon dioxide emissions have nothing to do with regional air quality. So this is actually a new power that California is asking for.

[hyperv6]

Yes, that's what they do - but the vehicle's average MPG for CAFE purposes is not the consumer EPA mpg, it's the "raw" mpg, which is usually higher by 25% and excludes the newest high-speed driving cycle.

Agreed. That's why I think Ford will be more successful than GM in the short run - they have a strong portfolio of class-leading small cars. But all manufacturers are developing electric cars; with California's EV mandate, I think we'll see mainstream electric cars in fewer than 10 years.

And, ya know, the 200C EV is not exactly a cheesewedge-shaped eco-box... the future of motoring can still be very bright. It's up to the automakers how they adapt to these changes and the new realities of today. The first Model T wasn't a luxury sports sedan, but over time, the ICE-powered automobile evolved into something amazing.

If it were only that cheap and easy.

Also add to the fact the MAJORITY do not want many of the cars that are required. People did not buy truck because they had to.

I feel we need to keep working on these technologies and improve them to the point they become a seemless flow from what we drive today into the new technology. But to require people to drive smaller cars with limited range and reduced power at a higher price few will buy these.

The people pushing this agenda will next require that the older the car is the more tax you will pay to force you out of your older cars. They already do that in Japan.

If they want to do this right a gas tax is what would work but they will not do that as they know the people would vote them out and bring Change again.

[deftonesfan867]

How many people here can actually read? This will NOT be allowing states to set there own standards. They have to select from CARB regulations or federal regulations. They DO NOT get to set there own rules.

[haypops]

. I feared this would happen the goverment will take over that is the power of O. Total bull$h! but that is what happens when we elect an extremely liberal president. Kiss good-bye any more fun cars thanks to Obama.

President Obama is not setting the standard, but rather Arnold Schwarzenegger is. It is neither Arnold nor Barack's fault that the 17 states that will follow represent over 50% of the United States population.

[ocnblu]

Used to be when a topic has already been posted, the second thread was locked and comments redirected to the first thread. I guess the administrators here don't believe topic redundancy is a problem. I posted this topic before hyper this morning down in the Industry News section because it not only affects GM, but the entire auto industry selling vehicles in the US. Edited January 27, 2009 by ocnblu

[The O.C.]

I predict that you ain't seen nothin' yet.

This admin has been in less than week...

So far...

1) Executive order to close Camp Delta, with NO plan on where to put the worst terrorists in the world.

2) Executive order restricting how terrorsists can be interrogated, now they can only be asked if they want to share any info.

3) Almost $ ONE TRILLION in pork barrel.

4),5),6), some other stuff.

7) Now this.

.....and I heard something this morning about giving tax breaks to individuals that don't file federal taxes....! Like, perhaps, illegal immigrants?

Why reward those that don't abide by the laws of this country by filing and paying the taxes that they are supposed to pay like everyone else?

Just saw a tidbit....so I don't pretend to understand this whole issue.....but even the tidbit I heard rang serious alarms inside my head....

[gm4life]

Yes, please enlighten us.

Awww I think I have disagreed enough.

[Satty]

You haven't explained why resorting to Hitler-esque tactics is the only way to keep Americans safe.

[Croc]

Do you realize the standards being talked about have nothing to do with smog or air quality? They're essentially mileage standards, and the goal is to reduce global warming. It's essentially a second CAFE, though based on carbon output instead of gallons of fuel burned.

I don't want to get into the discussion of whether tougher mileage/carbon emission standards are a good idea, but I do want to correct what the conversation is about.

Sorry, carbon emissions affect smog and air quality--can't argue that. Try again. And count me in for increasing fuel efficiency requirements, if that were the actualy discussion taking place.

[Intrepidation]

You haven't explained why resorting to Hitler-esque tactics is the only way to keep Americans safe.

He seems to be avoiding that.

[Croc]

Used to be when a topic has already been posted, the second thread was locked and comments redirected to the first thread. I guess the administrators here don't believe topic redundancy is a problem. I posted this topic before hyper this morning down in the Industry News section because it not only affects GM, but the entire auto industry selling vehicles in the US.

Guess what? This thread took off more than yours did. Get over it.

[Croc]

He seems to be avoiding that.

Well...he either admits he is wrong, or he tries to spin something that is completely nonsensical and incoherent. He's been backed into a corner, and what do you think he will do? Dodge and weave, dodge and weave...

[ocnblu]

The proper thing to have done many pages ago was lock this thread. It has long since veered far off topic. And what's worse, this is in a section were visitors can view it, not like a Lounge thread where members only can view and participate.

[Drew Dowdell]

.....and I heard something this morning about giving tax breaks to individuals that don't file federal taxes....! Like, perhaps, illegal immigrants?

Why reward those that don't abide by the laws of this country by filing and paying the taxes that they are supposed to pay like everyone else?

Just saw a tidbit....so I don't pretend to understand this whole issue.....but even the tidbit I heard rang serious alarms inside my head....

You're probably referring to people who don't pay federal taxes. That is different from people who don't file. You aren't eligable for the tax break if you don't file, but you still may be eligible if you don't actually pay anything.

[Croc]

The proper thing to have done many pages ago was lock this thread. It has long since veered far off topic. And what's worse, this is in a section were visitors can view it, not like a Lounge thread where members only can view and participate.

Here you go, ocnblu:

Great job posting the news first! Keep up the GrEaT wOrK!!

Edited January 27, 2009 by Croc

[Drew Dowdell]

The proper thing to have done many pages ago was lock this thread. It has long since veered far off topic. And what's worse, this is in a section were visitors can view it, not like a Lounge thread where members only can view and participate.

Are you applying for an Admin/Moderator position?

Right now we need all the traffic we can get and I've seen a few faces in this thread that we don't usually see around here. I'm ok with the debate that has been going on in here and I've spoken to some of the other people involved privately to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. Spirited debate is far more interesting than

Opel sucks!

Agree

+1

I kinda like Opel

[ocnblu]

Croc, you think this thread is anywhere near the original topic? You think it is good for the site to have these kind of off-topic arguments in an open area of the site, where visitors can view them? This sets a new precedent for C&G and I feel it is destructive to have arguments like this out of the Lounge. This is not even an automotive thread any more.

[pow]

Sorry, carbon emissions affect smog and air quality--can't argue that. Try again. And count me in for increasing fuel efficiency requirements, if that were the actualy discussion taking place.

They actually don't - carbon emissions affect long-term climate patterns instead. One gallon of gasoline burnt becomes 19.6 lbs of CO2; there's no way around that, apart from carbon sequestration.

But the Supreme Court has already decided that California faces environmental circumstances compelling enough to regulate its own greenhouse gas emissions, under the powers that were granted to the state 30+ years ago.

[Croc]

Croc, you think this thread is anywhere near the original topic? You think it is good for the site to have these kind of off-topic arguments in an open area of the site, where visitors can view them? This sets a new precedent for C&G and I feel it is destructive to have arguments like this out of the Lounge. This is not even an automotive thread any more.

It's about automotive-related policy, and has shifted toward various tangential ideological debates.

The hell is your problem today? Grumpypants, much?

I really hope you're not trying to stoke an argument to close this thread so YOUR thread on the same topic stays open...that would just be ridiculous.

Edited January 27, 2009 by Croc

[deftonesfan867]

Teh drama, this thread is starting to haz it.

[Croc]

They actually don't - carbon emissions affect long-term climate patterns instead. One gallon of gasoline burnt becomes 19.6 lbs of CO2; there's no way around that, apart from carbon sequestration.

But the Supreme Court has already decided that California faces environmental circumstances compelling enough to regulate its own greenhouse gas emissions, under the powers that were granted to the state 30+ years ago.

Sorry...how does that prove that carbon emissions do not affect smog and air quality?

[ocnblu]

Well Croc, it is about forum organization. Routinely here and at other well-run forums, threads are locked and comments redirected to the first thread posted on a given topic in an effort to keep the forum organized. But I am not bitching about that here in this thread, as it is irrelevant. I am bitching about what this thread has become, a big, top-heavy off-topic mess.

Back on topic: we need ONE fair federal standard. If California is to rule for the entire country on this weighty issue (which I find ridiculous that one state hold so much power), then the CARB standard should be a 50-state standard. It makes no sense otherwise.

[Robert Hall]

Back on topic: we need ONE fair federal standard. If California is to rule for the entire country on this weighty issue (which I find ridiculous that one state hold so much power), then the CARB standard should be a 50-state standard. It makes no sense otherwise.

Well, CA does have over 10% of the US population...they are influential and on the cutting edge of many things, in many ways...and 14 or so other states want to adopt their standards.

What if another large state were driving the standards forward instead?

Edited January 27, 2009 by moltar

[Croc]

Back on topic: we need ONE fair federal standard. If California is to rule for the entire country on this weighty issue (which I find ridiculous that one state hold so much power), then the CARB standard should be a 50-state standard. It makes no sense otherwise.

How does CA hold "so much power" and "rule for the entire country"? This is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts here.

Fact: CA has been able to regulate tougher emissions for 30+ years.

Fact: CARB (California Air Resource Board) has developed their own, tougher standard.

Fact: 14 other states want to adopt this standard.

Fact: the Obama administration has granted a waiver for these 15 states while scientists revisit these standards for possible inclusion in a revision of the federal regulations that Bush denied.

Fact: nothing is changing if you do not live in the states that are regulating emissions more stringently for now.

Fact: waivers are not permanent, and do not represent binding legislation.

Where's the disconnect here?

Edited January 27, 2009 by Croc