Trump to freeze emissions reductions, end California waiver

What's happening in your world? Discuss it here.
Forum rules
Play nice. We will be watching

Trump to freeze emissions reductions, end California waiver

Postby cmsellers » Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:25 am

I discovered this story on the post history of a writer who is annoying even by Vox standards, and even though that particular article seemed fairly reasonable, the writer does not, and it is Vox, and I am sick and tired, so first link is to Bloomberg. I think that this deserves its own thread.

Trump is looking to freeze the emissions standards which were supposed to take vehicles to 50 MPG by 2025. This is bad, but not very remarkable. Any GOP president today would do the same. What is remarkable is that he is looking at repealing a waiver granted to California to set its own admissions standards (which other states are allowed to adhere to), which goes back 48 years, surviving both Reagan and W.

Now, I am not a huge fan of federalism. Basically I believe that the federal government should guarantee the civil rights of citizens nationwide, while economic regulations should be minimal. However, we have a lot of regulations I think are unnecessary (somehow, those are never the ones Republicans get in their sights), and they always set a floor for regulations. So I have become a fan of preemption, which also sets a ceiling on regulations and also makes regulations more consistent across states.

Likewise, I am not thrilled with the exemption California has, because in my perfect world, we would have a carbon tax which takes the cost of pollution into account and lets people and manufacturers make their own decisions about whether the costs are worthwhile. However this is not my ideal world, and most GOP lawmakers have a weird fetish around business and are dead set against ever making businesses bay for externalities of any sort. So emissions regulations are the next-best thing.

California alone would be the fifth-largest economy, it is the only state allowed to set its own emissions regulations, however other states can and do adhere to the regulations California sets, and thirteen of them have. So you basically have two standards: Red America Standards and Blue America standards. This is not going to lead to fragmentation in the same way as Vermont setting food labeling standards would. And while California has passed some really stupid laws (and Vermont wanting to mandate labeling GMOs was also fucking stupid), its emission standards not among them; they are both achievable and reasonable.

I mean, really all that I needed to say was that Trump is giving people a license to pollute and fucking with California just because. But given that I am probably more sympathetic to the viewpoint espoused by groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute than many people here, I wanted to explain why I still think that they are dangerously wrong.

TL;DR: Trump is going everything in his power to increase pollution and in the process is repealing a waiver for California to set its own emissions regulations that survived Reagan and W. I am generally supportive of federal pre-emption of state regulations and even I think this is stupid and dangerous.
  • 5

User avatar
cmsellers
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9316
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:20 pm
Location: Not *that* Bay Area
Show rep
Title: Broken Record Player

Re: Trump to freeze emissions reductions, end California wai

Postby Windy » Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:56 am

Well they already have the license to spread HIV so I don't see how this can possibly make things worse.
  • 0

User avatar
Windy
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3127
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 11:41 am
Show rep

Re: Trump to freeze emissions reductions, end California wai

Postby Crimson847 » Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:32 pm

I'm intrigued by federalism as a possible option for mitigating the dysfunction of our national politics, and allowing broader policy experimentation. Unfortunately, federalism has the same status in Washington as sound budgeting--eternally championed by the opposition party, and then forgotten once they have the votes to do something about it.
  • 5

"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; but the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
User avatar
Crimson847
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:18 am
Show rep

Re: Trump to freeze emissions reductions, end California wai

Postby iMURDAu » Fri Aug 03, 2018 12:57 am

I think CAFE standards were kind of crazy but I wouldn't say stopping them while not putting another plan in place is the way to go.

States rights are very important until it's inconvenient, as always. :roll:
  • 5

“This is going to become a bad meme,” Todd observed.
User avatar
iMURDAu
TCS Chomper
TCS Chomper
 
Posts: 6752
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:08 am
Location: twitch.tv/beakstore
Show rep
Title: King of Fuh

Re: Trump to freeze emissions reductions, end California wai

Postby blehblah » Sun Aug 05, 2018 4:00 pm

Let's not miss one of the administrations best arguments: safety! Yes, you read that right.

The EPA and NHTSA say that lowering these targets will save lives, and they provide a few potentially flawed reasons to support that claim in the proposal. First and foremost, they argue, “unreasonable fuel economy and CO2 Standards” lead to “increased vehicle prices [that] keep consumers in older, dirtier, and less safe vehicles.” The agencies then point to a February 2018 Kelley Blue Book analysis that shows the “average new vehicle transaction price” recently passed $36,000, which represents an increase of more than $3,000 since 2014. But they fail to note that Kelley Blue Book attributes this increase to the shift in consumer preference to (typically dirtier) trucks and SUVs, not as a result of compliance with strict emissions standards.

If new cars continue to get more expensive, the agencies’ argument continues, consumers are more likely to hold on to the older cars they already own or buy older used cars. And since overall vehicle safety typically increases with each model year, this means more people are likely to die if they are widely discouraged from buying new cars. Therefore, the EPA and NHTSA estimate that freezing the fuel efficiency standards at 2020 levels could lead to a $2,700 reduction in the upfront cost of a new car, and those savings could, in turn, prevent 12,700 deaths over the next 10 years.

In addition to this argument, the EPA and NHTSA say that dirtier cars will be safer than more fuel-efficient ones for two other reasons. More fuel-efficient cars could cause people to drive more, they say, which would, in turn, increase the number of accidents on the road. And since one way that automakers achieve greater fuel efficiency is to make cars lighter, the two agencies argue that drivers will be less vulnerable in heavier, dirtier cars.


Right, so because newer vehicles cost more, people don't upgrade (ignore what happens when a vehicle dies). Also, if everyone drove a Lambo, they'd drive a lot less, because V-12's have notoriously shitty mileage (and increasing taxes at the pump to achieve the same is crazy-talk). Also, efficiency achieved by making vehicles lighter costs lives, ya'll! The answer is brand-spanking new, cheap, inefficient, Yukon XL's for the masses, clearly. Nobody tell them that electric vehicles tend to weigh a shit-ton, you'll break their brains.

If that all sounds like a steaming pile of bullshit, it's because it is. Let's not forget this is the Environmental Protection Agency, which one would think might factor-in environmental factors like the costs (monetary and human) of climate change.... HAAAA, not this EPA, friends!

Automakers aren't exactly pleased as punch, either. As the article notes, there are bound to be lawsuits galore, which makes things rather uncertain for automakers. It doesn't bode well that this administration has practically made an art form of bungling executive orders and legislation.

Were I running a multinational car maker, I'd have my company continue doing exactly what they are doing. Not only is it far from certain that this will make it past the lawsuit brigade, but also consumers will, as they tend to do, want more efficient vehicles, especially if the price of oil increases. While the US is a huge market, there are many other markets which will continue to demand efficient vehicles. Tossing-out ongoing research in the area would make any car maker less competitive outside of the US.

In all of this bafflegab, does anybody have a clear idea about why this is being done; what's the motivation, here? I assume there's a certain amount of Obama-hate there, but also suspect the general idea is to remove protections on domestic oil production while simultaneously keeping demand high, presumably to make everyone great again.

There's a problem, though, which was recognized decades ago. Efficiency rules were the result of the oil crisis in the 1970's. The reaction was two-fold, require increased efficiency to control demand, and increase domestic production to decrease reliance on foreign oil. The first is generally a smart move, while the second had a problem.

Have a look at US oil production over the years:

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafH ... rfpus2&f=a

After production was ramped, there is a drop from about 1985 to 2008. The problem is, when you start using-up domestic oil, reliance on foreign oil is inevitable. The same was seen from 1959 to 1973 since there were import quotas on foreign oil, which critics called the "Drain America First" policy.

Advances in fracking and other technologies will allow the US to keep production high. The problem is when policy favours higher demand and use of domestic oil, the end-game (after a few decades) doesn't look promising. There are reasons why China is so aggressive in pursuing alternative energy and consumption models. They are looking out over a few decades and realizing that they don't want to shit-can their environment any more than they have to (because the costs, now apparently considered externalities in the US, are extreme), they want to be competitive in foreign markets (both on the cost of production of goods and on exporting alternative energy goods), and they don't want to be overly reliant on foreign sources of energy.

In other words, China recognizes that energy independence is not achievable, in the long term, by relying on non-renewable resources, on account of said resources not being, you know, renewable.

On the other hand, Trump is certainly focused on draining the 300 million year-old swamp.
  • 4

A quantum state of signature may or may not be here... you just ruined it.
User avatar
blehblah
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3895
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:16 pm
Show rep
Title: Error General, Panic Colonel

Re: Trump to freeze emissions reductions, end California wai

Postby iMURDAu » Sun Aug 05, 2018 7:36 pm

This leaves another entity, such as the EU for example, to set the standards for fuel efficiency that multinational car companies will end up following because they sell cars everywhere.

Why lead when you can follow.
  • 4

“This is going to become a bad meme,” Todd observed.
User avatar
iMURDAu
TCS Chomper
TCS Chomper
 
Posts: 6752
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:08 am
Location: twitch.tv/beakstore
Show rep
Title: King of Fuh

Re: Trump to freeze emissions reductions, end California wai

Postby NathanLoiselle » Mon Aug 06, 2018 1:02 am

Two things.

The EU regulations are already followed for any car sold in the EU. All North American cars produced follow California emissions legislation because it's cheaper to follow the strictest rules than have three or four different sets of rules for the "same" region.

This is actually one of the biggest reasons that entering the North American market from Asia or Europe is so hard. It's equally as hard to enter the Asian or European markets because of differing emissions and fuel economy regulations.
  • 5

User avatar
NathanLoiselle
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 4484
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:49 am
Location: You'll Never Know!
Show rep


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests

cron