Bad move Obama... very bad.

[Payman]

Obama to let states set tough car emission standards
Updated Sun. Jan. 25 2009 11:07 PM ET

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- U.S. President Barack Obama is poised to let California and other states control their own car tailpipe emissions.

An official familiar with Obama's decision said the president will reveal the policy Monday.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision has not been publicly announced.

California and at least 13 other states want waivers from the federal Clean Air Act so that they can impose stiffer air pollution standards than the federal government.

The previous administration of George W. Bush denied the states that permission.

Obama's move would empower the Environmental Protection Agency to reverse that conclusion.

No no no no no! Stupid stupid stoopid!!! There's going to be dozens of separate standards and new cars will have to conform to whichever state has the strictest ones! 

[ifcar]

Not really. Either they'd follow the strictest, or they just wouldn't be sold in some states.

[r0tor]

we deserve all the stupidity we get... thank you dumbass america

[omicron]

This situation occurred here in the late '70s/early '80s when New South Wales emissions regulations were more strict than all other mainland Australian states. NSW cars were sold in a slightly different tune - less power, higher fuel consumption, reduced exhaust emissions, and higher prices. It didn't last long - six years, perhaps? Maybe even less.

[r0tor]

so now automakers may need to study and conform to 14 different emmissions regulations to sell cars in all 50 states - all of which may be different and or conflicting

just f'in brilliant

[Morris Minor]

This situation occurred here in the late '70s/early '80s when New South Wales emissions regulations were more strict than all other mainland Australian states. NSW cars were sold in a slightly different tune - less power, higher fuel consumption, reduced exhaust emissions, and higher prices. It didn't last long - six years, perhaps? Maybe even less.

The American government is too stupid to check whether policies have succeeded or failed in other countries. They could not find Australia on the map.

[giant_mtb]

This is bull shit.  Fuck you, Obama.  This is why we can't have these environmentalist crackjobs making decisions like this.   MORE MPGs, FEWER EMISSIONS, NOW! 

Good luck, Big 3.

[ifcar]

I thought states' rights was a longstanding conservative position? Or is that states should only have the right to make decisions you agree with?

[Morris Minor]

I thought states' rights was a longstanding conservative position? Or is that states should only have the right to make decisions you agree with?

One of the functions of the Fed is to promote interstate commerce. It's not too difficult to understand that commonality of basic standards is one of the most fundamental requirements of a market economy. That's why the toaster you buy in Florida will work if you plug it in in Alaska. That is one of the basic goals of the European Union - to provide a common market.

[the Teuton]

So we're giving the automakers a bunch of new money just to taketh away in R&D because he wants America to be stricter than the Kyoto Treaty?

What bullshit.

[sportyaccordy]

It's gonna backfire so hard. Automakers are already facing the barrel of the economy's revolver; this added & unnecessary pressure & bureaucracy will only be more bullets in the barrel...

There are some things that are good to be managed by state... freaking auto emissions is not one of them. 

[SVT666]

Motor Trend's Editorial this month is about how the opposite is what needs to happen.  One common standard across the board.  No more of this California Emissions crap.  I can't believe that a government is moving towards Carbon Emissions standards when the public's belief in Man-made Global Warming is dropping like rock to the bottom of the ocean, and more and more scientists around the world are changing their opinions on the whole issue and are calling it junk science. 

This is gonna kill car companies, not just the Big 3.

[r0tor]

Autoweek had an editorial in the last issue of all the crackpot ideas floating around in Obama's administration that would effect the auto industry and every enthusiast should fear... this was 1 of like 10 completely dumbass ideas

[Secret Chimp]

Motor Trend's Editorial this month is about how the opposite is what needs to happen.  One common standard across the board.  No more of this California Emissions crap.  I can't believe that a government is moving towards Carbon Emissions standards when the public's belief in Man-made Global Warming is dropping like rock to the bottom of the ocean, and more and more scientists around the world are changing their opinions on the whole issue and are calling it junk science. 

This is gonna kill car companies, not just the Big 3.

The EU has been setting carbon emissions standards for a several years now. Pick up a copy of CAR magazine, it's referenced constantly in the articles and the ads. Nobody complains about it.

[SVT666]

The EU has been setting carbon emissions standards for a several years now. Pick up a copy of CAR magazine, it's referenced constantly in the articles and the ads. Nobody complains about it.

They will when the whole thing is finally exposed for what it really is.  Motor Trend does the same thing in there Specifications section.

[the Teuton]

Plus, that's the whole EU.  This is a situation with just 13 holier than thou states.

[Morris Minor]

This is what happens to people who elect socialists; they get the government they deserve.

[Tave]

I thought states' rights was a longstanding conservative position? Or is that states should only have the right to make decisions you agree with?

I suggest you read Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution.

[Eye of the Tiger]

So, will this will be like the 1970's all over again, and cars will run like shit for another 20 years until the technology can catch up? Are we in the 60's right now, where the power and performance of cars has peaked and won't get better again for a long time? If nothing else, this may put a permanent end to the trend of driving around in giant truck wagons for no reason other than to look like a cowboy, and "just in case" one has to take eight passengers up through a mountain pass in ten feet of snow uphill both ways, and I won't argue with that too much.

[Byteme]

Obama to let states set tough car emission standards
Updated Sun. Jan. 25 2009 11:07 PM ET

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- U.S. President Barack Obama is poised to let California and other states control their own car tailpipe emissions.

An official familiar with Obama's decision said the president will reveal the policy Monday.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision has not been publicly announced.

California and at least 13 other states want waivers from the federal Clean Air Act so that they can impose stiffer air pollution standards than the federal government.

The previous administration of George W. Bush denied the states that permission.

Obama's move would empower the Environmental Protection Agency to reverse that conclusion.

No no no no no! Stupid stupid stoopid!!! There's going to be dozens of separate standards and new cars will have to conform to whichever state has the strictest ones! 

Ok, lets consider some facts.

1.  The 13 other states are siding with and would adopt the California plan so in reality there would be just two standards, California and the rest of the country.  That makes it a bit more managable.

And if it can be proven to meet the California standard, why not use that standard for the rest of the country?

2.  This would affect model year 2011 cars at the earliest and would simply cause the 2020 emissions and fuel economy standards to be in force by 2016.  That in itself is not a bad thing.

3.  This doesn't just affect the US manufacturers, the foreign manufacturers would have to meet the same standards.

4.  The auto industry has a long history of complaining that they could not meet this or that standard, and in the end they always managed to meet it or convince the rules makers it was impossible and got the requirement watered down to what could be met.  Why would any of you think this will be any different?

5.  California has had different more stringent emissions standards off and on for years.  This is not something new.

6.  Overall this would be good for consumers.  Less emissions, better fuel economy.  

[ifcar]

6.  Overall this would be good for consumers.  Less emissions, better fuel economy.  

Well, not exactly. It just means that consumers won't be able to buy some of the cars they might have wanted to. The fuel-efficient alternatives have always existed, and the only short-term way to drastically boost fleet mpg average is to cut back on the low-mileage vehicles further than consumers would be willing to.

[TBR]

6.  Overall this would be good for consumers.  Less emissions, better fuel economy.  

Wrong. If consumer really wanted cars with really good fuel economy with low emissions they would already exist.

[Byteme]

Well, not exactly. It just means that consumers won't be able to buy some of the cars they might have wanted to. The fuel-efficient alternatives have always existed, and the only short-term way to drastically boost fleet mpg average is to cut back on the low-mileage vehicles further than consumers would be willing to.

Maybe, but as Nacar pointed out it might not really be all that bad for someone who drives an expedition or surbuban 30 miles one way to work alone to rethink their decision.

Asn an alternative I'd like to see a tiered gasoline tax that charges gas guzzlers more per gallon but that would be impossible to implement and police.  If no one likes that I can think up some other draconian tax schemes.  

[Byteme]

Wrong. If consumer really wanted cars with really good fuel economy with low emissions they would already exist.

Not picking on you for that but I love that reasoning.  It iimplies consumers always choose what's in their best interest, but in the political threads consumer (voters) don't know squat.

[Tave]

The point is, if Congress wants it to happen, then they should make it happen. They shouldn't leave the decision up to each individual state.

[ifcar]

Asn an alternative I'd like to see a tiered gasoline tax that charges gas guzzlers more per gallon but that would be impossible to implement and police.  If no one likes that I can think up some other draconian tax schemes.  

A slightly more appealing alternative would be tax deductions based on a car's gas mileage, rather than just based on whether it's a hybrid. I think it's generally easier for everyone to swallow the idea of a gift than a punishment.

[the Teuton]

Bye bye Zonda, Koenigsegg, and every other manufacturer that could only dream of making these standards.  Over in Europe, they're taxed by emissions.  We're not.  This is basically saying to me that these will be mandated across the board here, so it looks like those 13 states won't be getting the cool cars for a few years.

[FoMoJo]

At least Arnold's happy .

...from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/25/MNMF15GTPU.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1

01-26) 04:00 PST Washington --

President Obama, in his first major environmental act since taking office, will order the Environmental Protection Agency today to move swiftly on a request by California and other states to set the nation's toughest vehicle emissions standards.

Obama plans to make the announcement at a White House ceremony, according to congressional sources briefed on the plan. The move signals a sharp break with the Bush administration, which rejected California's request to enforce its rules limiting greenhouse gases from cars and trucks.

While Obama's order only requires the EPA to reconsider California's request, all sides expect the agency will approve it. His new EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, must finish a formal review before making the decision, but environmentalists were already cheering the likely outcome.

"These are monumental decisions that will have an immediate impact in reducing global warming pollution in the United States," said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Just days into office, President Obama is showing America and the world that he will lead our country in a bold new direction to protect the environment and fight global warming."

Obama's presidential directive could ultimately transform the entire U.S. auto fleet. If the EPA approves California's request for a waiver to enforce its rules, any state can opt for either the federal or the state's emissions standards. Thirteen states have adopted California's rules, covering about half the nation's population, and a half-dozen more, including Florida, are considering doing so. Automakers probably would be forced to sell more fuel efficient cars and trucks in every showroom nationwide.

California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and has lobbied Obama to approve the state's request, called his expected announcement "more than welcome news."

"An immediate EPA review of the waiver decision shows respect for California and the 18 other states ... who are waiting for the green light to address global warming pollution from motor vehicles," Boxer said. "When the waiver is signed, it will be a signal to Detroit that a huge market awaits them if they do the right thing and produce the cleanest, most efficient vehicles possible."

The auto industry opposes California's rules and has fought a long-running legal battle to block the standards. Automakers have warned of the perils of creating a patchwork of vehicle emissions rules and have lobbied Congress instead for a single national standard.

California's rules would require vehicles to reduce their greenhouse gases by 30 percent by 2016. The transportation sector is the single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the state, at about 38 percent of total emissions.

The state's regulations are much more stringent than even the higher fuel economy standards passed by Congress and signed by Bush in 2007, which requires vehicles to reach an average fuel economy of 31.5 miles per gallon by 2015. The state's rules require automakers to meet a fleetwide average of 36 miles per gallon by 2016.

Obama's directive is also expected to force the Transportation Department to complete interim fuel economy standards to implement the 2007 law, which the Bush administration chose not to do. The goal is to speed the shift to more efficient vehicles, and the new rules would be issued by March so automakers would have time to update their fleet for the 2011 model year.

The East Room announcement is expected to be attended by Jackson, top EPA and Transportation Department officials and environmentalists, among others, Capitol Hill sources said.

Obama's decision is a victory for California leaders, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols, who wrote letters last week urging the president to take action. Schwarzenegger's spokesman, Aaron McLear, said Sunday night that the governor was "withholding comment until the president has something to say."

California's landmark law limiting greenhouse gas emissions was written by former Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills (Los Angeles County) and passed by the Legislature and signed by then-Gov. Gray Davis in 2002. It was supposed to go into effect starting in the 2009 model year. One thorny issue the EPA may decide is in which model year California's rules would now take effect to give automakers enough time to transition.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, who was in the Assembly when the law was passed, said Obama's announcement "represents the beginning of a very different and much more positive relationship between California and the federal government."

"California did not get a whole lot of attention in the past eight years," Steinberg said. "This is an important signal that things will be different."

Derek Walker, director of the California Climate Initiative for the Environmental Defense Fund, said Obama's move also suggests that the new president rejected the automakers' assertions that California's rules would hurt the industry and the economy.

"This is a tremendous out-of-the-gate move by the new president and shows that he is taking a fresh look at environmental and energy policy from the perspective of sound science," Walker said. "It also shows that he understands the strong nexus between economic stimulus and environmental protection."

[SVT666]

Maybe, but as Nacar pointed out it might not really be all that bad for someone who drives an expedition or surbuban 30 miles one way to work alone to rethink their decision.

Asn an alternative I'd like to see a tiered gasoline tax that charges gas guzzlers more per gallon but that would be impossible to implement and police.  If no one likes that I can think up some other draconian tax schemes.  

The Suburban driver already pays more.  Not per gallon, but for a tank.  A Suburban costs, for arguments sake, $100 to fill from empty, whereas a Civic costs $25, and they both have to fill their tanks after the same distance travelled.  People seem to forget that gas already costs the Suburban driver more.

[TBR]

Not picking on you for that but I love that reasoning.  It iimplies consumers always choose what's in their best interest, but in the political threads consumer (voters) don't know squat.

Wrong again, consumer choose what they want, though it often isn't in their best interest.