Automakers should just collectively say "Fuck You" to those states and only sell cars in other states. It's the people's own issue if they can't get the car they want because their government is retarded.
Maybe they will finally realize that you can't mandate things that cost big money, or may damn well be IMPOSSIBLE, without picking up the costs...
@tgpt: There are more than 5.2 million automobiles registered in Los Angeles County. Only seven states have more registered cars than does Los Angeles County: California (14.6 - not including L.A. County), Florida (8.9), Texas (7.7), New York (7.6), Ohio (6.7), Illinois (6.4), and Pennsylvania (6.2).
State rights, FTW! I despise CARB, but the fed shouldn't be able to outlaw laws that meet (exceed) their own (stated minimum) criteria.
As for the manufacturers, make the cars you want to build, and only sell them in the states that they are legal, and the California voters will eventually vote down stricter regulations, if they want the cars that don't meet the guidelines that CARB sets forth.
I don't live in CA, so I don't care. Yet. But, Michigan won't likely be the second or third state on the bandwagon.
No matter what, I'll just buy and drive cars that are grandfathered into lower regulations.
@discontinuuity: Yeah, but the technology is better than it was in the days of polyester leisure suits. Honda will just throw the problem at its engineers like it usually does. The other automakers should do the same.
@HurtsSoGood: But unlike Malaise Era I, where only certain engine and trans combos were banned from being sold in Cali, I think we're going to see entire model lines (read: SUVs) banned.
Hmmm...I wonder how the self-styled tree-huggers who wanted this to go through will greet the news that their taxpayer-funded Tahoe and Highlander leases will now have to go toward Cobalts and Yarises. Or when campaign contributions from groups like car dealers and people who actually need big vehicles for their businesses (remember those?) or their large families dry up.
Maybe then our so-called leaders will realize that outside the dreamworld they call home, every action - regardless of how good its intentions are - has consequences.
This is just going to turn the clock back to circa 1980 when there were 49-state cars and California cars. Too bad for the people and auto dealers in CA, because three things will happen;
a) Cars like Accord V6 or Charger V8 will have a hefty surcharge added to their prices - people will seek a way to get cars from AZ.
b) Base models tuned to score as high as possible on the EPA tests, i.e. VW entry level will be 1.6L motors. Overall vehicle prices rise to offset the cost of certify yet another powertrain package.
c) All cars will have an extra $500 slapped to their prices for the "CARB approved" stickers.
I'd rather see gas tax increases than this, because this will not give any incentives for better mileage in any way, just punishes the consumers and manufacturers.
@TurboBrick: I'd like to see you try buying a new car in Arizona and registering it in California. Sacramento might be dysfunctional as all Hell, but I bet they see people like you coming a mile away.
Its amusing how conservative repubs yammer on about "states rights" when it comes to certain topics that they support but balk at states rights when they want to do something like (God forbid) give us clean air to breath.
So basically, California is trying it's best to kill the internal combustion engine, with new higher standards it'll kill commerce in the state because nobody will want to operate in it.
I'm all for reduced emissions and more fuel efficient vehicles, heck, I live in the valley that holds knoxville TN, and it's one of the most polluted areas east of the mississippi because an enormous amount of truck traffic comes through here and turns the skies brown in summer.
Having one state dictate the automotive policy of a nation, where it could have no direct plausibility or purpose in states like Montana, Alaska or Texas is simply bad government, yes, CARB and CAFE are not good standards and have been bought and sold by the Big 3 since it's inception, but I refuse to submit to the tyranny of a bunch of wackos on the west coast who can't even straighten out their own state government and elect a man whose lines he is famous for are "Arrrgghhh!", "Get to the choppa!" and "Hasta La Vista Baby"
@2wheelsor4: More Boxer Twin Deliciousness!: Then you run for governor of California. The problems Gov. Schwarzenegger face have been around since he was Mr. Universe. If he manages to resolve even a tenth of them during his term in office, I would consider him a successful governor. Heck, not making it worse would still make him one of the better ones in recent history.
Patchwork quilt of regulations? Boutique gasoline blends? More right-wing hogwash!
What will likely happen is there will be a single line of cars designed to either meet the aggregate of these regulations, or we will have the return of the phrase "California emissions" to our lexicon. All this talk about "patchwork" and such is just more fearmongering from the Bush-era dead-enders.
The problem is that cars use too much of a finite resource over which we have scant control, and they pollute the air. Do you have a solution for these problems, or are you only in the business of shooting down the efforts of others? I would love to hear your suggestions, if you have any.
Um, we do already have a patchwork of boutique gasoline blends. Each state requires their own blend of gas which results in too many refineries and added cost of fuel, not to mention hightened sensitivity to natural disasters.
I am not in the business of simply shooting down others ideas, however. I know a solution that could be implemented today that would reduce automotive emissions more than every other proposal combined. Its called telecommuting. There is no reason to go into an office if you work a desk job. How about we harness the powers of the internet and work from home.
@piththeelder: Do you work for the oil industry? I don't, but I understand the idea that a single standard can be developed to cope with several various state regulations. Don't you think the oil industry understands this? Surely it would be cheaper for them to develop a smaller set of gasoline blends that, while they exceed the requirements of some states, might meet enough of them that they become a more "omnibus" standard.
Furthermore, the idea of producing different formulations of gasoline far predates the EPA. For example, you will find that the blend is different in, say, Colorado, than it is in Oklahoma due to local climate and terrain. They've been doing this since at least the Eisenhower administration.
Finally, I thought the point of this thread wasn't about telecommuting, it was about getting from point A (wherever that may be) to point B (wherever that may be) in a more efficient and Earth-friendly manner. While not driving your car at all may certainly be an option (for some), you will still eventually be getting in your car to do all the other things you need it for, such as grocery shopping or that trip to the mountains next weekend.
I don't think this will be that big of a deal for car companies. Just do a blanket design for emissions-one that is designed to meet at least CA standards. As long as it meets those (and the other states are at or below CA's threshold), then what passes in CA passes everywhere else.
@SRekauqh: Yeah, but California is not known for consistency...or reality. They've come up with some of the most onerous automotive standards (in terms of emissions and production) ever implemented. It'd be easier and more intelligent for car manufacturers to simply take a pass.
What SHOULD be happening is the US should be aligning its emissions and safety standards with the EU, so that manufacturers can certify their vehicles across the board and benefit from scale of production.
So can Montana now set emissions rules saying "well.. the 60's were good for cars.. we want big blocks back in family sedans, and no cats, and everything can run on AV gas" and it's good?
Because I'd vote for that.. all this CO2 shit is a scam.
@TexanIdiot25 IS FINISHING HIS GOD DAMN TRUCK: I agree. I don't give a damn if California or some other state votes to increase emissions standards; that's a state's rights issue. I DO have a problem with fuel economy standards forcing a free market. If the government wants more fuel efficient cars, just tax the hell out of fuel.
@TexanIdiot25 IS FINISHING HIS GOD DAMN TRUCK: A free-market system doesn't effectively address issues like pollution. If it were truly free-market and the EPA didn't mandate any sort of emissions requirements, then the exhaust of your car would be spitting out some heinous chemicals and you'd likely need a respirator to walk around outside in any large city.
@elwood: I think he's saying (and I agree with him) that mandating fuel mileage requirements is harmful to a free market, NOT that he (nor I) necessarily has any problem with emissions requirements.
@discontinuuity: Yes, the sensible calmed down way of saying what I said early in the morning, rising to the streets...
@ppiddy: There is a difference between sensible control, and rediculouse* control. Our current situation is an incredibly redicoulse* amount of control. While, yay, good for the environment is all fine and dandy, the forceful way of going about it along with the anti-suv-Prius-nazi attitude is beyond silly. Punishing automakers and forcing them into this "Green" mold in a short amount of time has been the final stab in the liver to the US Automakers.
If America wanted the green cars so bad, they'd have bought the green cars. But until the over priced gas era, and the too-soon CAFE regs, it was fairly obvious everybody wanted to own big SUVs.
And I have yet to touch the global warming excuse in it all.
@TexanIdiot25 IS FINISHING HIS GOD DAMN TRUCK: I'm mainly annoyed because every time I have to look at my '69 CST10 that's literally days from being ready for the road, I have to wonder and pray how long I've got to drive it.
This is a nightmare waiting to happen. The tooling costs alone for automakers would be disastrous at a time such as this. Imagine have to make 6 or 7 different models of the same car (I know they already do, but they are beginning to stop that), just to be compliant in various states.
Federal laws should govern emissions standards, but state's rights are an integral part of our Constitution.
@leavethegun-takethecannoli: Agreed. Could not have possibly come at a worse time. I think Obama's over-zealous in trying to show he's environmentally friendly, and making a big mistake.
This is a bizarre mix of state's rights vs. federal government and executive branch power vs. the legislature.
I generally am a federalist in that I believe the federal government has limited power as described in the Constitution and the remaining power is left to the states and the people. Therefore, I do think that the states should be allowed to set their own policies regarding most things. If a manufacturer of goods has to incur extra cost to sell those goods in a particular state he can either not sell his product in that state, charge the people in that state more or spread the cost around to everyone.
What is interesting, though, is the People's Republic of California is a huge car market, and it is unlikely the carmakers will stop altogether selling cars in the PRC. So that leaves either jacking up the price of cars in California (remember the California Emissions checkbox on the order form) or jacking up the cost of the car across the country. Obviously, the former is more "fair" than the latter, but then the whining leftists in California will probably write a law that carmakers can't increase their prices in California over other states and screw everyone.
@mechimike: Yeah, I grew up in California. It is a testament to my parents that I turned out the way I did and I'm not a raving loon. I heart you back!
01/26/09
01/26/09
Maybe they will finally realize that you can't mandate things that cost big money, or may damn well be IMPOSSIBLE, without picking up the costs...
01/26/09
I'm sure the automakers will jump at the opportunity to give up an additional 26% of their sales.
01/26/09
01/26/09
As for the manufacturers, make the cars you want to build, and only sell them in the states that they are legal, and the California voters will eventually vote down stricter regulations, if they want the cars that don't meet the guidelines that CARB sets forth.
I don't live in CA, so I don't care. Yet. But, Michigan won't likely be the second or third state on the bandwagon.
No matter what, I'll just buy and drive cars that are grandfathered into lower regulations.
01/26/09
01/26/09
01/26/09
Hmmm...I wonder how the self-styled tree-huggers who wanted this to go through will greet the news that their taxpayer-funded Tahoe and Highlander leases will now have to go toward Cobalts and Yarises. Or when campaign contributions from groups like car dealers and people who actually need big vehicles for their businesses (remember those?) or their large families dry up.
Maybe then our so-called leaders will realize that outside the dreamworld they call home, every action - regardless of how good its intentions are - has consequences.
01/26/09
a) Cars like Accord V6 or Charger V8 will have a hefty surcharge added to their prices - people will seek a way to get cars from AZ.
b) Base models tuned to score as high as possible on the EPA tests, i.e. VW entry level will be 1.6L motors. Overall vehicle prices rise to offset the cost of certify yet another powertrain package.
c) All cars will have an extra $500 slapped to their prices for the "CARB approved" stickers.
I'd rather see gas tax increases than this, because this will not give any incentives for better mileage in any way, just punishes the consumers and manufacturers.
01/26/09
01/26/09
01/26/09
01/26/09
I'm all for reduced emissions and more fuel efficient vehicles, heck, I live in the valley that holds knoxville TN, and it's one of the most polluted areas east of the mississippi because an enormous amount of truck traffic comes through here and turns the skies brown in summer.
Having one state dictate the automotive policy of a nation, where it could have no direct plausibility or purpose in states like Montana, Alaska or Texas is simply bad government, yes, CARB and CAFE are not good standards and have been bought and sold by the Big 3 since it's inception, but I refuse to submit to the tyranny of a bunch of wackos on the west coast who can't even straighten out their own state government and elect a man whose lines he is famous for are "Arrrgghhh!", "Get to the choppa!" and "Hasta La Vista Baby"
I just want my Euro-Diesels, that's all..
01/26/09
01/26/09
01/26/09
What will likely happen is there will be a single line of cars designed to either meet the aggregate of these regulations, or we will have the return of the phrase "California emissions" to our lexicon. All this talk about "patchwork" and such is just more fearmongering from the Bush-era dead-enders.
The problem is that cars use too much of a finite resource over which we have scant control, and they pollute the air. Do you have a solution for these problems, or are you only in the business of shooting down the efforts of others? I would love to hear your suggestions, if you have any.
01/26/09
Um, we do already have a patchwork of boutique gasoline blends. Each state requires their own blend of gas which results in too many refineries and added cost of fuel, not to mention hightened sensitivity to natural disasters.
I am not in the business of simply shooting down others ideas, however. I know a solution that could be implemented today that would reduce automotive emissions more than every other proposal combined. Its called telecommuting. There is no reason to go into an office if you work a desk job. How about we harness the powers of the internet and work from home.
01/26/09
Furthermore, the idea of producing different formulations of gasoline far predates the EPA. For example, you will find that the blend is different in, say, Colorado, than it is in Oklahoma due to local climate and terrain. They've been doing this since at least the Eisenhower administration.
Finally, I thought the point of this thread wasn't about telecommuting, it was about getting from point A (wherever that may be) to point B (wherever that may be) in a more efficient and Earth-friendly manner. While not driving your car at all may certainly be an option (for some), you will still eventually be getting in your car to do all the other things you need it for, such as grocery shopping or that trip to the mountains next weekend.
01/26/09
01/26/09
01/26/09
What SHOULD be happening is the US should be aligning its emissions and safety standards with the EU, so that manufacturers can certify their vehicles across the board and benefit from scale of production.
01/26/09
01/26/09
Because I'd vote for that.. all this CO2 shit is a scam.
01/26/09
My god, if the world wants fuel efficient cars, they'd buy them. Forcing automakers into it obviously have caused a tiff in the system.
Forcing the market to move towards a point in a limited amount of time has done us NO good. Do we have a cheap hybrid yet? Will we?
Tahoe Hybrid costs 50-60k. Amazing what happens when the product goes out way too soon.
01/26/09
01/26/09
01/26/09
01/26/09
@ppiddy: There is a difference between sensible control, and rediculouse* control. Our current situation is an incredibly redicoulse* amount of control. While, yay, good for the environment is all fine and dandy, the forceful way of going about it along with the anti-suv-Prius-nazi attitude is beyond silly. Punishing automakers and forcing them into this "Green" mold in a short amount of time has been the final stab in the liver to the US Automakers.
If America wanted the green cars so bad, they'd have bought the green cars. But until the over priced gas era, and the too-soon CAFE regs, it was fairly obvious everybody wanted to own big SUVs.
And I have yet to touch the global warming excuse in it all.
01/26/09
01/26/09
Lots of automobile in my blood...
01/26/09
Federal laws should govern emissions standards, but state's rights are an integral part of our Constitution.
01/26/09
01/26/09
I generally am a federalist in that I believe the federal government has limited power as described in the Constitution and the remaining power is left to the states and the people. Therefore, I do think that the states should be allowed to set their own policies regarding most things. If a manufacturer of goods has to incur extra cost to sell those goods in a particular state he can either not sell his product in that state, charge the people in that state more or spread the cost around to everyone.
What is interesting, though, is the People's Republic of California is a huge car market, and it is unlikely the carmakers will stop altogether selling cars in the PRC. So that leaves either jacking up the price of cars in California (remember the California Emissions checkbox on the order form) or jacking up the cost of the car across the country. Obviously, the former is more "fair" than the latter, but then the whining leftists in California will probably write a law that carmakers can't increase their prices in California over other states and screw everyone.
01/26/09
01/26/09