Jalopnik 
Enter your username and password.
Detroit, 10:29 PM
Fri Nov 20
28 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jalopnik.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Ray Wert | Email | AIM
Road Test Editor:
Wes Siler | Email
Weekend Editor:
Murilee Martin | Email
Associate Editor - Houston:
Matt Hardigree
Associate Editor - Detroit:
Ben Wojdyla
Editor-at-Large:
Mike Spinelli
Contributors:
Mark Arnold
John Krewson | Email
Andy Didorosi
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
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