EPA to CA "FOAD"

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by HatterDon, Dec 20, 2007.

  1. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    Well, for those of us who were caught off guard by yesterday's rerun of Nixon's 1975 mandated EPA automobile mileage standards -- you know, the ones that were to have been in place by 1990 -- here's a little link to let you know just WHY the administration suddenly got religion in Bali and at home.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1221/p01s01-wogi.html

    In setting a new national record for partisan cynicism, the president dusted off Nixon's old standards and mandated them for adoption by 2025. Yes, something that's been possible in the US since 1980 -- an average MPG of 35 for all autos sold here -- is back on our national priority list FOR 2025. This came hard on the heels of the administration's 180 degree shift on worldwide carbon emissions in Bali last week. Some of us, including me, were caught off guard.

    After reading this article, I now understand that the ONLY reason the president renewed the standards was to frustrate the efforts of several states -- most notably CA -- to mandate their own environmental standards. Today the EPA says, we won't allow yours; the standards announced yesterday will be sufficient. What crap. What insupportable, infuriating, cynical crap.

    This administration is no longer even going through the motions of pretending that what they're doing is for the benefit of the nation at large. Faced with this miniscule threat to the auto and oil industries, the president has continued the pretense that American industry is incapable of doing what Europe has done pretty much since the late 1970s. And if, in the process, they stick it up the ass of federalism -- something "conservatives" are supposed to hold dear, then so be it.

    Let's hope I'm not undermining the morale of the troops or emboldening the terrorists when I say this, but this is just too much. The individual states are trying to take action in the face of a generation of inaction, and the larger government is stopping them. And, more specifically, the administration's war on California -- which began with Enron's "rolling blackouts" in the summer of 2001 [thanks to the vice president's "secret" energy policy] and continued with federal attacks on medicinal MJ and other state initiatives -- continues.

    The interesting thing in all this, is that I'm sure that this is not nearly as low as the administration is prepared to go to keep their rich buddies rich. The "best" is yet to come.

    Come on all you "conservatives" on the site, tell me how local and state governments can't be trusted, and how only big deficit-spending nanny national government cares about us all. :x Oh, and then tell me that it would be worse under Hillary. :roll:
     
    #1
    HatterDon, Dec 20, 2007
  2. jmh

    jmh New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2006
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Are we talking about actual 35 MPG or fake paper 35 MPG?
     
    #2
    jmh, Dec 20, 2007
  3. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    excellent question, Josh. Actually, the federal mandate means nothing since it's been mandated and vacated several times over. That's why taking it out of the hands of the states where there's real interest in enforcement is such a mess. One state can make a difference. We have unleaded fuel today because CA mandated it and catalytic converters, and the car companies couldn't live without CA sales.
     
    #3
    HatterDon, Dec 20, 2007
  4. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    I'm busy running around doing last minute prep for the holidays.. and dont have time to strip away the silly aspects of this diatribe. But I'll get ot it eventually.

    Key Points will be:
    All due respect and hat tip to California Air Research Board -CARB- for their work in the past.

    Allowing individual states to set standards would only create chaos. California was doable... as a test market.

    Yet another attempt to govern by restriction rather than promotion and advancement.

    Technololgy advances already in works building on hybrid tech in use and advanced battery science will make it moot.
     
    #4
    pettyfog, Dec 21, 2007
  5. Smokin'

    Smokin' Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Location:
    Machu Picchu
    I'm a big enviroment guy... not that i don't drink out of styrofoam every once in a while, but rather I support any attempt to TRULY try a new market, or to force the old market to adhere to enviromental standards that are appropriate.

    I use the work appropriate because I'm not completely sold on global warming, but I am completely sold on our INDUSTRIAL foot print, carbon emmisions aside.

    I have a few comments, and they are not directed soley at Petty, but I will quote him to rebutt that view:

    I almost agree... but.... just almost... it would create chaos, but what chaos does is RESET the market, at this point, if special interests cant get thier grubby hands out of market manipulation, I invite Chaos. (Petty: I thought you were a conservative, Rep.?, War on terror aside, small local government is part of your platform, no? )

    AGain... I almost agree.... but this goes with my other response... we've tried the other route and it is simply scofffed at... lobbyists in my mind have had their day.... now let the DOERs try... even if they fail becuase its no worse than what we've done so far.


    We've killed the electric car 3 times... other technologies are coming about, but we've had even this tech for years.... and years.... its no secret that special interest does not want this to be part of the market... sure they make cars and they are OK, but no popular... I wonder why... they aren't trying to appeal to anyone and they are so damn ugly...

    Eventually it wont matter... the market will decide whether forced too or not.

    As for Hillary, nope it wont be worse.... it will stay the same... she's got many pockets filled with many hands too....
     
    #5
    Smokin', Dec 21, 2007
  6. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    In the end, that's exactly the point. Outlawing the Mustang Cobra wont solve anything.

    Like Kyoto and Bali... grandstanding 'political crap' only hurts a segment, while distorting the real market.
    If I had time, I'd point out that the next generation Lithium Ion battery has been developed in the lab {It's a SiLi - Ion, heh! }and it will be ten times more efficient than current batteries.

    And in the case on the Mustang, a producable 'green' concept car has already been built that beats the hell out of everything but a Maserati.
    Let's just let the markets decide.
     
    #6
    pettyfog, Dec 21, 2007
  7. Clevelandmo

    Clevelandmo Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    CAFE standards are a mess and that is why there's been so little movement on them. It's not a democrat/republican issue. Year after year it's been a republican in congress who has advocated for stricker CAFE standards. Its always the big automakers, their congressman, and consumer advocate groups who keep the standards down. The consumer advocates dont want to go the way of Europe in terms of achieving higher mileage by making cars smaller and lighter because they say it will result in more auto accident deaths.

    When it comes to green house gas emissions from cars in this country, the biggest culprit is the light truck/mini van/SUV category. Through a loophole these vehicles dont have to meet the fuel efficiency requirements and, more importantly, the emission requirements that regular cars do. The increase in green house gas emissions over the last 20 years has a lot to do with the popularity of SUVs and minivans since the 1980s. Dems and Repubs alike are guilty on this one, and it's the environment hating Bush who asked congress to eliminate the loophole.

    I think the EPA is right and wrong on this one. Right, in that several states besides CA were talking about increasing emission standards at the same time the federal government is increasing CAFE standards. This would cause automakers to meet both requirements in these states. Double the burden for the same intended purpose. I see nothing wrong with the EPA/Fed. government wanting to simplify it for the automakers.

    However, I think the federal government is wrong in that CA and the other states' choice to control green house gases via tailpipe emissions makes much more sense. You eliminate consumer advocate groups as an adversary and you have more guarantee that a reduction in greenhouse gases will occer. Increasing auto fuel efficiency may just result in more driving, essentially canceling out some of the benefit. It's not much different than lowering the price of gas.
     
    #7
    Clevelandmo, Dec 21, 2007

Share This Page