Trump Will End California's Authority To Set Stricter Auto Emissions Rules (nytimes.com) 514
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: The Trump administration is expected on Wednesday to formally revoke California's legal authority to set tailpipe pollution rules that are stricter than federal rules, in a move designed by the White House to strike twin blows against both the liberal-leaning state that President Trump has long antagonized and the environmental legacy of President Barack Obama. The announcement that the White House will revoke one of California's signature environmental policies will come while Mr. Trump is traveling in the state, where he is scheduled to attend fund-raisers in Los Angeles and Silicon Valley. The formal revocation of California's authority to set its own rules on tailpipe pollution -- the United States' largest source of greenhouse emissions -- will be announced Wednesday afternoon at a private event at the Washington headquarters of the Environmental Protection Agency, according to two people familiar with the matter.
The move has been widely expected since last summer, when the Trump administration unveiled its draft plan to roll back the strict federal fuel economy standards put in place by the Obama administration. That draft Trump rule also included a plan to revoke a legal waiver, granted to the state of California under the 1970 Clean Air Act, allowing it to set tougher state-level standards than those put forth by the federal government. The revocation of the waiver would also affect 13 other states that follow California's clean air rules. In recent months, the administration's broader weakening of nationwide auto-emissions standards has become plagued with delays as staff members struggled to prepare adequate legal, technical or scientific justifications for the move. As a result, the White House decided to proceed with just one piece of its overall plan -- the move to strip California of its legal authority to set tougher standards -- while delaying the release of its broader rollback, according to these people. The plan comes less than a week after the Trump administration rescinded an Obama-era policy that expanded federal oversight and the threat of steep fines for polluting the country's smaller waterways.
The move has been widely expected since last summer, when the Trump administration unveiled its draft plan to roll back the strict federal fuel economy standards put in place by the Obama administration. That draft Trump rule also included a plan to revoke a legal waiver, granted to the state of California under the 1970 Clean Air Act, allowing it to set tougher state-level standards than those put forth by the federal government. The revocation of the waiver would also affect 13 other states that follow California's clean air rules. In recent months, the administration's broader weakening of nationwide auto-emissions standards has become plagued with delays as staff members struggled to prepare adequate legal, technical or scientific justifications for the move. As a result, the White House decided to proceed with just one piece of its overall plan -- the move to strip California of its legal authority to set tougher standards -- while delaying the release of its broader rollback, according to these people. The plan comes less than a week after the Trump administration rescinded an Obama-era policy that expanded federal oversight and the threat of steep fines for polluting the country's smaller waterways.
Turning America into... (Score:4, Insightful)
... just another shi*thole country.
All to satisfy the fossil fuel industry oligarchs. And his mouth-breathing cult members.
Re:Turning America into... (Score:4, Funny)
Trump: Oh, I can think of lots of ways to ruin the country. Many ways. The best ways. Many fine ways. Trust me. I promise. I've never seen a business I couldn't bankrupt. Believe me!
Re: (Score:3)
You know if he actually said that I would feel more reassured.
Re:Turning America into... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Turning America into... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the states are supposed to be more independent....with the exception of some few federal laws, due to commerce act.....
So, it should be one standard for all the states in this case, rather than giving CA special dispensation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Turning America into... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's nice that California cannot be independent enough to set ITS OWN standards.
Because other states might go along, or auto makers might go along.
And because states are supposed to be more independent.
So for all states to be more independent, it should be one standard imposed for all the states, rather than a different standard for all the states.
Some standards are more equal than others.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the problem with using a double-standard argument. A lot of time it's only relevant when both sides are using double standards. Those advocating states' rights are contradicting themselves by rescinding a state's rights. Those advocating less states' rights are contradicting themselves by giving an anointed state a right they deny others
It should be noted that California was originally
Re:Turning America into... (Score:5, Insightful)
So you believe in dissolving the EPA and letting each state set its own environmental protection standards?
EPA is needed to set the minimum standards. States are free to exceed them.
Re:Turning America into... (Score:5, Insightful)
I see a problem with states wanting a weaker standard than the feds, but it should be common sense to allow a higher standard than the feds. It's like if the feds say "clean your room!", then California says "we cleaned our room and also washed all the windows", then the feds respond "you can't do that, it makes your brother look lazy!!"
States were free to follow California or not. What pisses off the oil investors is that because of the population of California that auto makers decided to have higher standards in all states rather than California-only autos which is just basic business sense.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. It's no different than the minimum wage. All states have to adhere to at least the federal minimum wage but they are free to set it higher in their state.
Re: Turning America into... (Score:3)
If that's the case - unify all traffic rules and legislation over the states since there are more state legislation around that's a problem. Different rules for trucking in different states is a major issue, but most slashdotters don't see that.
Re:Turning America into... (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, it IS nice that CA is no longer going to be setting the standards for all the other states in the rest of the US by proxy....
Nothing is going to change. No automaker is going to redesign their cars when Trump's order is likely to be rolled back on January 20th, 2021.
Re:Turning America into... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention that the EU and China aren't going to relax their regulations, the US is now the #3 global market. The only vehicles which are going to be in any way affected by any changes to US policy, even if they're permanent, are the light duty trucks (F150-350 and 1500-3500) because they are essentially a NA only product, everything else is built on global platforms that need to meet international standards.
Take it a step further (Score:3)
Re:Turning America into... (Score:5, Insightful)
Out of them all, I guess Joe wouldn't be too bad, at least he's pretty moderate, but the rest....wow, so out of touch with mainstream America.
Yeah, I mean "Medicare for All" only has 74% support among the entire population. Clearly that's so fringe.
Re: (Score:3)
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed th
Re:Turning America into... (Score:4, Insightful)
" Funding a massive entitlement with such a foolish tax will have severe economic consequences."
I've been in several countries where it works EXACTLY like you describe, and it works far BETTER than any bullshit we have here in the USA, and none of these economic consequences you talk about have shown up.
Re: (Score:3)
Every first-world nation that is not the United States.
Re: (Score:3)
"Nonsense. I am familiar with the healthcare systems in Canada, UK, Germany, and Japan. None of those are funded with a regressive payroll tax."
The UK's NHS is funded through National Insurance which is a tax on payroll (for most people subtracted automatically through the PAYE system). There is an employee, and an employer contribution.
Re:Turning America into... (Score:5, Insightful)
The other 26% can do math, and possibly even understand economics.
Math like the Koch bro's study that found spending $59.4T on private and public healthcare over 10 years in the US is more than spending $57.6T on Medicare for all.
Who is it who's supposed to be the math and economic geniuses again?
Medicare is funded with payroll deductions. This is a regressive tax that punishes productive behavior.
Guess what? When you're passing a new law that creates a new program, you are not required to fund it using the same mechanism as the old system.
That's why every Medicare for all program isn't funded by payroll taxes.
Many of those 74% will no longer support the concept once they realize it isn't free.
When you ask someone if they want to write a check to Blue Cross for $400, or a check to Medicare for $350, most people can figure out which one is smaller.
Re: (Score:3)
small, and low-horsepower vehicles are going extinct.
Because a crossover with adequate power, more utility, and better crash survivability can achieve emissions compliance just fine. In fact smaller vehicles need to be so heavy to achieve crash cell and emissions compliance that they end up being less fuel efficient in many cases (see Smart ForTwo which achieved only 33/39 mpg, worse than several vehicles which were significantly larger)
Re:Turning America into... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is done just for the sake of undoing what Obama did and trolling environmentalists. The automakers don't want this (they want consistency because their plans are long-term) and if they don't roll out a bunch of gas guzzlers the regulations (or lack thereof) won't affect the fossil fuel industry. I think Trump and his followers just have a general contempt for environmental issues because that's what his opponents care about. If it's motivated by any strategic considerations they probably have to do with golf courses.
It's like a thirteen year old internet troll is running the country.
Re: Turning America into... (Score:5, Insightful)
Car manufacturers are not required to sell cars in California.
If they don't want to build a car that follows California's rules, they're free to sell their cars in the other 49 states.
Re: Turning America into... (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you have to live through smog alerts where you weren't even allowed to go outside at lunch for fear you might actually want to PLAY, and therefore start breathing hard? I do, and it took tighter emission controls on vehicles (among other things) to clean up the mess. The reason it has to be mandated top-down is because some people will roll coal just to be assholes, while it's the rest of us that end up with asthma.
However, the problem has also come to be recognized in other regions. Phoenix has a very similar inversion layer problem to Los Angeles, and they basically changed the emission rules to match those of California (but only for cars domiciled in the Phoenix area) as a response. Two counties in Nevada do the same. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to form an interstate Air Quality Management District so they can all have some say in what they need, rather than hoping California spec is good enough for their specific problem.
Re: Turning America into... (Score:5, Informative)
Or you could look at all the pictures of LA choked with smog because people when left to their own devices will roll coal even though its stupid.
CA is doing its best to keep its air breathable while allowing people to still choose what cars they drive. By setting emissions standards they ensure the health of their residents. Simple concept but hard to properly execute as you will always piss someone off.
Re: (Score:3)
Californians voted for a state government to deal with "tragedy of the commons" problems like air pollution.
If you live in California and don't like the solutions that state government passed, you can lobby the state government to pass a different policy.
If you are unable to do that and find the regulations sufficiently onerous, then there are 49 other states that will happily take you in (Be warned 14 of them passed laws to follow CA's emissions standards).
Re: (Score:3)
If California had the size and population of Delaware, they'd likely do just that...
The USA is the world's largest automotive market (China is coming up fast, though) and California is the largest automotive market in the USA. So yeah, they're obviously going to want to sell cars here. But it's also a reason why we should be able to set our own environmental standards. If the feds want to stop other states from following our standards, that's also wrong, but it's a different kind of wrong. We set our own standards before the federal standard existed, which was the justification for there e
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, obviously everyone is an idiot for wanting {let me re-read this for accuracy} "the level of air pollution as low as possible."
Re: Turning America into... (Score:5, Insightful)
Each state has a latitude on what regulations and laws it can pass and enforce. I thought Republicans were all for State Rights, or are they only for Racist State Rights, while strong-arm states into deregulating things that cause environment problems that will have long term consequences.
I want my Freedom to be able to have greater say in my State and Local Vote on topics that are important to me. Not the big washout of a national vote which I just become static in the wilderness.
If California wants to regulate emissions higher then the national standards, so be it. The Automotive industry can be just as free to sell or not sell cars to the state, or sell cars at a higher price to meet the requirements.
I guess you want Freedom loving China, where everyone needs to walk around city's with masks over their face to protect themselves from the pollution.
Re: Turning America into... (Score:5, Insightful)
You should revise your worldview. The way this administration is going, people are more likely to need masks in the USA than in China.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019... [cleantechnica.com]
Re: Turning America into... (Score:3)
Re: Turning America into... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course you wouldn't say that about anything the Republicans want to regulate, such as Google, Facebook, etc because of their liberal bias. Then suddenly regulation is okay, rather than letting others go create alternate platforms like Conservapedia.
Re:Turning America into... (Score:5, Insightful)
As opposed to letting Texas determine [nybooks.com] which science to leave out of high school textbooks or which Bible stories to include [pbs.org], or how to rewrite history [nytimes.com] so Europeans aren't shown to be slaughtering indigenous people, right?
Re:Turning America into... (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that what Texas adopts stays in Texas, whereas California is able to flex its soft power and get other states to have to follow along.
If you think that's the difference, then there is no difference, given Texas's influence over the textbook market.
Re:Turning America into... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Either way, if states are somehow forcibly exporting their laws to other states, I think that's wrong. Texas shouldn't have any say in the educational curriculum of students outside Texas other than 1/50th of the input into common core, and California likewise shouldn't have any say in the emissions standards for any vehicle not being used in, produced in, or distributed in California other than 1/50th of the input into wh
Re:Turning America into... (Score:5, Informative)
However, under current CA law, I can no longer drive that vehicle into CA without breaking the law
Yes, you can. The regulations cover car registration and car sales. If you are just driving in from out-of-state, you are not breaking any CA laws.
I have yet to hear of a case being put to the courts, but it's only a matter of time.
CA's regulations started in the early 1970s. Just how long do you think you need to wait to admit you're wrong?
Re:Turning America into... (Score:5, Insightful)
The elitists in California think they should be able to set national policy without being able to actually persuade the nation to go along with that
Um...no. California's standards apply to California, and the states that passed their own laws to follow California's regulations. California had no ability to force the rest of the country to follow them.
Now, a whole lot of other states saw the results in CA and said "We'd like that too" and passed their own laws to follow CA. But CA didn't force any of them.
Re:Turning America into... (Score:5, Informative)
Then a bunch of states which didn't need the stricter standard decided to follow California's standard because they failed to do a proper cost/benefit analysis.
What do you imagine the cost of following California's environmental emissions limits to be? And why do you think it's not worth paying?
That's a clear indication they made that decision not on the basis of science, but because of reckless environmentalism ("cleaner is always better, no matter the cost").
It is always better, and we should do the best we can, because right now we're not doing good enough as a species.
Re: (Score:3)
No one is forcing the other states to implement the California emission standards. It is a California standard they do not affect federal regulations. The whole point of the waiver is so that they can implement standards that are not the federal standard. If California is dictating the federal regulations shouldn't the federal regulations be the same as the California regulations?
I suppose you are going to use the argument that if automobile manufacturers have to build to higher standards for the California
Re: (Score:3)
But would the auto manufacturers even offer fuel-efficient cars as an option if they weren't forced to? History would say no.
Re:Turning America into... (Score:5, Informative)
The stricter emission rules aren't the will of the people.
Welcome to representational democracy. We elect people who create laws that regulate behavior. Californians elected state representatives who passed state laws that set emission rules. Just like the state laws that set traffic rules, or building codes.
Left to their own devices, "the people" would probably drive faster and build unsafe patios, but that doesn't mean those traffic and building codes "aren't the will of the people".
How to make cars safer (according to Republicans) (Score:5, Insightful)
To make cars safer, one ensures that they use more fuel, hence cost more to run, resulting in reduced usage of the cars. This (according to this administration) makes cars safer.
Since the auto manufacturers already sided with California, this shows very clearly where the loyalties of this administration and the Republicans lie: with fossil fuel interests.
If you vote Republican, you are voting for climate change.
Re: (Score:3)
To make cars safer, one ensures that they use more fuel, hence cost more to run, resulting in reduced usage of the cars.
I agree with you that costs will influence people's decisions of whether to use cars. I encourage you to consider also the effect of initial purchase price of the cars.
The Trump administration says [caranddriver.com] that cars will cost $2340 less, which will encourage consumers to buy new cars, and stop driving older and less-safe cars. This makes sense to me.
You are arguing that consumers should be looki
Re: How to make cars safer (according to Republica (Score:3)
Re:How to make cars safer (according to Republican (Score:5, Insightful)
Set voluntary safety standards for infant cribs, and provide tax discounts to cribs that meet those safety standards.
Set voluntary toxic water pollution standards, and provide tax discounts to polluters that meet or exceed those levels of toxicity.
Set voluntary standards for levels of truth in advertising, and provide tax discounts to advertisers that meet those levels of truthiness. (but what measurement levels do you use? Maybe invert it to number of lies.)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess they'll just have to live with the same standards as the rest of the nation then.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, please! Do a little research before you post.
Together, the nine "ZEV states" and California represented 28 percent of new-car registrations in the U.S. in 2015, according to Automotive News [greencarreports.com]
Re: (Score:3)
In reality, the clean water regulations are probably a much bigger deal. We are/were making ok progress in reducing our emissions, but the US only accounts for about 15% of worldwide greenhouse gasses. The water regulation roll-backs are basically just telling industry to do whatever pollution they want, the EPA is not going to sue them any time soon. A good republican would start a toxic wastes disposal business, collect lots of wastes and fees, dump them wherever they won't be immediately noticed and g
Re: (Score:3)
It could work if set the tax high enough. Set the tax at a billion dollars per car that does not meet the standard. Don't pay the tax go to jail.
States Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever happened to states rights? Whatever happened small government?
Re: States Rights? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
States rights never covered the right to succession... but honestly it probably should. If a state wants out, why not let them... its working out pretty well for Europe honestly.
Re: (Score:3)
It should take a super majority though, look at Brexit which was basically a statistical tie. It's not like a regular election which can be corrected a few years later.
Re:States Rights? (Score:4, Interesting)
I was thinking about trying to make a joke on this same topic. Something along the lines of "#PresidentTweety leads the Republican Party back to it's roots as the anti-State party!" Things have gotten so twisted these years.
On the other hand, the Democratic Party has never had any consistent set of principles. More like a wild drunken party than an organized political one? Will Rogers called it properly.
Re:States Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans betray their principles whenever doing so is convenient. Democrats don't really have consistent principles to betray.
Re: (Score:3)
Republicans betray their principles whenever doing so is convenient. Democrats don't really have consistent principles to betray.
On the first half, I guess I sort of disagree as regards today's so-called Republicans, because only a fool would believe them enough to make betrayal possible. Politicians of every party eagerly spew out a lot of principles they ignore, but at least the old Republicans actually had a few principles that went deeper than spewage.
On the second half, I thought that's just what I wrote in the previous comment?
However I think the most significant difference between the two main American parties is how they get
Re:States Rights? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure if someone mentions abortion you get all anti-states rights in a hurry.
Re:States Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever happened to states rights? Whatever happened small government?
That's only for slavery and secession.
Re:States Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see how this isn't a matter of regulation of international commerce, which is firmly in the federal government's mandate - otherwise you're literally restricting the sale of an automotive product in one state compared to another. Sure, you could argue that a state has the ability to set regulation about pollutants that will damage the local environment, but it's my understanding that carbon dioxide doesn't - it has a _global_ effect rather than a local one. This is probably why the federal law had
Re: (Score:2)
People refused to vote for it. Johnson lost the 2016 presidential election 96% to 4%. It doesn't sell, so the major parties finally dropped all pretenses.
Re: (Score:3)
Whatever happened to states rights? Whatever happened small government?
This is one of those areas where it is messier.
While I have no problem with CA suffering under the rule of CARB if that's what they want to do, the reality is that car manufacturers don't want to make 2 (or conceivably 50) versions of the same car to be sold in specific states. It's simply not practical for them on a cost basis. This gives CARB the implicit power to enforce their views on other states and override their rights.
Further, if the manufacturers did actually produce CA and non-CA approved cars (l
Re:States Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed 100% I don't know how Trump has "antagonized" CA anymore than they've antagonized him and Bush before him.
Regardless, we're supposed to operate as a set of "united" but disparate states that maintain some degree of sovereignty, where the federal government exists for the purposes of primarily the treasury and the military. I see this as the Fed overstepping *their* bounds.
Re: (Score:3)
The EPA is the federal government overstepping their bounds. If we didn't have it (and it's literally not legal, anyway), this wouldn't be an issue.
States should be doing this as the federal government has no authority. This is another fine example of "don't give the federal government a power that you wouldn't give to your enemy".
Re:States Rights? (Score:5, Informative)
If authorized to do so by Congress. I have to go back and reread the 1970 Clean Air Act. My recollection is that Congress explicitly granted California the authority to set its own standards so long as they were tougher than the federal standards, and explicitly gave states the authority to follow either California or the feds. Absent some statute granting the EPA authority to overrule that, they shouldn't be able to.
The day after the EPA makes the rule final, California will file suit in the DC Circuit Court and ask for an immediate injunction to stop the rule until the courts decide if the EPA actually has the authority. The injunction will almost certainly be granted. The Supremes will decide the case in 18 or so months.
Re: (Score:3)
If authorized to do so by Congress. I have to go back and reread the 1970 Clean Air Act. My recollection is that Congress explicitly granted California the authority to set its own standards so long as they were tougher than the federal standards, and explicitly gave states the authority to follow either California or the feds. Absent some statute granting the EPA authority to overrule that, they shouldn't be able to.
The relevant section [govinfo.gov] is:
This is surely a victory (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, the Car Companies _hate_ this. The problem is the uncertainty. Trump may or may not win re-election, it's a toss up. But if he loses the next president is going to put those strict emission rules back in place. Same goes for the fuel economy rules.
Now, anyone manufacturer who runs with the less strict rules can build a more powerful engine for a lot less money. _But_ (and it's a big, stinky butt) they're going to end up retooling for the dirty, gas guzzling engines and then if Trump loses in 2020 all that work is going to be money down the drain. Meaning anyone who _doesn't_ run with the less strict rules would have a huge competitive edge.
The uncertainty make it a mess, which is why they tried to get together and agree to make more fuel efficient cars, which immediately got them sued under anti-trust laws because this is why we can't have nice things.
Re: (Score:3)
It's very easy to take emissions controls off. It's a waste of development budget, but all they have to do is just disable certain drive cycles. This sort of thing is done by tuners all the time, for a variety of reasons.
There is a ton of headroom in most engines. They tune them for mileage, emissions, and noise level. It's easy to just not equip vehicles with some emissions equipment, and to program it away, and it's easy to trade mileage for power.
We already have vehicles which US automakers only sell in
Re: (Score:3)
Americans _love_ fast, high horsepower cars
Americans love huge lumbering station wagons that look like a military vehicle so they don't have to admit they are driving a station wagon.
If what they loved was fast high horsepower cars, there would be a lot more electrics on the road. .oO(Hrmmm maybe we should pass a law that all SUVs have to have wood panels on the side.)
Disagree with this one (Score:5, Interesting)
I think California, or any state, should be able to set whatever rules they like, and then see if car makers will sell autos in that state that meet criteria...
That is after all the point of states, to be able to experiment with various ways of managing government.
I find it really interesting that Trump has the power to revoke this waver though. Was the waver itself organically just an executive order from some other president? Was it not something voted on by the house/congress?
That is why it's so important to work up new laws for things, it's hard to pass new legislation, but even more important it is very hard to UNDO such legislation once enacted. A government built atop rules that the next elected officials can just toss if they feel like it is a house of cards.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh... now the title of that Netflix show makes sense.
Re: Disagree with this one (Score:2, Interesting)
California can set standards that apply only to cars made and sold in California, once they import cars from other states it becomes interstate commerce, this falling under federal regulations - as I understand it.
Why didn't any previous administration simply adopt CA emission standards? Why did CA have a special waiver for almost 50 years? Every other state could have simply adopted California's standard, but only 13 did.
Clearly the majority of states (50-14=36, a majority) had no interest in adopting Cali
Re: (Score:2)
No products move across borders. No money changes hands. Yep, sounds like commerce to me.
Re: Disagree with this one (Score:5, Informative)
Clearly the majority of states (50-14=36, a majority) had no interest in adopting California's emission standards.
The majority of Californians had no interest in adopting them either, but we did, and they made California (and the world) a better place.
Re: Disagree with this one (Score:4, Insightful)
well no (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I agree with your sentiments and as much as I think the action is very bad, it is one of the most apropos uses of the US constitutions commerce clause in effect. The commerce clause is the single most abused loophole by the feds. It's what is used to allow feds to make laws in state jurisdictions (guns in school zones, hate crimes, etc...) and used by the feds for all drug laws (no you can't grow marijuana even if the state allows it because.....???..... because it might affect interstate commerce. Say what? yes that's the legal basis for that).
But in this case car regulations directly map to interstate transportation and to the sales of cars and the regulation of cars that all intersect interstate commerce.
So this is actually something the feds can do like it or not. So your principled argument is 100% against the constitution.
But, states should be able to create comapcts with the feds to grant them authorities such as the ability to regulate above fed standards in-state when it makes sense. So it's really pernicious to have trump renege on these long standing agreements.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it really interesting that Trump has the power to revoke this waver though. Was the waver itself organically just an executive order from some other president? Was it not something voted on by the house/congress?
To massively simplify, Congress passed a law saying "EPA can make rules about pollution from cars". And then the EPA did.
A government built atop rules that the next elected officials can just toss if they feel like it is a house of cards.
Which is why a Congress completely choked with veto points is bad - it makes it impossible to pass the "Puppies and Kittens are Cute Act", much less something even slightly controversial.
It only worked this long because of a Mutually Assured Destruction-like system. But Republicans figured out Democrats are two cowardly to follow through.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
why would you need a waver at all to limit the sale of things. A state can ban alcohol over a certain percentage (ever clear for instance), states can ban the sale of fireworks... under what clause are cars somehow protected from state laws but these other things aren't?
Re:Disagree with this one (Score:5, Interesting)
I find it really interesting that Trump has the power to revoke this waver though. Was the waver itself organically just an executive order from some other president?
Here you go. 42 U.S. Code 7543
(a) Prohibition
No State or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this part. No State shall require certification, inspection, or any other approval relating to the control of emissions from any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the initial retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment.
And then following that...
(b) Waiver
(1) The Administrator shall, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, waive application of this section to any State which has adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966, if the State determines that the State standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards. No such waiver shall be granted if the Administrator finds that—
(A) the determination of the State is arbitrary and capricious,
(B) such State does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or
(C) such State standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 7521(a) of this title.
(2) If each State standard is at least as stringent as the comparable applicable Federal standard, such State standard shall be deemed to be at least as protective of health and welfare as such Federal standards for purposes of paragraph (1).
(3) In the case of any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine to which State standards apply pursuant to a waiver granted under paragraph (1), compliance with such State standards shall be treated as compliance with applicable Federal standards for purposes of this subchapter.
So it is in the law to grant waivers to States to not comply with subsection (a).
A government built atop rules that the next elected officials can just toss if they feel like it is a house of cards
Ah, have you ever worked in DC? Legislators make these kinds of things because then it's the President's fault when things don't go the way everyone wanted. The President is Congress' scapegoat. That's like literally the first thing you learn in DC. You pour as much as you possibly can into the President, so that way you can just blame him or her for when shit hits the fan.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks, that was interesting to read... one thought:
(A) the determination of the State is arbitrary and capricious,
I wonder if it could have been argued in court that California's emission laws were over-strict to the point of being capricious?
I still do not see why the law set up a waver system instead of simply saying "these are the base requirements, any state is free to impose any requirements above these standards" instead of going through all the complexity of setting up a waver with a public hearing.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is exactly why this regulation will be struck down by the courts. Congress explicitly granted California and other states the right to set whatever emissions regulations they wanted as long as they were at least as strong as the federal requirements.
Trump doesn't have the leeway to revoke this, it's written directly into the law by congress and his ability to regulate doesn't cover changing the law, he can set the standard but not take away the states rights to set their own standard. This was explici
Re: (Score:3)
Our government is so broken the only thing that can fix it is to get all the bums outta congress and start fresh with new people
You know there's a saying I heard when I was a kid. "If there's something wrong with the professional politician, just you wait till you see the amateur."
While I get Congress isn't getting anything done, the problem isn't the people currently sitting in Congress, it's the information they're being provided. Surprise, surprise, Congressional members aren't know it alls in every domain of knowledge. And it used to be that we had all these departments within Congress that were staffed by "experts" who would
Re: (Score:3)
Being able to experiment is helpful, but the downside is a balkanization of the market. Europe is a good example of this, in that while some aspects of commerce across the block are set at the EU level, many others are not. National broadcasters f
Great, I can't wait for the retaliation (Score:2)
I'm sure that California's legislation will announce a retaliatory "gas guzzler" tax to replace the fuel mileage standards that they are losing, and the other blue state legislatures will follow suit.
Thanks, Trump, I'm blaming you when the taxes go up on my Mustang.
Re:Great, I can't wait for the retaliation (Score:5, Funny)
Best license plate I ever saw was on a Mustang: "MPG LOL".
Is this left or right? (Score:3, Insightful)
No-one every thought of him as Republican to start (Score:2, Troll)
Is there anyone left who is still fooled by his "Republican" label
Ha-Ha, you have fallen victim to the misconception anyone ever thought that. Everyone knew Trump was formerly a Democrat (which explains why he's controlling what California can do with emissions, overriding state rights is what comes natural to a Democrat).
Actual Republicans (most of them) voted for Trump not because he was supposedly a Republican, but because he was vastly less corrupt than Hillary.
Interestingly Trump will win on 2020 beca
Re:No-one every thought of him as Republican to st (Score:5, Insightful)
Actual Republicans (most of them) voted for Trump not because he was supposedly a Republican, but because he was vastly less corrupt than Hillary.
Well, that may have been the theory. The practice turned out rather differently, given that the only thing preventing Trump from being indicted on multiple federal crimes is the notion that a sitting president can't be indicted, whereas Hillary withstood years of investigation with no such protection and was never indicted.
Don't misconstrue this as support for Hillary. I have deeply disliked her for a very long time, and refused to vote for her in 2016. But the notion that Trump is less corrupt is beyond laughable.
Re: (Score:3)
Not just more corrupt than any president since Nixon, Trump is also pretty damn incompetent, he's a paper tiger on the international stage and his blundering about since taking office has effectively wasted the first two years he was in office. On top of that he's a tax-cut and spend president which isn't going to make this country great, it's going to make this country broke. He's not only created the biggest tax cut for businesses but he's also slashed dramatically the taxes on the wealthiest people with
Re: (Score:3)
What? It's OBAMA'S policy that trashed the ability of states to do their own thing.
There was no Obama policy to force CA emissions on the rest of the states.
This is why we can't have nice things. You guys can't maintain contact with reality.
This isn't a dictatorship! (Score:2)
The administration doesn't have the right to force a less strict version of policies. So, if the federal government allows for more pollution, states can have stricter requirements. If the issue is all or nothing, then the federal government would have the final say, but the president does not have the right to act as emperor and just declare that everyone must do as he commands. The key is if the level of being more strict ends up being, "you can't do this, even if it is allowed by federal law", as i
That is great news (Score:2)
Great news for the fossil industry. Shame about the car industry, though.
Good luck exporting those gas guzzlers. US car industry is in for some serious hurt.
So petty (Score:3)
What's the big fucking deal if those 4 automotive manufacturers want to try harder to make a difference.
Like Ron Perlman says (Score:5, Insightful)
"100% of Trump's legacy thus far is the dismantling of 8 years of another man's work. 3rd graders have more leadership skills than this pos."
The man's got a point. A distressing amount of Trump's time and effort have been spent on un-doing and tearing down the work of others.
Naomi Klein's term is "Climate Barbarians" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
At this point you will find support for that both from residents of California and conservatives everywhere that isn't California.
Doubtful. Senate and Electoral College mean California doesn't have as much political power as it's population and wealth would indicate. The distribution of House seats in the state also limit the amount of Democratic power from the state (there's a lot of Alabama in California).
What they would lose is a hell of a lot of tax income, which most red states need to keep the lights on. It's not like those midwestern farmers receiving subsidies due to Trump's trade war are only being paid from midwestern tax