Obama Looks to give States the rights to set Emissions and Mileage Standards

[hyperv6]

Talk about a mess?

To give States the right to set their own standards is a problem even if there were only a few states involved but to give all states this right is a problem not only for a strucggling Detroit but also Japan.

To give the auto industry a bail out then to sign a deal like this would be so counter productive. Obama may not have shown great judgment in some things in the past but even he should see the problems involved with an ailing industry and economy that will effect him.

The sad part is something like this could get signed in this week and the vast majority of people will never know what it means to them or how it will effect them till it is too late.

If many states follow the standards of the CARB board it is hard to imagine there will be much left of the industry in 10 years.

Is the goverment pushing this to make the car too expensive or hard to obtain to force the public to take public transportation?

People wanted Change, So be careful of what you wish.

[Drew Dowdell]

Please.. PLEASE... let the Republicans complain about it.

[ellives]

If Bush wasn't such an ashtray he could have avoided all this. Obama is another well-intentioned occupant in the White House who has never created or built a single thing in his life so doesn't understand the issues involved in doing so.

[hyperv6]

Guys this is not an Republican Democrat thing. It is much bigger than that.

To think Obama is just another well intentioned occupant is alittle nieve. You don't get that far unless you sell your soul regardless of party affiliation.

Time to wake up.

[Robert Hall]

Cleaner and more efficient cars. What's wrong with that?

[Drew Dowdell]

Cleaner and more efficient cars. What's wrong with that?

50 different state standards. Makes it very difficult to sell cars.

That said, what will likely happen is two standards. The Federal one and a CARB one. The states that want the stricter standards will just adopt the CARB standard.

[Robert Hall]

50 different state standards. Makes it very difficult to sell cars.

Funny thing is, that's what the right wingers would want...they are always hollering about 'states rights'.

That said, what will likely happen is two standards. The Federal one and a CARB one. The states that want the stricter standards will just adopt the CARB standard.

2 standards is what we have now... they should have just set the Federal standard to the CARB one, created a unified standard.

[hyperv6]

Cleaner and more efficient cars. What's wrong with that?

The point is not more efficent cars but as pointed out two standard or more could be in play.

Also realistic standards that can be reached in a time most auto companies short money and failing sales is a large challange. but to ask for 45 MPG standards right now is counter productive.

the bottom line is for the best interest of the MFG and consumers a national standard is the best for all. If you want to make improvments do it for all and not a state by state basis.

If anything Obama is going to hurt the industry more to the point it will create more employment problems for him to solve.

This right wing and left wing crap is what got you to this point time to get over it. Mccain would have probably done the same thing. As I have said time to wake up.

Edited January 26, 2009 by hyperv6

[Intrepidation]

I hope the government plans to fund..er...bailout the mess they will make Otherwise the bailout money the automakers got will have been for not, they'll go under, and it will never be paid back.

[Z-06]

Design and develop for the worst case scenario.

The only problem I see is when the worst case scenario will keep on changing if states get into ego boosting contest of their standards being the most stringent ones.

[Chazman]

This will be a loooooooong, painful, 4 years.

[Robert Hall]

This will be a loooooooong, painful, 4 years.

The last 8 were pretty long and painful.

[Chazman]

The last 8 were pretty long and painful.

I predict that you ain't seen nothin' yet.

This admin has been in less than week...

So far...

1) Executive order to close Camp Delta, with NO plan on where to put the worst terrorists in the world.

2) Executive order restricting how terrorsists can be interrogated, now they can only be asked if they want to share any info.

3) Almost $ ONE TRILLION in pork barrel.

4),5),6), some other stuff.

7) Now this.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Chazman

[Croc]

I used to be very much against this kind of governance, but after living in California for the past several years I see the necessity of it. See, CA has to suffer some of the worst pollution in the country. I say "suffer" because the vast majority of the air pollution is a direct result of the twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach--the ships that until recently idled, the idling filthy diesel trucks that receive the imported goods, the belching diesel locomotives that ship the goods across the country...to where? Oh yeah, all 47 other contiguous states.

California has come so far since the 1970s when smog was so bad you couldn't even see downtown from a mile away, or the tops of skyscrapers when you were right next to them on the Harbor Freeway. That said, there's a lot more improvements to air quality that need to be made, and also a social justice aspect as well--poor people who can only afford to live next to the freeway shouldn't have to be plagued with noxious air. Their children shouldn't come inside from playing in the backyard covered in diesel soot. Hell, you can't even park your car outside for an hour without it being covered in filth.

It's for reasons such as these that the current standards are not strict enough for many states. If California wants to regulate its emmissions with tougher standards, then I have no problem with it because of all the good that will come out of it. The fact that 14 other states want to join on, though, speaks volumes to me of how what I have seen and observed out here more than likely is mirrored across the U.S.

[Robert Hall]

I used to be very much against this kind of governance, but after living in California for the past several years I see the necessity of it. See, CA has to suffer some of the worst pollution in the country. I say "suffer" because the vast majority of the air pollution is a direct result of the twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach--the ships that until recently idled, the idling filthy diesel trucks that receive the imported goods, the belching diesel locomotives that ship the goods across the country...to where? Oh yeah, all 47 other contiguous states.

California has come so far since the 1970s when smog was so bad you couldn't even see downtown from a mile away, or the tops of skyscrapers when you were right next to them on the Harbor Freeway. That said, there's a lot more improvements to air quality that need to be made, and also a social justice aspect as well--poor people who can only afford to live next to the freeway shouldn't have to be plagued with noxious air. Their children shouldn't come inside from playing in the backyard covered in diesel soot. Hell, you can't even park your car outside for an hour without it being covered in filth.

It's for reasons such as these that the current standards are not strict enough for many states. If California wants to regulate its emmissions with tougher standards, then I have no problem with it because of all the good that will come out of it. The fact that 14 other states want to join on, though, speaks volumes to me of how what I have seen and observed out here more than likely is mirrored across the U.S.

+1. I think the CARB standards should be a national standard. Everyone can benefit from improved air quality.

[hyperv6]

We fix our air problems here in Ohio, it was easy.

We ran off all the MFG jobs in various ways and now we have a lot of unemployed people and no jobs.

But then again we have cleaner air and all the time in the world to breath it since few have nothing else to do.

[Croc]

We fix our air problems here in Ohio, it was easy.

We ran off all the MFG jobs in various ways and now we have a lot of unemployed people and no jobs.

But then again we have cleaner air and all the time in the world to breath it since few have nothing else to do.

CA has very little manufacturing. The vast majority of air pollution is generated getting Americans their imported goods from Asia and elsewhere. If you look at smog maps, it's concentrated down at the ports, along the main trucking routes (110, 710, 605, 15, 5, and 10 freeways), and then some concentrations in the basins (duh, geographic features that capture and accumulate smog). Downtown LA has some fierce smog, but virtually no manufacturing.

[cletus8269]

well i guess california can fix their bankruptcy problem now. make emissions rediculous and fine everyone who doesnt comply. math is easy...

[Croc]

well i guess california can fix their bankruptcy problem now. make emissions rediculous and fine everyone who doesnt comply. math is easy...

It's really mainly for trucks. As it is, CA can only really regulate emissions because any other requirements would violate the Interstate Commerce Act.

[toesuf94]

well i guess california can fix their bankruptcy problem now. make emissions rediculous and fine everyone who doesnt comply. math is easy...

Thank you...well said.

These states are completely bankrupt and do not know how to manage their money, yet are going to mandate emission standards and MPG standards for all the cars sold in the state? Yeah, I am sure that will work.

So, taking a page from California's book, can the automakers give the state an I.O.U. for the MPG they are short - just like they are thinking of doing with the tax refunds they owe people?

So, now Iowa can mandate that all cars and trucks sold in the state can ONLY be run on 100% ethanol, right? And they have to achieve 35 mpg on the urban cycle while using that fuel, right?

Here is a solution: California can go RICKSHAW power. Use all of the illegal alliens to PUSH or PULL the cars around instead of running the engines. They seem to have an abundance of the buggers around...they are renewable, and cheap.

[Drew Dowdell]

I don't mind a stricter standard. I just mind 50 different standards...... otherwise known as NO STANDARD AT ALL

[Croc]

Here is a solution: California can go RICKSHAW power. Use all of the illegal alliens to PUSH or PULL the cars around instead of running the engines. They seem to have an abundance of the buggers around...they are renewable, and cheap.

Thinly disguised racism is unacceptable.

[Croc]

I don't mind a stricter standard. I just mind 50 different standards...... otherwise known as NO STANDARD AT ALL

How long have you been able to go on gmbuypower and check an option box for one of 5 different state/federal emmission standards?

I agree with your sentiment, and if that is what eventually happens, then I'm sure something will be done about it. Really, the issue as I see it is that Obama granted a waiver, which is not a binding change to the law. The waivers, in my speculation, are a temporary measure before federal emissions are raised to reflect those of CARB.

[Drew Dowdell]

you are right of course and I do think some here are making this more about Obama than anything.

Ideally we should have one standard for emissions/fuel economy/crashworthiness.

We should also have one set of fuel formulas for all 50 states.

[2QuickZ's]

I don't understand this at all. CAFE has never worked the way it was intended. There is a working model in Europe that shows us the way to improve fuel efficiency of our fleet. It's called a heavy gas tax. They have one and look what they drive! We've been on CAFE for over 30 years and look at what we are still driving. Aside from the increased engineering costs to let each state set its own standards, this type of thing also artificially creates supply without creating demand. Is it really that difficult to fathom that if Toyota could sell 1 million Prius a year, they would make 1 million a year? Of that if the market demanded fuel efficient autos as it did when gas was $4/gallon, all automakers would be moving to cover that arena as they are now?

It would be nice if all the automakers would band together and simply say "No. If you set a standard we can't meet cost effectively, we will all simply leave your market. You can all drive used cars or motorcycles for all we care!" Wishful thinking because I know that would never happen. BTW - Why is it the auto industry seems to always be the primary targets for these types of things? Where are the demands to make other transportation methods more fuel efficient? How about aircraft? Trains? Lawn mowers and weedwackers? Boats? Yes, I know some regulation has been added but those do not get nearly the attention automobiles do.

[SoCalCTS]

OMG clean air! The Sky is falling! Its the end of the world as we know it!!!

This will have ZERO effect on your daily lives! get over it. I swear you people in these other states just like to bitch and moan. My CTS is no less fun to drive than yours except mine meets California emissions standards...

[Croc]

OMG clean air! The Sky is falling! Its the end of the world as we know it!!!

This will have ZERO effect on your daily lives! get over it. I swear you people in these other states just like to bitch and moan. My CTS is no less fun to drive than yours except mine meets California emissions standards...

BINGO! We have a winner.

Honestly, I just chalk it up to jealousy over the weather and scenery. No one can come out here and truly hate it.

[deftonesfan867]

It should be noted that there won't be a "50 state", it will be Federal or CA. Just those two options, states won't have the power to set there own guidelines.

[2QuickZ's]

OMG clean air! The Sky is falling! Its the end of the world as we know it!!!

This will have ZERO effect on your daily lives! get over it. I swear you people in these other states just like to bitch and moan. My CTS is no less fun to drive than yours except mine meets California emissions standards...

I'm not bitching about the results, I'm bitching about the method. Besides, how much fun will your CTS be to drive when it does 0-60 in 11 seconds with it's 1.6L 4 cyl?

Cal and any other state already has the right to tax gas however they feel appropriate if I am not mistaken.

Edited January 26, 2009 by 2QuickZ's

[Robert Hall]

BINGO! We have a winner.

Honestly, I just chalk it up to jealousy over the weather and scenery. No one can come out here and truly hate it.

+1.

True enough. I've always enjoyed my visits to So Cal. Phoenix is pretty dull compared to So Cal, but the weather here is fantastic in the winter.

I'd rather be here now than in the boring gray hell of Ohio or Michigan (which I lived in for many years--humid summers, cold, damp gray winters, though fall and spring are nice).

[SoCalCTS]

I'm not bitching about the results, I'm bitching about the method. Besides, how much fun will your CTS be to drive when it does 0-60 in 11 seconds with it's 1.6L 4 cyl?

Necessity is the mother of invention. Maybe my future CTS will be a high performance electric or fuel cell vehicle that can go from 0-60 in 4.5 seconds.

[deftonesfan867]

It should be noted that there won't be a "50 state", it will be Federal or CA. Just those two options, states won't have the power to set there own guidelines.

[PurdueGuy]

I'm fine with 2 standards. 2 standards does not cause great difficulty or harm to automakers. I am not fine with CA dictating pollution controls to all other states. I am also not fine with more than 2, maaaaaybe 3, standards. That just gets stupid complicated.

[hyperv6]

I'm fine with 2 standards. 2 standards does not cause great difficulty or harm to automakers. I am not fine with CA dictating pollution controls to all other states. I am also not fine with more than 2, maaaaaybe 3, standards. That just gets stupid complicated.

How many speed limits do we have and are they equally inforced? If they can't get on one page for that how can we expect only 2 standards?

[Drew Dowdell]

How many speed limits do we have and are they equally inforced? If they can't get on one page for that how can we expect only 2 standards?

uhm.... cars sold in PA aren't set to a maximum speed of 65mph.

[daves87rs]

All I know are things are going to get interesting......

Just get ready to take in the a** for your car...(spend some $$$$)

[Drew Dowdell]

Just get ready to take in the a** for your car...(spend some $$$$)

Glad you cleared that up for me.....

[PurdueGuy]

How many speed limits do we have and are they equally inforced? If they can't get on one page for that how can we expect only 2 standards?

As has been said, that's completely different. Cars can easily be made to be compatible with all speed limit standards. You could add a crapload of emissions controls to all cars and make them meet the tightest emissions standards, and therefore meet them all, but emissions equipment generally works against mpg (as well as cost), which is the other thing that washington is pushing hard on the automakers. They're being pulled in both directions.

[regfootball]

I used to be very much against this kind of governance, but after living in California for the past several years I see the necessity of it. See, CA has to suffer some of the worst pollution in the country. I say "suffer" because the vast majority of the air pollution is a direct result of the twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach--the ships that until recently idled, the idling filthy diesel trucks that receive the imported goods, the belching diesel locomotives that ship the goods across the country...to where? Oh yeah, all 47 other contiguous states.

California has come so far since the 1970s when smog was so bad you couldn't even see downtown from a mile away, or the tops of skyscrapers when you were right next to them on the Harbor Freeway. That said, there's a lot more improvements to air quality that need to be made, and also a social justice aspect as well--poor people who can only afford to live next to the freeway shouldn't have to be plagued with noxious air. Their children shouldn't come inside from playing in the backyard covered in diesel soot. Hell, you can't even park your car outside for an hour without it being covered in filth.

It's for reasons such as these that the current standards are not strict enough for many states. If California wants to regulate its emmissions with tougher standards, then I have no problem with it because of all the good that will come out of it. The fact that 14 other states want to join on, though, speaks volumes to me of how what I have seen and observed out here more than likely is mirrored across the U.S.

then on the monroneys for any car sold in those 15 states should be a line item

CARB EMISSIONS CHARGE 2,000.00 (or more).

Edited January 26, 2009 by regfootball

[ZL-1]

Better fuel economy standards and clean air legislation are extremely important, but I wonder if ending up with 50 different emissions standards isn't a heavy certification-dollars burden on OEMs...

[regfootball]

I'm fine with 2 standards. 2 standards does not cause great difficulty or harm to automakers. I am not fine with CA dictating pollution controls to all other states. I am also not fine with more than 2, maaaaaybe 3, standards. That just gets stupid complicated.

we need global engineering certifications for crash testing performance and emissions.

then if CA wants, global emissions standard 6.0 as their law, so be it. it should allow a EU carmaker to sell the same spec car in germany or anywhere.

and then stick it to the resident there, the cost of that standard if its unreasonable compared to everyone else. make the CA residents pay for it. Not the other people.

[Croc]

I'm fine with 2 standards. 2 standards does not cause great difficulty or harm to automakers. I am not fine with CA dictating pollution controls to all other states. I am also not fine with more than 2, maaaaaybe 3, standards. That just gets stupid complicated.

Sorry, where is CA trying to "dictate" in all this? They just wanted a stricter standard for their own state. It isn't CA's fault that other states copied CARB standards and tried to make them codified in those states.

It really seems like the CA-bashers either failed or slept through their US government course...

[pow]

I used to be very much against this kind of governance, but after living in California for the past several years I see the necessity of it. See, CA has to suffer some of the worst pollution in the country. I say "suffer" because the vast majority of the air pollution is a direct result of the twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach--the ships that until recently idled, the idling filthy diesel trucks that receive the imported goods, the belching diesel locomotives that ship the goods across the country...to where? Oh yeah, all 47 other contiguous states.

California has come so far since the 1970s when smog was so bad you couldn't even see downtown from a mile away, or the tops of skyscrapers when you were right next to them on the Harbor Freeway. That said, there's a lot more improvements to air quality that need to be made, and also a social justice aspect as well--poor people who can only afford to live next to the freeway shouldn't have to be plagued with noxious air. Their children shouldn't come inside from playing in the backyard covered in diesel soot. Hell, you can't even park your car outside for an hour without it being covered in filth.

It's for reasons such as these that the current standards are not strict enough for many states. If California wants to regulate its emmissions with tougher standards, then I have no problem with it because of all the good that will come out of it. The fact that 14 other states want to join on, though, speaks volumes to me of how what I have seen and observed out here more than likely is mirrored across the U.S.

In terms of smelly, sooty, cancerous pollution that has an immediate affect on human health (VOCs, NOx, PM), modern cars play a tiny role in Los Angeles.

There has been more focus, as you've said, on the goods movement industry, and lots of progress has been made. Truckers are no longer hired as "independent" contractors paid by the container - they're now hired by the ports, which are mandated to provide cleaner diesel trucks. Several shipping terminals now plug directly into the grid, so ships won't have to idle with their engines running anymore.

The latest emissions standards address the pollution that cars still emit a great deal of - not smelly, sooty, cancerous particulate matter, but greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are directly correlated with fuel consumption, so these new regulations are, in effect, increased fuel economy requirements.

Californians would have fewer choices, but I think it's doable. Take the Camry for instance. CA+17 buyers will only get 49 mpg (as calculated with CAFE criteria) Camry Hybrids, while those other 33 states will likely get either four-cylinder or V6 models.

By the way, the current light-hybrid, low-budget Malibu Hybrid already averages 40 mpg in CAFE-speak.

[PurdueGuy]

Sorry, where is CA trying to "dictate" in all this? They just wanted a stricter standard for their own state. It isn't CA's fault that other states copied CARB standards and tried to make them codified in those states.

It really seems like the CA-bashers either failed or slept through their US government course...

If automakers have to build cars to meet the strictest standard... that's CA. It's a situation where suddenly CA has a lot of power by default, and "green" politicians can leverage one state to push their agendas. It's more a problem with politics than with the state of CA itself.

[GXT]

By the way, the current light-hybrid, low-budget Malibu Hybrid already averages 40 mpg in CAFE-speak.

How's that?

It gets barely better than 4cyl sedan mileage (26/34 MPG) and has very low volume (0.2% of GM's total volume in December). In CAFE-speak I don't think it even registers.

As for "low-budget", it is only $600 less than the Camry Hybrid.

Edited January 26, 2009 by GXT

[gm4life]

Please.. PLEASE... let the Republicans complain about it.

Don't worry we will. I am. You vote for change well now you got it. Kiss good-bye any performance cars from GM after the Camaro so no new RWD DTS or anything trust me. I feared this would happen the goverment will take over that is the power of O. Total bull$h! but that is what happens when we elect an extremely liberal president. Kiss good-bye any more fun cars thanks to Obama. I recall having this discussion with you about goverment getting into things but everyone just bitched how bad republicans were and G.W.B. don't make me say I told you so. God Help this Great Nation. Flog 'em while we got 'em. Because if Obama and the dems get their way we will have to have a forigen hybrid. :AH-HA_wink:

Edited January 26, 2009 by gm4life

[pow]

How's that?

It gets barely better than 4cyl sedan mileage (26/34 MPG) and has very low volume (0.2% of GM's total volume in December). In CAFE-speak I don't think it even registers.

As for "low-budget", it is only $600 less than the Camry Hybrid.

Even the regular four-cylinder Malibu (22/33 mpg w/ EPA consumer figures) averages 36 mpg in CAFE-speak. What I'm saying is that it's not as difficult as it seems.

If GM were forced to do so, I'm sure they can produce low-budget, BAS II light-hybrids en masse. Start-stop technology, LRR tires, and tall final drive ratios are fairly inexpensive.

[hyperv6]

As has been said, that's completely different. Cars can easily be made to be compatible with all speed limit standards. You could add a crapload of emissions controls to all cars and make them meet the tightest emissions standards, and therefore meet them all, but emissions equipment generally works against mpg (as well as cost), which is the other thing that washington is pushing hard on the automakers. They're being pulled in both directions.

You missed my point..

If they can get 50 states to agree on speed limits how are we to get them to agree to just two standards for emissions.

State opinion is as varied as it is here on this web site.

If the goverment want to imporve thing with emissions they xould go into a program similar to the space program and set goals of developing realistic power plants that could be used in normal use.

Better to put money into developing new technology in the private sector vs a bunch of public busy work that leads to nothing but a paved road only.

The moon program is still giving today based on what we learned and expanded from it. It was not the fact we went to the moon that was important but what we learned by getting their.

[gm4life]

you are right of course and I do think some here are making this more about Obama than anything.

Ideally we should have one standard for emissions/fuel economy/crashworthiness.

We should also have one set of fuel formulas for all 50 states.

Uhh because it is. He has an extreme left agenda and many people bought all his bull$h! hook line and sink 'er. They didn't care what he said it was how he said and making people feel good in hard times isn't as easy thing and B.H.O did just that. You ain't seen nothing yet, the last 7 years have been safe no attacks on America and a good economy for most of that time. At least it was until Barney Frank forced banks to give loans to people that couldn't afford them. If Obama passes this it is another gift to republican party. Along with various other things. He will have just four years, I already think he is a jerk a way bigger jerk than Bush could ever have been thought of. In one hand he'll hand the industry the dough and strangle them with cafe and emissions in the other. Bastard. Extreme Liberal Bastard. Don't ask how much money the goverment has because as much money as you have is what the goverment will get. He is no Reagan never will be. Just now people are staring to realize what they voted for, I find it funny and sad while I am angry at the same time.

Edited January 26, 2009 by gm4life

[pow]

Uhh because it is. He has an extreme left agenda and many people bought all his bull$h! hook line and sink 'er. They didn't care what he said it was how he said and making people feel good in hard times isn't as easy thing and B.H.O did just that. You ain't seen nothing yet, the last 7 years have been safe no attacks on America and a good economy for most of that time. At least it was until Barney Frank forced banks to give loans to people that couldn't afford them. If Obama passes this it is another gift to republican party. Along with various other things. He will have just four years, I already think he is a jerk a way bigger jerk than Bush could ever have been thought of. In one hand he'll hand the industry the dough and strangle them with cafe and emissions in the other. Bastar

McCain would have done no differently. He voted for increasing fuel economy standards as well. Even Ron Paul said he would grant states the right to regulate pollution.

Energy security and the environment are bipartisan issues that affect us all.

Edited January 26, 2009 by empowah