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

[Satty]

If it were the NY or MA standards (which I believe are close to CARB if not straight copies) people would still whine. I say the fed just adopt CARB standards.

[Robert Hall]

By the way, here are the 13 states--

Thirteen states across the country have adopted California’s standards and are waiting favorable EPA action to enforce the greenhouse gas emission limitations, including: Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. States such as Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, and Utah are considering adoption of the Clean Cars program. Collectively, motor vehicles in these states comprise about one-half of the U.S. market.

I was pleased to see my part-time residence of Arizona on there, it is a red state, but not a backward one like Texas or Oklahoma or something in the Deep South. I believe my primary state of residence, Colorado, is also considering these laws. Interesting also that other blue states I've considered moving to are on the list.

Edited January 27, 2009 by moltar

[pow]

Sorry...how does that prove that carbon emissions do not affect smog and air quality?

When NOx and VOCs combine with sunlight, photochemical smog is created. CO2 is not involved in that reaction.

[ocnblu]

Yes, California is a problem for so many other reasons, but aside from that... we need ONE standard for all 50 states. If it is to be a carbon copy of CARB, or something new, we should have but one standard. It only makes sense.

[SoCalCTS]

During all 8 years of W, California had its own pollution standards, so this is not a "return to normal". Carbon dioxide emissions have nothing to do with regional air quality. So this is actually a new power that California is asking for.

Ummm, yes they do. This has always been a part of California's air quality regulations.

[Intrepidation]

One standard to rule them all.

[siegen]

Yes, California is a problem for so many other reasons, but aside from that... we need ONE standard for all 50 states. If it is to be a carbon copy of CARB, or something new, we should have but one standard. It only makes sense.

Why stop there, we should have one standard for all nations on the planet. It would certainly make it much easier on car makers who sell in multiple markets.

[Robert Hall]

Why stop there, we should have one standard for all nations on the planet. It would certainly make it much easier on car makers who sell in multiple markets.

+1. I think emissions and safety standards should be standardized for cars worldwide. It would be much more efficient for the car makers and better for consumers.

[Cory Wolfe]

I agree with those who say CARB should just be adopted nation-wide.

Per this thread, there are some people who need to crawl back under the rocks they reside under, or atleast wherever they've been for most of the Bush administration to actually agree his policies. It's been a while since I've seen such misguided attitudes. Yes, let's continue to follow those guidelines set forth by Bush's sheer abuse of power. We can truly be a nation that follows in Hitler's footsteps. It's the only way we could ever be true Americans and defend our country!

*shakes head*

I also think there is nothing wrong with how C&G is being moderated at moment. .

[Satty]

Adopt CARB worldwide for gas cars, EURO standards for diesels.

[daves87rs]

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

[black02]

Sorry, carbon emissions affect smog and air quality--can't argue that.

CO2 emissions don't, and that's the context here since over 99% of the carbon that comes out of your car (over 99.99% from newer cars) is in the form of carbon dioxide. So no, the discussion is not over smog and air quality.

Try again. And count me in for increasing fuel efficiency requirements, if that were the actualy discussion taking place.

I don't know what you're discussing, but that is what the title of this thread is about, since California has been setting its own standards for HC, CO, NOx, and particulates for 45 years. CO2 is the new one, and the effect they're worried about is climate change, not smog.

[pow]

CO2 emissions don't, and that's the context here since over 99% of the carbon that comes out of your car (over 99.99% from newer cars) is in the form of carbon dioxide. So no, the discussion is not over smog and air quality.

I don't know what you're discussing, but that is what the title of this thread is about, since California has been setting its own standards for HC, CO, NOx, and particulates for 45 years. CO2 is the new one, and the effect they're worried about is climate change, not smog.

Bingo. This is about fuel economy.

[black02]

Ummm, yes they do. This has always been a part of California's air quality regulations.

No. California has never before regulated CO2. I'm okay with informed disagreement, but this is a simple fact which should not be debated. Do your own research.

[black02]

Bingo. This is about fuel economy.

Yes.

Except note that diesels emit more CO2 per gallon than gas-engine cars do. So while diesels are a great help in meeting fuel economy standards, they do very little for CO2 standards. The diesel Jetta has the same CO2 emissions as a Malibu (mild) Hybrid, in spite of getting 4-5 more MPG.

If anything, this new California CO2 emission standard will put the focus on hybrids and take it back off of diesels, as hybrids will have a much, much easier time meeting the standard than a non-hybrid diesel.

[Intrepidation]

I agree with those who say CARB should just be adopted nation-wide.

Per this thread, there are some people who need to crawl back under the rocks they reside under, or atleast wherever they've been for most of the Bush administration to actually agree his policies. It's been a while since I've seen such misguided attitudes. Yes, let's continue to follow those guidelines set forth by Bush's sheer abuse of power. We can truly be a nation that follows in Hitler's footsteps. It's the only way we could ever be true Americans and defend our country!

*shakes head*

I also think there is nothing wrong with how C&G is being moderated at moment. .

Well said on all counts, and some people just liek to whine...especially when it gets political and they don't agree with it.

[pow]

No. California has never before regulated CO2. I'm okay with informed disagreement, but this is a simple fact which should not be debated. Do your own research.

CARB always had the right to regulate emissions - if they could demonstrate compelling and extraordinary circumstances that justified pollution regulation. CO2 is the latest addition to VOC, NOx, HC, PM, etc.

And according to the Supreme Court, climate change is a big enough threat to California to warrant emissions regulation.

Edited January 27, 2009 by empowah

[pow]

Yes.

Except note that diesels emit more CO2 per gallon than gas-engine cars do. So while diesels are a great help in meeting fuel economy standards, they do very little for CO2 standards. The diesel Jetta has the same CO2 emissions as a Malibu (mild) Hybrid, in spite of getting 4-5 more MPG.

If anything, this new California CO2 emission standard will put the focus on hybrids and take it back off of diesels, as hybrids will have a much, much easier time meeting the standard than a non-hybrid diesel.

True. But I believe there will be a low-carbon fuel standard, so presumably sustainably developed biodiesel and ethanol can reduce the amount of CO2 in fuels.

But until then, there will be a 100% correlation between petrol MPG and greenhouse gas emissions.

[pow]

I agree with those who say CARB should just be adopted nation-wide.

If I were a car enthusiast living in a non-CARB state, I'd rather see two sets of standards.

A non-CARB fleet can have a greater percentage of muscle cars and luxury SUVs than a CARB fleet.

[Robert Hall]

If I were a car enthusiast living in a non-CARB state, I'd rather see two sets of standards.

A non-CARB fleet can have a greater percentage of muscle cars and luxury SUVs than a CARB fleet.

I see no correlation between CARB fleets and muscle cars and luxury SUVs..there are plenty of both of California's roads. Modern performance cars can be clean and efficient. The % of certain types of vehicles are more reflective of climate and demographics than regulations.

[pow]

I see no correlation between CARB fleets and muscle cars and luxury SUVs..there are plenty of both of California's roads. Modern performance cars can be clean and efficient. The % of certain types of vehicles are more reflective of climate and demographics than regulations.

True, there are many efficient performance cars out there. In that case, "A non-CARB fleet can have a greater percentage of [gas-guzzlers] than a CARB fleet."

[Croc]

When NOx and VOCs combine with sunlight, photochemical smog is created. CO2 is not involved in that reaction.

But CO2 emissions do affect "air quality." I guess I should amend my previous statement to read "smog OR air quality." And while regulating CO2 does have the backdoor effect of regulating fuel economy with current technology, that is not necessarily the case when alternative fuels are pursued.

Edited January 27, 2009 by Croc

[pow]

But CO2 emissions do affect "air quality." I guess I should amend my previous statement to read "smog OR air quality."

Heh, I guess it depends on your definition of air quality. It changes the composition of the atmosphere, sure. But is it visible, does it carry an odor, or does it have an immediate effect on human health (like traditional category air pollutants do)? No.

[2QuickZ's]

This thread should tell you everything you need to know about America these days. There is no "middle" any more. When it comes to politics, everybody is seemingly either ultra conservative or ultra liberal. Guess what? Either way you are an EXTREMIST. I hold many ideals from BOTH parties but it looks like that puts me in a severe minority these days.

While I will readily admit that I voted for Obama, I also don't like the potential implications of this decision. I still believe the right way to accomplish the goal is to INCREASE THE FUEL TAX. California and any other states are already well within their rights to do this immediately. It is a proven way to change consumer preference. See the European model. Hell, see how quickly consumer attitudes changed in this country when gas was $4/ gallon and how quickly it changed back when it dropped back below $2/gallon. The argument that a gas tax would unduly hurt the poor is a valid argument. In the short term it would but as our MASS TRANSIT systems were adequately developed then that affect would go away in the long term. So to summarize, an increased

GAS TAX would:

- Change consumer buying habits thereby creating demand for fuel efficient vehicles leading to increased supply

- Take the used car scenario out of the equation since a new, more fuel efficient car would be a more attractive option

- Encourage development of mass transit systems that would potentially take more cars off the road.

- Increased tax revenue could be used to support alternative fuel source development, alternative powertrain development, development of efficient mass transit systems, schools, etc.

Of course, most Americans would be too ignorant to realize what is going on so it would be political suicide and there are no politicians in this country with BALLS big enough to try it.

[Intrepidation]

I hate the idea of increasing fuel tax, because gas prices are the one thing we have going for us in this crappy economy, and when you don't make much money as it is, it's blessing and a relief. On top of that, gas prices will go back up when the economy recovers...so then we'll get $4.00+ gas plus a higher tax.

Plus, we all know the tax profits won't be used for their intended purpose, they'll be wasted on pet projects.

Also, it doesn't take the used car equation out, because many people, liek myself, can't afford a new car right now, or anytime soon. This is an exampel of people on their high horses thinking one solution works for everyone and don't think about how it effects others that make less than they do.

Gas tax is not the solution.

[2QuickZ's]

I hate the idea of increasing fuel tax, because gas prices are the one thing we have going for us in this crappy economy, and when you don't make much money as it is, it's blessing and a relief. On top of that, gas prices will go back up when the economy recovers...so then we'll get $4.00+ gas plus a higher tax.

Plus, we all know the tax profits won't be used for their intended purpose, they'll be wasted on pet projects.

Also, it doesn't take the used car equation out, because many people, liek myself, can't afford a new car right now, or anytime soon. This is an exampel of people on their high horses thinking one solution works for everyone and don't think about how it effects others that make less than they do.

Gas tax is not the solution.

I agree with you on the tax profits likely being pissed away. I also agree with you that a gas tax sucks for most people and isn't a one size fits all solution. I just happen to think it is a much better solution than CAFE, no matter what you set it at. CARBs decrease in CO2 emmisions allowed is essentially just raising the CAFE standard. If there is one thing the existing CAFE standard has proven, it is that it DOES NOT drive consumer choice or change their buying habits. All a lower CARB standard will do is create artificial supply without the corresponding demand. Car makers will essentially have to give any technology used to meet the standard away because consumers are not willing to spend money on it without gas prices being high. A gas tax isn't a great solution but I think it is the best option we have right now.

Edit: I forgot to mention that someone (I don't remember who) was proposing a graduate gas tax that would diminish as gas prices naturally rose. Basically, you would use the tax to keep gas at $4/ gallon (or whatever level was set) until the market actually pushed it to that level or higher.

Edited January 27, 2009 by 2QuickZ's

[2QuickZ's]

My wife just got back from a business trip to France a few days ago. She told me the diesel mini-van they rented used 1/4 tank of gas to drive through Paris traffic to a town 150 km to the south, around town for two weeks and back to Paris through morning rush hour traffic to get to the airport on the opposite side of town. 1/4 tank of diesel was 35 euros. Ouch. I certainly don't want fuel prices to get to that level.

[black02]

But CO2 emissions do affect "air quality." I guess I should amend my previous statement to read "smog OR air quality."

In what way do they affect air quality?

[2QuickZ's]

One last thing. Why can't the CAFE numbers be based in reality? It is really annoying that a CAFE number of 35 mpg will translate to an actual average fuel economy under 30 mpg. Why not just be truthful, use the straight calculation and call it a 28 mpg standard? It is a serious pet peeve of mine that the consumer combined rating is one thing while the CAFE number for the same car is completely different.

[black02]

CARB always had the right to regulate emissions - if they could demonstrate compelling and extraordinary circumstances that justified pollution regulation. CO2 is the latest addition to VOC, NOx, HC, PM, etc.

And according to the Supreme Court, climate change is a big enough threat to California to warrant emissions regulation.

Right. So then the EPA under Bush said that the new CAFE standards were good enough, and California had not demonstrated a need for tougher CO2 standards. Obama is now asking for a review of this, and we're all assuming that the EPA will change its mind. Another possibility would be for the EPA to adopt California's CO2 standards. That would have the interesting effect of effectively trumping the NHTSA's CAFE standards, as a fleet that meets the California CO2 standards should easily beat CAFE.

By the way, Canada also wanted to adopt the California standards, and they don't need EPA permission.

[cletus8269]

[evok]

But CO2 emissions do affect "air quality." I guess I should amend my previous statement to read "smog OR air quality." And while regulating CO2 does have the backdoor effect of regulating fuel economy with current technology, that is not necessarily the case when alternative fuels are pursued.

Regulating CO2 is not a back door way to regulated fuel economy but a direct way to do it.

The CARB waiver loophole should be yanked from the 35+ year old legislation. There is a reason why there is a federal government with an agency that has the authority to regulate such things.

I am giving BO the benefit of the doubt to revisit the Bush decision from a year ago because of his campaign promise. Yet I "hope" he determines the Bush decision was the correct decision and it is upheld.

I assure anyone, his decision to grant the CARB waiver or not will tell a lot about the man and how "pragmatic" he may be. There is only one correct answer on this issue and that is to uphold the Bush decision because of the new CAFE requirements and the Energy Security Act 2007 requiring 35 mpg by 2020.

This is not a policy decision with no correct answer but one that should be driven by the facts as BO said in his press conference on the issue.

Edited January 27, 2009 by evok

[black02]

One last thing. Why can't the CAFE numbers be based in reality? It is really annoying that a CAFE number of 35 mpg will translate to an actual average fuel economy under 30 mpg. Why not just be truthful, use the straight calculation and call it a 28 mpg standard? It is a serious pet peeve of mine that the consumer combined rating is one thing while the CAFE number for the same car is completely different.

Politics. People who don't know any better (that's most people) would think you were trying to reduce fuel economy by 25%, so it would be an unpopular change.

[Croc]

Regulating CO2 is not a back door way to regulated fuel economy but a direct way to do it.

The CARB waiver loophole should be yanked from the 35+ year old legislation. There is a reason why there is a federal government with an agency that has the authority to regulate such things.

I am giving BO the benefit of the doubt to revisit the Bush decision from a year ago because of his campaign promise. Yet I "hope" he determines the Bush decision was the correct decision and it is upheld.

I assure anyone, his decision to grant the CARB waiver or not will tell a lot about the man and how "pragmatic" he may be. There is only one correct answer on this issue and that is to uphold the Bush decision because of the new CAFE requirements and the Energy Security Act 2007 requiring 35 mpg by 2020.

This is not a policy decision with no correct answer but one that should be driven by the facts as BO said in his press conference on the issue.

How does regulating CO2 directly regulate fuel economy for, say, a car like the Volt?

CARB loophole cannot be yanked, as the Supreme Court has ruled that CA has a special circumstance requiring more stringent standards.

[evok]

How does regulating CO2 directly regulate fuel economy for, say, a car like the Volt?

CO2 is a direct product of burning fuel. The Volt has a tail pipe, costs money, and CARB is not regulated as far as I know on cost benefit analysis.

CARB loophole cannot be yanked, as the Supreme Court has ruled that CA has a special circumstance requiring more stringent standards.

Missed that one. The Robert's Supreme Court said the EPA can regulate CO2.

PS How is the housing market and budget in CA?

Edited January 27, 2009 by evok

[Croc]

CARB is regulated on emissions, so a vehicle with the Volt's technology and exact same engine, but say longer-lasting batteries, may end up with greater "mpg" but with the same overall emissions per tank of gas. There is not a direct 1:1 correlation.

Roberts court may have ruled on CO2, but the 35+ year old CARB loophole isn't going away anytime soon.

Housing market is the first buyer's market in well over a decade, yet prices haven't fallen to such an extent that people are losing much equity. The hardest hit are the financed-to-the-hilt, living-above-their-means people waaaaaaay out in the far-flung exurbs. Those are the only properties that are quickly becoming worthless.

As for the budget, well that's what happens when you cross an egomaniac governor with an ornery legislature. But I'd still rather live here than anywhere else.

Edited January 27, 2009 by Croc

[gm4life]

He seems to be avoiding that.

No I am not using "Hitler tactics" waterboarding is not some form of extreme punishment like many on the extreme left want us to think. If waterboarding gets information out of people and helps keep this country safe then I am all for it. FYI Bush wasn't the first to do things like this to get information out of people. I do not support killing one religon of people like Hitler did, how could you even compare this to Hitler? Seirously we don't have gas chambers and where do you want to put the Gitmo folks? Do you really want them going home and fighting us in the war on terror? Living in your back yard? Many folks have been down to Gitmo and say how civil the staff is to the people who stay there. Call me a crazy right winger or a traditionalist, fine. Just don't compare some tough policy on people who could harm this country Hitler like. There is a reason why Gitmo is there and the people in there are there for a REASON. Obama and company including some more moderate republicans want to just enforce laws like CAFE and this is because the consumer doesn't want to buy vehicles like this that get GREAT fuel economy. Let the market drive the choice, I don't understand people who actually think right now or at anytime that this would be a good idea. It is GOING TO KILL CARS LIKE... The Challenger, Camaro, G8, Mustang, Charger, 300, CTS, STS, XLR (already has I believe), Corvette, Viper (might already be dead) and next will come trucks like the Tundra (sure go ahead and get rid of that ugly piece) and then Sierra, Silverado, F-Series and Ram, and Titan. You just wait, I just don't want the goverment telling me what I should drive. I also want to protect my nation from people who are a risk to our nation defense and Bush kept us safe with such things as waterboarding... So why would we risk it now? Just saying the people who are in Gitmo aren't people you want living next door to you and nor should they be treated that nicely. The Bush Admin has been tough on them, but not to the point everyone wants to say on this forum. History will have a very different outlook on Bush than many do now. I just hope all this talk in the admin isn't going to be a second coming of the new deal or should I say raw deal. Didn't work then, won't work now. I am for giving tax cuts to everyone who pays taxes not welfare checks to the poor. The middle and upper classes create more jobs and buy way more products. Sorry boys I have to disagree and agree to disagree. I do like healthly debate but I am getting tired. As for the Hitler comment that is plain crazy...

So to a certain extent I have to agree with Ocn on this whole thread deal.

Good Night.

Also last thought if John McCain would have proposed something so stupid I would have been pissed off too for the record. It is far beyond a dem/rep thing it is an issue of taking away consumer freedom and choice, hurting GM and comapny and getting rid of fun RWD **V8 powered** cars so many of us loved...

Edited January 27, 2009 by gm4life

[black02]

CARB is regulated on emissions, so a vehicle with the Volt's technology and exact same engine, but say longer-lasting batteries, may end up with greater "mpg" but with the same overall emissions per tank of gas. There is not a direct 1:1 correlation.

That statement does not make any sense. The pieces do, as a series of disjoint points. I mean, yes a gallon of fuel burned by the Volt will get more miles than a gallon burned in a Tahoe, for instance. Yet emissions of CO2 per gallon are the same. What that has to do with longer-lasting batteries, I can't imagine. I sure don't see how this responds to Evok's point.

[Croc]

That statement does not make any sense. The pieces do, as a series of disjoint points. I mean, yes a gallon of fuel burned by the Volt will get more miles than a gallon burned in a Tahoe, for instance. Yet emissions of CO2 per gallon are the same. What that has to do with longer-lasting batteries, I can't imagine. I sure don't see how this responds to Evok's point.

That there isn't necessarily a 1:1 correlation between CO2 burned and "mpg" as determined by the EPA.

[Croc]

No I am not using "Hitler tactics" waterboarding is not some form of extreme punishment like many on the extreme left want us to think. If waterboarding gets information out of people and helps keep this country safe then I am all for it.

Except waterboarding is torture according to John McCain: http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2007/10...sed-by-pol-pot/

And the Geneva Conventions also classify it as torture because waterboarding fails the test of Common Article 3.

[Satty]

No I am not using "Hitler tactics" waterboarding is not some form of extreme punishment like many on the extreme left want us to think. If waterboarding gets information out of people and helps keep this country safe then I am all for it. FYI Bush wasn't the first to do things like this to get information out of people. I do not support killing one religon of people like Hitler did, how could you even compare this to Hitler? Seirously we don't have gas chambers and where do you want to put the Gitmo folks? Do you really want them going home and fighting us in the war on terror? Living in your back yard? Many folks have been down to Gitmo and say how civil the staff is to the people who stay there. Call me a crazy right winger or a traditionalist, fine. Just don't compare some tough policy on people who could harm this country Hitler like.

JESUS TAPDANCING CHRIST! First of all, lets waterboard you, then see if you consider it torture. Simulated drowning=torture, there is no way around it. Secondly, closing Gitmo doesn't mean releasing SUSPECTED terrorists into America or sending them back where they came from. It means moving them to other facilities and giving them a fair trial. They're not going to be moved from Gitmo to your local minimum security facility, small towns across America aren't going to have terror suspects sitting in the holding cells of their local police stations. Your argument is asinine.

Edited January 27, 2009 by Satty

[black02]

That there isn't necessarily a 1:1 correlation between CO2 burned and "mpg" as determined by the EPA.

Yes there is. If you tell me much how much gasoline was burned, I can tell you exactly how much CO2 was emitted (within 1%, as there are differences between gasolines). Batteries have nothing to do with this. As an aside, CO2 is not burned. It's a combustion byproduct.

None of the carbon comes from the air, as the carbon in the air is in the form of carbon dioxide, which is inert. All of the carbon emitted comes from the fuel, which is why a CO2 standard is a fuel economy standard.

The vast majority of gases emitted from the ICE are in the forms of nitrogen, water vapor, and carbon dioxide. There are small amounts of NOx and HC and CO, but after the catcon, these gases are in microscopic amounts.

You really might want to read up on the topic. There's plenty of info on the web.

[evok]

That there isn't necessarily a 1:1 correlation between CO2 burned and "mpg" as determined by the EPA.

More importantly, the laws of chemistry prevail here.

[Chazman]

My take...

California to President BO:

"You know, we've got some air quality issues in our urban areas, since we've never really wanted to invest meaningfully in mass transit or anything like that. Anyways, we were thinking that the rest of the country can pay for whatever emission standards our cooky CARB comes up with"

President BO: "Now that sounds like a great idea!"

[daves87rs]

[evok]

My take...

California to President BO:

"You know, we've got some air quality issues in our urban areas, since we've never really wanted to invest meaningfully in mass transit or anything like that. Anyways, we were thinking that the rest of the country can pay for whatever emission standards our cooky CARB comes up with"

President BO: "Now that sounds like a great idea!"

Now that sounds like something Guion would say.

A decision has not been made only that the CARB waiver issue will be revisted.

Edited January 27, 2009 by evok

[cletus8269]

odly enough there was an episode of cities of the underworld that showed california had one called the Pacific Electric Railway. Odly enough GM and several other companies were charged with trying to monopolize transportation but were aquitted.

P.E.R.

more

[Drew Dowdell]

My take...

California to President BO:

"You know, we've got some air quality issues in our urban areas, since we've never really wanted to invest meaningfully in mass transit or anything like that. Anyways, we were thinking that the rest of the country can pay for whatever emission standards our cooky CARB comes up with"

President BO: "Now that sounds like a great idea!"

Cadillac CTS 1SB + Lux package + California Emissions = $38,446 CarsDirect.com

Cadillac CTS 1SB + Lux package + Federal Emissions = $38,683 CarsDirect.com

[evok]

Cadillac CTS 1SB + Lux package + California Emissions = $38,446 CarsDirect.com

Cadillac CTS 1SB + Lux package + Federal Emissions = $38,683 CarsDirect.com

The issue is a tad more complex than that!

[Drew Dowdell]

Well you can't say that California emissions cars cost more than Federal emissions cars to the end user.... and that's what people are trying to say.