• Jan 15, 2009
The decision on whether or not to allow states to enforce limits on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions is moving back to center stage under the incoming Obama administration. Lisa Jackson, the President-elect's nominee for EPA administrator, has promised to "immediately revisit" the issue once she is confirmed for the office.
During his election campaign, Obama promised he would allow states to each dictate their own rules towards greenhouse emissions. This puts the administration at odds with the automakers, which argue that it's a federal responsibility (along the same lines as regulating fuel economy). Most in the industry feel that having state-mandated greenhouse gas limits would add unnecessary costs to vehicles, and create problems for dealers located near state lines. The states, however, want the right to impose their own regulations. We've been watching this exhausting cage match for years, and the conflict doesn't show any signs of waning.

[Source: Automotive News - Sub. Req.]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 27 Comments
      • 6 Years Ago
      Vincenzo,

      Is that what they said on Faux News? Why do you feel forced to believe any crap that comes from O'Reilly?

      California will not "ban Ferraris, trucks and SUVs" you idiot, there will be exceptions made for specific types of vehicles such as utilitarian ones, just read the text for yourself.

      The reason why California took the lead, is because this SOB W.Bush did everything in his power against pollution restrictions. Look, the head of the EPA is the former director of a coal industry, do you think he gives a rat's A of what goes into your lungs?

      But maybe you just can't understand, you're a perfect example of the many morons, gun toting christian extremist skum that seem to have snapped out of reality.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Thank you. I am a Republican, and a conservative one at that.

        But how dumb can people get in here. The ONLY reason states started pushing this was because Bush started easing emissions laws. You may all recall that it was Bush who forced a law that restricted FULL credit for hybrids only on the first 60K sold by each automaker. It's not that he fought to ease global warming and emissions rules, it's that he did everything he could to remove all laws that preceded him.

        That is why states came up with this idea, but i am sure that this is all new to Autoblog and Mr. Harley. Ignorance is a bliss after all.
      • 6 Years Ago
      None of this is or has ever been about carbon emissions. If you think it is you are a complete idiot.

      The entire purpose of this legislation is raising money, period. You force car companies to either match legislation targets or pay up. You force people to pay for emission checks and raise money. Just like the E-Check in Ohio which only needs to be done in handpicked counties. People got so pissed that they were going to drop the program. Instead they just made it "free", adding the cost to your registration rather than have you pay at the E-Check test station.

      Our current government exists only to steal money from hard working people and give it out to the undeserving and criminal.
      • 6 Years Ago

      Well considering how polluted the air here in Los Angeles seems to be, I think that California is at least partly justified in having stricter emission standards. At least it is better than getting lung cancer.
      • 6 Years Ago
      No, every state is different and should be able to create emission laws that suit their local geography, demographic, and economy. If California has cities with smog issues then that's their own problem, don't drag the whole country into it. Let EPA set minimums and allow states to impose stricter standards. If automakers don't like it, too bad, its no different than going into another country and having to deal with their local laws.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Sadly, I agree with you. It would be nice to have one national standard or one world standard so that the automakers wouldn't have duplicate effort to get one product into more than one market (and polution and whatnot) but the reality is that :

        1) In America, the Constitution does bestow the power to regulate the environment to the Federal government. Not that it has stopped them before. This is given to the states through the 10th amendment.

        2) In the rest if the world, higher air quality is a convienience not a right. It is a luxury rich countries can afford and poor countries cannot. Americans and Europeans can't expect people in impoverished nations to pick catalitic converters over putting food on the table.

        I reality, if we had the right incentives; we, and the automakers, wouldn't need government regualtions telling us how safe our cars should be or how much fuel they are allowed to use.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Listen to all this bs about carbon emmisions. It doesn't cause global warming and it is not a pollutant. CO2 is an essential trace gas that is neccessary for life. Improving fuel economy is what we should be talking about, not carbon emmisions.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Obama is from Hawaii.

      Hopefully he remembers his Hawaiian roots--i.e. fast, cool looking cars (and exotics).

      There's still hope folks.
      • 6 Years Ago
      It's a federal responsibility, end of story. It will be resolved in court if EPA tries it.
      • 6 Years Ago
      The complaint about different standards is humourous for me. I am in Canada and all the car companies have to comply with different standards for our market (population approximately 35 million). California's population is pretty similar to ours, but in a much smaller geographic area.

      If the companies can achieve different standards for different countries then why not for different states?
      • 6 Years Ago
      NO NO NO!!!!! Are these states full of idiots?

      It is bad enough that CA dictates their own emissions standards. Regardless, in such a scenario of each state having a different standard, automakers will build cars to whatever the toughest standard is.

      What we need to do to boost the world (and especially domestic) auto industry is to have the US quickly adopt and accept (even if temporarily) European standards for auto safety and emissions. This will allow for fast track introduction of the more efficient European products we need (want) here including the small displacement direct injection turbo diesels.

      When is government going to get it?



        • 6 Years Ago
        One of the few powers that a federal government SHOULD take and they want to give this to the states, while illegally mandating a drinking using road funding as a ransom.

        Good to see the kind of "change" we have coming...
        • 6 Years Ago
        @rocket

        in some cases the financial burden is placed on the consumer, some models have a fee for the 50state emissions (CA approved)
        • 6 Years Ago
        One of the big problems that car makers face when building cars for the European/Japanese/US car markets are the little things that have to be changed. For example, on a motorcycle in the US, laws dictate you have to have a safety cut off switch placed on the handlebars in a certain way where as European motorcycles have it in a different way. A tiny switch may seem like to big deal to a huge company like Honda, but for a tiny motorcycle manufacturer they would have to rework the wiring systems for each individual country AND California which has different standards than everybody else.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Before calling states idiots study the issue.

        States do not want to regulate vehicles, the reason they started doing this was because Bush administration did everything it could not to implement a single step in fight against global warming. Bush did the opposite. That is why those states joined CA. Simply look at Bush's environmental record, his fiscal record and Katrina record are far better than his environmental one.


        That says something.

        • 6 Years Ago
        Hey, Zamfir, I suppose you DO have a PHD and care to correct exactly what was wrong with my comment? Of course the same administration you bashed had their shares of PHDs and Ivy League degrees. Hate to break it to you, but both parties together have worked to reduce the states power and grab more federal power, and if you don't understand that and think the president did it all, then you apparently failed 4th grade government class where they explain exactly how the 3 branches of our government work.

        Take your condescending attitude and go back to playing the pan flute.
        • 6 Years Ago
        European standards? You might want to rethink that one. Didn't the Chinese manage to sell the Brilliance over there? Seems to me there are a lot of crap cars that make it through the European standards. It would be nice to see the everyone agree on a global standard (hopefully a high one) but don't hold your breath. We all can't agree to drive on the same side of the road or use Metric. Those two things would make a huge difference alone in cost to automakers.

        It is pretty sad that California had to start a movement to different standards but it only happened because the feds weren't doing anything.
        • 6 Years Ago
        No, this isn't a case of 50 different states with 50 different emissions requirements. Far from it. In reality, it would be 17 or so states that collectively adopt California's stricter standard, and the rest of the nation who follow the EPA standard. Two standards, not 50.

        For those who claim it would be a financial burden for automakers to produce two sets of vehicles to satisfy two different standards, there is a simple solution: Design all vehicles to the same stricter standard, and they would automatically pass the easier EPA standard. And before anyone claims it would somehow put the Big 3 at a disadvantage, consider the even bigger disadvantage of an American car market open to substandard third-world vehicles, if there were no standards such as emissions requirements, fuel efficiency requirements, crash test requirements, etc. to keep them at bay.

        Autoblog, May 23, 2007: "California adopted a requirement declaring that automakers reduce their fleets' CO2 emissions... Eleven states have followed California's lead... six or so additional states are expected to adopt the same measures."
        http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/23/they-want-more-ca-petitions-to-raise-automaker-fleet-standard-t/
        • 6 Years Ago
        @xspeedy

        Apples and Oranges. That is a pretty old F-150 as opposed to a new Chinese design. There are all kinds of new vehicles being sold in Europe that we would find shockingly inadequate safety wise. I think a global standard is a good thing but I think it needs to be higher than the European ones that have allowed some pretty questionable cars on the road.
        • 6 Years Ago
        I dont agree. What ever happened to the word "United" in the United States of America? EPA emissions is a global issue and should be treated as such. It is a more significant difference if the country made decisions as a whole and not in particular states. Hopefully all states make smart choices although it is highly unlikely. In my opinion Obama is simply getting rid of the responsibility with the EPA standards.
        • 6 Years Ago
        "One of the few powers that a federal government SHOULD take and they want to give this to the states, while illegally mandating a drinking using road funding as a ransom.

        Good to see the kind of "change" we have coming..."

        Lol, I assume you have a PHD, graduated top of your class, and taught constitutional law as well? Oh wait, no, never mind. Give me call once u finish that PHD and we'll revisit which rights belong to the state under the constitution. I always love comments like this when our outgoing administration stripped states of the most rights of any administration on record and grew the federal government the most of any administration on record (and f*cked the economy the most as well). I'll go ahead and give this previously conservative notion of states rights a chance, especially when proposed by someone who, you know, taught constitutional law with their PHD and all.
        • 6 Years Ago
        its bad enough drivers licenses and registration and plates are different state to state now emissions too? WTF! that is small minded.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Re: Judy Zik

        I'm not sure about the Brilliance, but I believe that the vast majority of the cars there are safe. I would instantly put my family in a Ford Mondeo or European Ford Focus. Just remember that the US has had some unsafe vehicles as well. Most of our safety comes from not NHTSA, but from IIHS. Even if the Brilliance is sold here, let the buyer beware. It is ultimately the consumers responsibility to check the crash results. Just remember that the top selling vehicle (or at least one of) in the US performed like this. Yes it is a truck, but here in TX I see many of these hauling around families.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmADMthzm6U
      • 6 Years Ago
      I normally wouldn't have a problem with this, but the condition the big three is in right now would make having to build separate models for different states very costly.
    • Load More Comments