REPORT: California still wants EPA waiver to set emissions standards until 2012
Even though President Obama's new national CAFE standards will lean on the stricter California standards for support and there was broad agreement that a national standard of this type is the way to move forward, the devilish details could still cause a disagreement or two.
Problem One is that the new CAFE rules don't start affecting new cars until the 2012 model year. Problem Two is that the whole EPA waiver thing hasn't been decided. While California will back down once the 2012 models are here, that state has announced that it still wants to be able to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions between now and then. The New York Times' Jim Motavalli explains that California doesn't see its rules for the next few years being all that tough for automakers to comply with using existing technology. The battle lines are still drawn, but they're getting a bit scuffed up.
[Source: The New York Times | Image: Mel. B under C.C. 2.0)
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Jeff Johnson 3:14PM (5/29/2009)
well California's track record of "good decisions" is pretty much in the crapper. They made so many good decisions the state is bankrupt.
How about some good ole fashioned common sense: They can do whatever they want emissions wise, go nuts guys. But when people start moving out of your crazy state, and car manufacturers stop selling cars to you you are not allowed to cry about it. Deal?
So CA thinks that the rules "aren't that tough" - rules arent made up to be tough, their core purpose is to be fair and reasonable. You could set the minimum MPG requirement to 60MPG tomorrow, and everyone will be happy for a few days. Then some tree hugger will pipe up and say "i think we need to make it 65mpg just because"
This environmental "holier than thou" game is old and retarded, and besides being impatient, CA just seems to want to kick automobile makers when they are down. Thank goodness I live in texas :)
Reply
John 3:36PM (5/29/2009)
I agree with your points. However, car makers won't stop selling there. Many now make 50 state cars to satisfy CARB and pass the costs on to customers in other states as well.
In the end, there is nothing the automakers could ever do to satisfy CARB short of being legislated out of business in their precious state. This is what happens when extreme environmentalists have a state government in their pocket.
why not the LS2LS7? 3:40PM (5/29/2009)
Your anti-California "holier than thou" argument is also overworn.
How about you stick to the first half of your argument. Let California do what it wants?
John 3:57PM (5/29/2009)
"Your anti-California "holier than thou" argument is also overworn."
Maybe you should leave the state once in a while and get a dose of reality. The world doesn't revolve around your precious state.
Then you might get an idea of how warped some of the values are out there.
why not the LS2LS7? 4:03PM (5/29/2009)
Where did you even get that argument?
There is nothing California can do to hurt selling cars in your state. If California does something so crazy that makes it a state where selling cars isn't cost-effective, then car companies simply wouldn't sell cars there. This wouldn't deprive people in other states of anything they are due. The other states would then just have to present a decent-sized market without California's assistance. Which they probably will do just fine, and if they cannot, it's their own fault, not California's.
I fail to see how asking to be able to set their own emissions regs within California is more of an attitude of "everything revolves around us" than an attitude of other people trying to say California cannot is.
cdwrx 4:34PM (5/29/2009)
As a Californian I have to agree with you John, thank goodness you live in Texas. BTW, you forgot to mention you own a Z06.
Tourian 4:36PM (5/29/2009)
Okay, I'll feed your ego. The automakers need California. They can't afford not to sell cars there. There I said it, are you happy?
Its stupid to keep arbitraily wanting to be different from the other states "just cause". Its stupid to force automakers to keep chasing higher standards for the sake of seeing them chase them. It will eventually wittle down the industry to a few players because the broke ones can't keep up and we all lose because we'll all have only fewer choices in the marketplace.
dwaltr 4:42PM (5/29/2009)
CAFE and California need to just go away. Both are an embarrassment to humanity.
Capsicum 1:17AM (6/01/2009)
That's exactly why about 400 people are moving out of California every DAY. A large portion of them are going to states like Texas and Florida and Nevada, where there is no state income tax. High taxes and other California government hijinks are the blame for this. California's solution? More douchebaggery!
fizzandpop 4:58PM (5/29/2009)
Non Californians please take note:
Due to our state's constitution, we have the most polarized political system in the world. The only people left in Sacramento are to the extreme fringes of both sides of the political spectrum.
We are trying to change this.
In the meantime all we can do is produce legislation that is a bizarre mutation of the wishes of most moderate voters in the state and probably the country.
We apologize, but please don't blame us. All the seats are safe so we are only able to elect loony liberals, or right wing nutjobs. There is no room for sane politics in California.
TigerMil 6:00PM (5/29/2009)
So let people move from CA if they don't like it. Too many rats in the cage there anyway. Traffic is miserable, smog is worse, Napa Valley can make up for it, but still....
CA's deficit/tax issue will take care of itself...can either bail them out (not in favor of that, but WTF...they went Dem for Obama), increase taxes, or decrease services.
tekd 5:23PM (5/30/2009)
I don't even see why anybody cares-they've been setting their own standards for years and somewhat obviously the standards are going to ramp up to the national 2012 standards anyway so all the auto manufacturers are going to have to start improving towards 2012 since they literally have to with or without California.
It's not like they're going to institute something tougher than the national standards for 2012-since that'll be their own 2012 standard anyway. Any automaker who isn't improving towards 2012 is going to be screwed nationwide come 2012 so it's unlikely they'd have a hard time meeting the California requirements.
And in all fairness to California their location largely causes all the pollution to stay in a giant cloud over the state due to the winds, which is why they've constantly gone for stricter standards. So if you don't live in such a state you have no right to go and whine about someone else's standards-it's none of your business any more than people in California can whine about the tolls on the roads in some other state. If you want to sell people cars and they want higher pollution standards for them you should shut the hell up and do it, or just don't sell cars in California. Since when do people from states that make cars have the right to whine about the people buying them? You don't dictate what your customers will and won't buy, so if you have a problem with it don't make cars that meet the requirements and don't sell to California. Nobody forces you, but if you want to sell to them and you want to have more jobs then just shut up and be happy you have customers.
Seriously what gives anybody the right to whine about what people in some other state want in their cars? If someone wants all their cars to have more catalytic converters what gives you the right to whine about that?
paul34 3:30PM (5/29/2009)
Is there anyway we can give Southern California 100% sovereignty - that is, kick them out of the Union? Something tells me everyone would be far happier in that case. Well, until they go bankrupt a few more times and beg to be let back in so they can get some bailouts.
Reply
mcampasini 3:32PM (5/29/2009)
texas wanted to do it maybe california can join them.
DKB_SATX 4:39PM (5/29/2009)
mcampasini: No, "Texas" (suggesting the majority of Texans or somehow the physical state itself) did not want to secede, our helmet-haired hick governor was sucking up to some right-wing wackos by hinting around about it. What this Texan wants is for Perry to lose the next election and lose himself somewhere in the vast emptiness of west Texas so the sane people don't have to hear what spews from his pie-hole.
XGM 3:39PM (5/29/2009)
What is the point of these emission standards when nobody is buying new cars ?
Reply
jamesnardini 3:39PM (5/29/2009)
I'm thankful I live in California but this kind of bureaucratic thinking is ridiculous.
The Federal standards are plenty strict and all CARB will do is cost manufactures money they do not have (nice timing). The 'stricter' standards will have little (if any) benefit.
I hope someone comes to their senses and quick.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 3:41PM (5/29/2009)
This only takes effect until the national standards kick in.
The stricter standard may reduce oil import by up to 11%. This is hardly little to no benefit.
inline6 4:09PM (5/29/2009)
Right, because with vehicle development on the 2010s already done (plant conversions start in about 45 days for those that haven't debuted since Jan 1...the tooling is already ordered), and the 2011s are basically at the finishing touches stages (and will begin debuting in 7 months), the automakers will REALLY have enough time to change the fuel economy of their vehicles to reach California's unique regulations (whatever they are) for 2010 and '11.
So either California's unique interim regs will be so negligibly different as to have no effect, or they'll be so different that no manufacturer will be able to change their products to meet them in time.
I think this is just a desperate ploy by a sinking state to scare up last-minute revenue from the fines they'll get from the OEMs for not hitting whatever levels they plan to stipulate.
why not the LS2LS7? 4:18PM (5/29/2009)
They only would have to change the mix of cars sold, not redesign cars.
You are fluidly moving from one argument to another. You extend an argument that it will have no benefit by instead switching to "well, it'll be tough to do".