If you assumed that the federal mandate requiring automakers to reach the 54.5 miles per gallon corporate average fuel economy standard by 2025 was negotiated cordially and ended in a group hug, think again. Verbal fisticuffs and head butting would be more accurate descriptions, with members of Congress and automakers joining the squabble with the federal regulatory agencies. During the negotiation process, foreign automakers took umbrage with more favorable treatment domestic makers seemed to be receiving by the White House.

While the White House did keep the process quiet and off the public radar, it was more like a boiling cauldron behind the scenes, according to new reports. On Friday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's Republican majority staff released a report stating foreign automakers had bitterly complained about how they were treated. Jim Lentz, the U.S. sales chief for Toyota, said Toyota executives in Japan feel like, "they've been screwed" by the mandate that nearly doubles the fuel economy standards by 2025 and what they see as preferential treatment given to larger trucks, calling it a "second bailout for Detroit."

The White House defended the deal, with White House spokesman Clark Stevens saying the historic standards for 2017-2025 model year light-duty vehicles will save families $1.7 trillion dollars at the pump and dramatically reduce fuel consumption. More than a dozen automakers, along with the United Auto Workers, the state of California (which, at that time, made things more difficult with its even more stringent standards), and environmental organizations, supported the mandate, Steven said.

Toyota wanted a few things out of the deal – credits for hybrid electric vehicles, a category in which the company dominates, more flexibility to use car credits for meeting truck standards, and inclusion of the Toyota Tundra in the definition of full-size trucks in the mandate. Volkswagen and other German automakers complained that the deal didn't give credits for clean diesel, while it did favor EVs, compressed natural gas and ethanol. Resentment with the state of California and its regulatory agency, the California Air Resources Board, also raised hackles in the negotiation process.

At the end of the day, the major automakers are now quietly complying with the federal rules and it doesn't look like they will be fighting the state of California in court over its zero emissions rules, as they did a few years ago.


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
  • 62 Comments
      goodoldgorr
      • 2 Years Ago
      As soon as a compagny increase the mpg of his cars and suvs then many consumers will switch to a bigger car . It happen in the 90s where many drivers switch from car to suv. Recently i saw ads from ford f-150 where they said that it's now ecoboost and do high mpg, so many will go to a pickup truck instead of a car. Look at what you see on the road there is more suv and big bmw instead of small toyota yaris or honda fit. Law cannot dictate what you buy so people want big size. This law is weird and cost a lot because goverment give big subsidies for battery for exemple.
        Joeviocoe
        • 2 Years Ago
        @goodoldgorr
        This is counteracted with higher gasoline prices.
      oollyoumn
      • 2 Years Ago
      "Volkswagen and other German automakers complained that the deal didn't give credits for clean diesel, while it did favor EVs, compressed natural gas and ethanol." How is diesel an alternative to imported oil? It still comes from the same barrel of crude. It already benefits from relatively lower consumption numbers, even thought it pollutes much more per gallon used. What credit do they want? Also, if you believe the marketing ploy "Clean Diesel" then you likely believe that pork is white meat, coal is clean and that Apple products are immune from viruses.
        Joeviocoe
        • 2 Years Ago
        @oollyoumn
        "Also, if you believe the marketing ploy "Clean Diesel" then you likely believe that pork is white meat, coal is clean and that Apple products are immune from viruses." Very Well put :) All three examples are good examples of the missing "er". Today's diesels with Tier 2 Bin 5 are cleaner, but still no where near sufficiently clean. Pork is whiter than many other dark meats. Cleaner coal doesn't really even exist yet, but they are working on it. And Apples are MORE immune just by "security by obscurity". Most virus devs don't bother writing viruses for such a small market share of PCs and since businesses don't use them for finance, the rewards are fewer.
      Matt Fulkerson
      • 2 Years Ago
      Japan is not exactly a level playing field for US automakers, so Toyota's complaints are quite hypocritical.
        kEiThZ
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Matt Fulkerson
        Japan is a level playing field for those who have something worth selling. The Japanese don't want to buy trucks and SUVs. And Detroit doesn't have cars that come close to being competitive on fuel economy in the market segments that the Japanese public cares about.
          Matt Fulkerson
          • 2 Years Ago
          @kEiThZ
          A VAT limits consumption in the country it is imposed (thereby limiting imports), but is rebated for exports, and therefore encourages a trade surplus. Furthermore, if corporate taxes are lowered in tandem with imposing a VAT, the lower corporate taxes are a competitive advantage. Admittedly, I didn't know Japan's VAT was only 5%. But here is a list of other Japanese trade barriers: http://www.globaltrade.net/f/business/text/Japan/Trade-Policy-Japan-Trade-Barriers.html Finally, I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to make Japan the villain here. Rather, I'm saying that other countries wisely enact industrial policy, the US refuses to implement its own industrial policy due to fear of picking favorites and unfettered belief in the free market even when the global market isn't free. Quite simply, the US refuses to play the trade game and then whines about it.
          Matt Fulkerson
          • 2 Years Ago
          @kEiThZ
          Not true. Japan for example has VAT which has the effect of subsidizing exports. Rather than playing the same game that every other nation does regarding trade policies to encourage exports, the US to its own detriment has historically subscribed to the failed logic that trade deficits do not matter. So yes, a company like Toyota that benefits from VAT and similar policies really has little to complain about when the US implements a standard that is probably less then 1/10 as effective as VAT in subsidizing a country's domestic production. Finally, Japan probably wouldn't buy American even if the products are superior. Ford has vehicles that are competitive with Toyota on fuel economy, and superior to Honda.
          kEiThZ
          • 2 Years Ago
          @kEiThZ
          @Matt Fulkerson VAT? Really. You're citing that as a specific advantage for Toyota? A sales tax that applies to everything sold in the country? It's a rather spurrious argument to suggest that Toyota is advantaged by better Japanese tax policies. If that's the case, blame Washington for putting American OEMs in a disadvantageous position instead of ripping on Japan for having common sense. A VAT would be utterly sensible for the US too. Far better to tax consumption than income. But common sense is not quite so common in America.
          EVnerdGene
          • 2 Years Ago
          @kEiThZ
          cause he's a dictator that thinks he is smarter than everyone else. He wants to take even more of my money, and redistribute it to any moron that will vote for him. Obozo thinks that a socialist utopia is possible. It is not. You can redistribute wealth for only so long. After a while, the people that are paying all the taxes will say WTF, why am I working to support a bunch of malcontents that only want more and more. If you can't get this simple concept? God help us. Margaret Thatcher said; "the problem with socialism is that eventually you will run out of other peoples money." Then we'll be like Greece, and Italy, and Spain, and Portugal, and soon the rest of the EU. The harder you work, and the older you get; the more you'll start to agee with me and Margaret. IF; you ever get a chance to do some fulfilling work.
          Matt Fulkerson
          • 2 Years Ago
          @kEiThZ
          EVnerdGene, I agree with you about 25% of the time and also agree with the Dems about 25% of the time. That missing 50% is why I'm an independent. Don't know why you are bringing Obama into this discussion.
          EVnerdGene
          • 2 Years Ago
          @kEiThZ
          just returned from Japan VAT in Japan is 5%, nationwide on almost everything. It is added to the retail price before the sale (always included in the advertised or posted price). Never afterwards. Relatively painless. No state/province/prefecture/county/city sales tax on top of it. Not sure WTF Matt means when he says their VAT subsidizes exports. Sounds like made-up BS. I'm all for a VAT, but only if the entire system is revamped. Imagine our geniuses just adding a VAT on top of everything else we're already paying (like state, county, even city taxes in most locales). Our system is corrupted. We haven't even passed a budget since obozo has been in office. Something is very wrong; and out of control. You should all be concerned.
          EVnerdGene
          • 2 Years Ago
          @kEiThZ
          Matt, By and large, government and industry in Japan work together - a partnership for the better good. Like a long time ago; I forgot who said "what is good for General Motors is good for the USA". Since then, in the US, the governernment and industry have become adversaries. The government has made it so tough to do business that they've run a lot of jobs out of the country. It is taught from grade school thru university; "the evil, greedy corporation". Listen to Obozo's stump speeches "greedy corporations are the bad guys, just vote for me and we'll take care of you". Really upside down. Government does not create new jobs without taking money from those that are working hard for it. Then those people cannot create new jobs. I never got a job from a poor person. Recently, while I was working in the flower beds in the front yard, my neighbors stopped to chat as they returned home from walking their dog. During our friendly conversation, I asked their little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, "If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?" She replied... "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people." Her parents beamed with pride! "Wow...what a worthy goal!" I said. "But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that!" I told her. "What do you mean?" she replied. So I told her, "You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge, and I'll pay you $50. Then you can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out and give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house." She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?" I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party." Her parents aren't speaking to me anymore.
      EVnerdGene
      • 2 Years Ago
      dictator has got to go
      • 2 Years Ago
      This is not going to end well. Whenever the government tries to micromanage the market, the side effects hurt the people more than they help.
      Scambuster
      • 2 Years Ago
      For nearly 80 years, the corrupt politicians within the Federal government have been cuddling the domestic auto makers , the UAW, and pulling punches with respect to regulations. These lawmakers suspended the Sherman and Clayton Anti-trust Act, reduced competition, and permitted the nearly two handful of domestic auto makers to merge, to consolidate, and to be bought out until by 60s, there were only four viable domestic auto makers in the entire USA: AMC, Ford, GM, and Chrysler. By the 70s, these were reduced to three, dubbed the Big Three when in reality they had become small fries in the global auto market. By 2007, both GM and Chrysler were in comatose bankruptcy while Ford struggles in the ICU ward. Detroit became not a symbol of America's auto might, but a poor, decaying, dying, criminally infested city. Meanwhile, a volcanic island with little natural resources has eight auto makers: Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Mazda, Subaru, Daihatsu, and Suzuki. The moral of the story: Decades of cuddling and spoiling the domestic auto makers and the UAW made them lazy, dull, arrogant, and uncompetitive. This latest preferential treatment of domestic auto makers by the Federal government will drive the last nail into the coffins of the domestic auto makers.
        EVnerdGene
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Scambuster
        BTW: GM is still ~$25 Billion in the hole to the US taxpayer - who financed that debt with China. That bailout primarily financed the union's pension funds. Chyrsler bailout - hand over big chunk of Chrysler to their union. The let Fiat (also underwater) pick up the pieces and manage it better than the idiots in Detroit (La Sorda moved to Frisker - hahaha ). Brilliance. When companies are stupid, they deserve to die. When countries are stupid, you can blame it on the stupid that elected the morons. "people get the government they deserve" Obama - Biden ticket = Marxist - Moron ticket
      Joeviocoe
      • 2 Years Ago
      What does 54.5 mpg CAFE translate to, on the current EPA 5-cycle test?
        Dave
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Joeviocoe
        Somewhere in the 38-40 mpg combined range, apparently. http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/epa-mpg-2025-cafe-standards-0811
          Dave
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Dave
          The following gasoline cars already achieve 39+ mpg combined: Toyota Prius, Camry hybrid, Avalon hybrid Ford C Max hybrid, Fusion hybrid Honda Civic hybrid, Insight Lexus ES300h, CT200h Lincoln MKZ And, of course, so do the Tesla, Coda, Volt, Leaf, MiEV, Focus electric, Transit electric, Honda FCX Clarity, and Mercedes F-Cell The Honda Civic natural gas is rated at 38 mpg
      TPGIII
      • 2 Years Ago
      The best I can tell, my car already meets the 2025 CAFE standards and I've owned it for more than 3 years now. It actually cost less to purchase than the average car sold in its EPA size class. Over the last 3 years it has averaged more than 50 mpg and I've recorded as much a 70 mpg for a trip. I've use it to hauled many large item, including a 60" TV and a king size bed. Why wait for the future?
        mapoftazifosho
        • 2 Years Ago
        @TPGIII
        I'm in the same boat...I don't get all these people bitching about this...
      kEiThZ
      • 2 Years Ago
      I don't get the complaints. The companies will need those kind of CAFE standards just to stay competitive in a world of $6 gas. Detroit is ignorant. In a world, where gas costs $6, but half the population is still paying off student debts, wages are stagnant, social benefits are crumbling and taxes are rising, nobody is going to be buying gas guzzling trucks. Sales to younger people are already dropping because they prefer transit where it's available. And hybrids if they buy cars. Detroit is still secretly hoping that everybody will go back to buying high margin SUVs and trucks. This is why the Japanese OEMs should rejoice about these rules. They'll have a competitive line-up for the years to come. Detroit will be even more anemic in the years to come. And when the economy recovers and fuel prices skyrocket, but wages haven't caught up? Guess where consumers will buy their next vehicle.
        Matt Fulkerson
        • 2 Years Ago
        @kEiThZ
        I'm more optimistic than you about Detroit's chances this time around if gas prices sky rocket. At least Ford now has fuel efficient options, and if Americans are smart enough to figure in the cost of gas when buying a car, the market should grow and Ford's average fuel economy will grow with it. Also there is a brand bias against current US domestic automakers due to decades of dropping the ball on quality of small fuel efficient vehicles. A case in point, when we bought our 2003 Pontiac vibe, it was $2000 cheaper than the Toyota Matrix (the Vibe is based on the Matrix). So Toyota cannot be complacent, as US automakers are catching up. If you don't believe me, just wait until the car buying public starts lapping up 47 MPG Ford Fusion and Cmax hybrids, and watch Toyotas market share in the hybrid segment begin to sink.
          kEiThZ
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Matt Fulkerson
          The issue isn't that they don't offer product. The problem is that they just aren't committed. They keep trying to push trucks the minute gas gets slightly cheaper. They don't put marketing resources towards smaller vehicles. Really, go watch TV in Europe or Asia or virtually anywhere else in the world and let me know how often you see truck commercials. Americans buy more trucks. But the American auto industry also pushes trucks and SUVs like nobody's business. Toyota is now moving beyond one-off hybrids an hybridizing its entire line-up. By the end of this decade, I expect that every Toyota will be heavily hybridized as standard. And I expect Detroit will still be selling full gas engines then, trying to undercut the Japanese with small price cuts. This helps preserve margins. But when fuel prices skyrocket, they'll be dead in the water.
          Matt Fulkerson
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Matt Fulkerson
          Well, I guess that is the gamble that the US automakers are making (gas prices won't sky rocket too much higher than they already have). IMO GM is in the worst position because most of their electrification eggs are in the Volt basket, and that drivetrain is expensive and not even that efficient when burning gas. Ford is in a better position than GM because it has a full spectrum from hybrid to plugin hybrid to pure EV. If the price of gas doesn't go too high too fast, Ford will have plenty of time to adjust since they have the tech. Personally, I don't think oil will go too much higher than it already has in the near future since fracking is very profitable at those prices. Plus, when oil is moderately high like it is now over a significant duration, gains in efficiency help dampen demand somewhat. So Toyota is in a good position with hybrid technology available across the board, but I don't think Ford is that far behind. Ford could easily start offering hybrid tech in trucks if they can do it in the Fusion. Finally, I don't think Americans like trucks solely because of advertising. They just like trucks period. Also, most Americans are still in denial that they will spend $20k on gas every 100,000 miles in a 20 MPG vehicle. That's not the automakers' fault. That said, before 2008, I'd agree with your assessment 100%.
      Spec
      • 2 Years Ago
      Why does the government 'negotiate' with corporations? Aren't they supposed to just be doing what is best for the people? What an admission of how corrupt our system is.
        Marco Polo
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Spec
        Spec Corporations are people too ! They pay taxes, and employ the majority of the workforce. Corporations represent a large portion of the national economy. It's not inconceivable that they may know a little more about what's bests for the people, than most politicians whose backgrounds do not necessarily include running anything. In countries where governments acted without consultation, or directly ran the corporations, things didn't go so well!
          Spec
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Marco Polo
          So? I'm a person too but they come to me to 'negotiate' CAFE standards. Corporations just do what is best for them and that can be very bad for the people. The people need to be represented. Clearly keeping the corporations around employing people is good for the people so the corporations will get their due. But just listening to the corporations when their views may conflict with the people, the environment, other competing transport options like public transportation, and other interests is not good.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Marco Polo
          "Corporations represent a large portion of the national economy." So money contribution to the economy is the best indicator of who should have representation in Congress? Yeah, that is corruption! Money talks, and corporations have plenty to say.
        EVnerdGene
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Spec
        "In countries where governments acted without consultation, or directly ran the corporations, things didn't go so well!" Exactly Marco. Politicians should represent the people (which includes corporations) doing what the people think is best. Not what some warped malcontents from Chicago, San Francisco, or Indonesia think best for the country. When it gets beyond representing, it is dictating. You asked who is dictating? If it is not obvious that this "White House" (see article) is dictating, on a daily basis, on almost every issue; then we are doomed. Where should they go? Just go home.
          EVnerdGene
          • 2 Years Ago
          @EVnerdGene
          Michael Bub, Bubba, our founders never imagined Congress would spend most of their time in the Swamp (Washington DC) being boozed and dined by special interest groups. They are supposed to spend well over half their time at home, discussing issues with their constituents. What irritates me most - is that you and the rest of the a-holes in WDC think they are smarter than the people they represent. Remember who you work for, aholes. I really hope this election is a landslide against obozo and anyone that can even imagine that he is doing a good job.
          Michael
          • 2 Years Ago
          @EVnerdGene
          "Politicians should represent the people (which includes corporations) doing what the people think is best. " Gene, sorry bub but that's not how it's supposed to work. Elected officials are supposed to do what they think is best for the people they represent. If the people disagree with their choices we can vote them out. However, the average Joe cannot be asked to make the types of choices elected officials must make because he or she will lack a few things needed to make an informed decision, i.e. a staff to research possible outcomes, a good education to understand what those outcomes will mean to the constituency. We live in a Republic not a Democracy.
        EZEE
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Spec
        Corruption is defined by not ruling with an iron fist, got it. YOU WILL SUBMIT TO MY WILL BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAJAHAJAHAAHAHAHA! So.....I start a business, but decide to incorporate for tax purposes (I wouldn't do that, but our all kind and caring government makes the conditions that prompt me to do that) and all of the sudden, I lose my rights as a human being. Why negotiate? 2wheel - are you reading this? And did you see my link on the invisible bike helmet? I am sure in china, the use of asbestos in cars is good for the people. The cultural revolution....great leap forward....100 million dead.... Times like this I weep for our republic.
          Spec
          • 2 Years Ago
          @EZEE
          No. Let explain things to you in simple terms since you seem to need simple terms to understand. Corruption is when money is given to politicians for access and favorable legislation. The fact that so much money is given by corporations to politicians means that instead of creating good policy, we end up with policy that these corporations think is best for them. And sadly, often that policy is not even good for them, it is good for the executives of those corporations that reap big short term gains such that they have enough money to cash out. They don't even care if the corporation goes belly up as long as they get a couple quarters of huge profits that allow them to lock in enough bonues money to comfortably live for the rest of their lives. That is a really messed up system.
          EZEE
          • 2 Years Ago
          @EZEE
          Spec... Does that include unions, who buy politicians so they can use the power of government to raise taxes to give the unions more benefits? Or large blocks that vote in politicians that take away from producers to give to moochers, or, those who never produce? Now...to throw you a bone, I will say that I say government should stay out of business, and, business should stay out of government. Only the simple minded believe that some form of elite will lead us all to utopia. Read Alinsky...Mussolini....Lenin....it's all the same. Each horrible failure is attributed to it not being the 'right people' in charge. This is what Obama meant when he said, 'we are the people we've been waiting for.'
        Joeviocoe
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Spec
        "I start a business, but decide to incorporate for tax purposes ...and all of the sudden, I lose my rights as a human being. " EZEE, that is a false argument. You do NOT lose your rights as a person... but at the same time, you do not Gain additional rights as employer. You should not personally get a larger share of rights or representation by employing more people. The people you employ should have their own direct rights and representation. This reminds me of when slave owners were fighting so damn hard for representation in Congress equal to the amount of slaves owned. They knew that slaves couldn't directly vote, but the slave owner "knew what was best" for them. They compromised at 3/5ths, remember. The solution is to DIRECTLY represent the people. And not give employers/corporations the rights and representation of the masses. People can change jobs. People can not necessarily have the same views as their employers. Example: In a world where a corporation got extra rights and representation, Chick-fil-a might have extra influence on setting a 'traditional marriage' agenda in Congress because they have 'millions of employees" All the while, the taxes they pay come mostly from customers that don't necessarily agree. And even their own employees may be gay and completely disagree.
          EZEE
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          @joe :)
          EZEE
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          No, it is not a false argument, under Spec's own 'dream.' he wants no negotiation. None. It is the government's right to rule without the consent of the person unfortunate enough to own a business. And employ people. And produce a good or service others want. I am working off of his premise.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Okay, I thought you were making a general statement... and not something based on someone's premise.
        Joeviocoe
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Spec
        "Corporations are people too ! They pay taxes, and employ the majority of the workforce. Corporations represent a large portion of the national economy. " That is the largest portion of crock I have ever read here. Paying money (even in the form of legal taxes) and employing people IS NOT the definition of personhood. Do you think the Mafia should have direct representation in Congress because they 'employ' people and pay money? Oh wait, taxes are legal so that makes all the difference, right? We have a Republic For the People, By the People... and should not go through the "Proxy" of corporations. Government should represent the people DIRECTLY, and not the corporations that employ them. The "taxes" that corporations pay, comes from actual real PEOPLE. And most of the time, not from the employees but from the customers. In the case of Oil, most customers have no choice but to buy gasoline. So the "taxes" they pay is a result of unwilling participants. So giving the Oil company direct representation is a abhorrent. The government should represent the people directly.
          Ele Truk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          I agree, "Citizens United" has to be one of the stupidest decisions the Supreme Court has ever come up with. Corporations are not people, they are not individuals. They may contain people, but they have no conscience, and are run strictly by the bottom line. If it's more profitable to poison the air and water, that's what they'll do. If there are government regulations in place that makes it more expensive to pollute than to be clean, then they will be clean. Simple economics. I think if we are to expect corporations to be treated as "people" then they should have to follow the same rules individuals have to. I can't dump toxins in a river, so they can't either. I can't donate unlimited funds to a candidate, so they shouldn't be able to either.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          I think the the worst decision by the SCOTUS has got to be allowing SuperPACs...
        EZEE
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Spec
        'Just doing what is best for the people.' I wonder how many millions of people have died because the government was doing 'what is best' for the people. 'Why negotiate?, just do it. Crush them under our powerful fist. Make them learn that they have no recourse under any law. Just....wow.
          Spec
          • 2 Years Ago
          @EZEE
          Great strawman there. Yeah, that is exactly what I meant. Dufus.
          EZEE
          • 2 Years Ago
          @EZEE
          No negotiation. None. Your own words. One day, with well knowing elite, we will have that utopia they have told us about. Straw man? Then where do you draw the line on no negotiation?
      brotherkenny4
      • 2 Years Ago
      Seatbelts, catalytic converters and air bags will all add so much cost to cars that consumers will not be able to afford them.
      transpower
      • 2 Years Ago
      While I'm all in favor of greater efficiency, I'm opposed to the government forcing the issue. The increase in expense to obtain 54.5 mpg will mean that consumers will have less for other items. The government should simply be a referee, not a player, in the economy.
        Ryan
        • 2 Years Ago
        @transpower
        Nothing would ever get done then. And without new products, money won't flow around the economy. Where would we be if 80% of the people wanted clean air and water, yet the other 20% wanted to get rid of the EPA, burn all the cheap coal they can find, drill for oil and gas without regard to the environment, dump chemicals in the rivers, etc... People might have 'jobs', and corporations might be able to make more profits, but their environment will make them sick. I want my government to prevent that and come up with policies that help.
          Ele Truk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Ryan
          Sounds like how things actually are, except it's closer to 50-50. Or at least that's the way people vote. I can't image that the 50% of people who tend to vote Republican actually want to get rid of the EPA but since it's the platform Republicans stand on, it's how they end up voting.
        kEiThZ
        • 2 Years Ago
        @transpower
        Does your laissez-faire attitude extend to the publicly-funded infrastructure that the cars drive on as well? Or the government regulation of safety standards? Do you think that the government should not mandate air bags or ABS brakes? Those raise prices too. When tax dollars are building roads the cars drive on (impact on infrastructure), when cars can kill people (safety standards), when emissions can cause long term health issues (health impacts) and when the economy becomes so dependent on a oil that it becomes a strategic resource worth committing military might for (strategic vulnerability), you can bet your behind that there is a strong public interest in the regulation of cars and consumption of oil based fuels.
    • Load More Comments