21–30 of 141 posts
These regulations impose an unfair burden on consumers outside of the state, who must pay for California-spec'ed emissions equipment that they never wanted or were required to have. Non-Californians have litte power in the voting booth to resist California's impositions. By going after the exemption, the administration is making things more fair for the folks in the other 49 states.
These regulations impose an unfair burden on consumers outside of the state, who must pay for California-spec'ed emissions equipment that they never wanted or were required to have. Non-Californians have litte power in the voting booth to resist California's impositions. By going after the exemption, the administration is making things more fair for the folks in the other 49 states.
I have a sense that there's something wrong here. Wrong layer of abstraction? California imposes whatever pollution regulations it wants, then it's up to the car manufacturers how to handle that. They could choose not to sell to CA residents. They could choose to make a separate line of CA-specific cars. But they choose instead to make all their cars up to CA standard because whatever, it's cheaper for them overall,…
These regulations impose an unfair burden on consumers outside of the state, who must pay for California-spec'ed emissions equipment that they never wanted or were required to have. Non-Californians have litte power in the voting booth to resist California's impositions. By going after the exemption, the administration is making things more fair for the folks in the other 49 states.
Thanks for the view in support of this decision. It'll be interesting to see whether or not that view holds up in court, as it'll have long reaching ramifications when it comes to states rights. If a law in a state forces others around it to comply simply due to the population/power differences between the states, is that law legal?
Think about that for a second. Then you will understand ridiculous this notion is.
In wickard vs filburn the govt made the case that a wheat farmer that grew wheat only for himself was subject to the interstate commerce clause. The reasoning was that he impacted markets by not having to buy wheat and therefore he should be fined for violating farming restrictions. The supreme court ruled in favor of the US govt. This expansion of the commerce clause could lead to trump being able to get something l…
Arnie has been pretty vocal against Trump, respectful but openly defiant. I wonder if this is disciplinary action - turning climate change is very close to Arnie's heart.
This is nothing more than special interests dictating policy, helpfully exposing GOP hypocrisy in its wake. "State's rights" for me when I want to enslave someone, externalize costs, or infringe on civil rights but "federal supremacy" when you don't do what we want.
These regulations impose an unfair burden on consumers outside of the state, who must pay for California-spec'ed emissions equipment that they never wanted or were required to have. Non-Californians have litte power in the voting booth to resist California's impositions. By going after the exemption, the administration is making things more fair for the folks in the other 49 states.
There's no "more fair to other consumers" here, nor is there any "imposition" by California on consumers in other states. There is, however, an imposition on car manufacturers who wish to have their vehicles operated in California. Not seeing the problem here.
It seems odd to me that California gets a pass to make their own rules here. I don't know the law enough, but there does seem to be some minor parallels to the sports betting SCOTUS case that was just ruled on (saying that it was illegal to have special waivers for a single state). Maybe this is different as it was a waiver by the EPA and not a law?
California's clean-air efforts were one of those laboratory-style experiments, though, and were deemed worthwhile enough that, when the federal Clean Air Act was drafted, it was set up to allow California -- the only state which really was experimenting in this area -- to obtain waivers allowing it to continue exploring its own policies. Other states have the freedom to choose to adopt California's standard, or the federal standard.
Also, the Clean Air Act is a bit interesting in how it works. Rather than applying for a waiver and having to hope it's granted, California is basically entitled to the waiver unless the EPA can show certain conditions have not been met:
https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/vehicle-e...
Which in turn means that a President who simply dislikes California is not in a position to deny the waiver on a whim. Trump would have to show that the conditions for the waiver were not met, and would likely have to prove it to a court, rather than just give the order to an administrator who's beholden to him for employment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly this. It's merely a petty move. It doesn't benefit the country, it benefits his fragile, classless ego. Has he looked or been otherwise briefed on how these mandates have crippled the American automakers? I'll be damned if he knows more than a talking point or two. Didn't you hear? Those coal miners in West Virginia with black lung disease are losing their jobs because those yuppies in California are buying e…
Not true--when CA imposes new emissions or efficiency regulations, the automakers are forced to comply to keep access to that huge market. Not wanting to design two different vehicles, they simply comply and pass the cost along to all of the buyers, whether they live in CA or not. The rest of the country has no way to directly affect the CARB's decisions. This exemption, therefore, is very unfair for the rest of us.…
As has already been explained, this is false. These rules are for CARB states, not for California. California is in charge of working with the other states to set the rules.
states' rights?