Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 141 posts

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#71

Post by aoeusnth1 »

chrissnell wrote: post #14
joshmn wrote: post #3

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.…

So you're mad that CA is socializing the side-effects of their regulation because you'd like to socialize the costs of your pollution?

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#72

Post by elgenie »

triviatise wrote: post #19

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…

That wouldn't be the issue here. The question is not whether the federal government gets to set standards at all under the Commerce Clause.

Instead, the issue here would be whether the Act of Congress that specifically governs air efficiency standards gives any quarter to this administration's laughable potential reasoning for not granting a waiver that the law dictates must be granted by the EPA Administrator to allow any state to exceed the federal standard.

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#74

Post by [deleted] »

chrissnell wrote: post #14
joshmn wrote: post #3

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.…

[deleted]

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#75

Post by acobster »

evv wrote: post #69
Xcelerate wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reasoning was that he impacted markets by not having to buy wheat and therefore he should be fined for violating farming restrictions I see the government is familiar with interaction-free measurements of quantum systems. But seriously, it sounds like people will "interpret" anything in any way that is most convenient to them. I almost wish we had a formal system of language so these sorts of things would not o…

> I almost wish we had a formal system of language You mean "legalese"? The language used in law is very specific and nuanced. I enjoy how similar it is to programming, where a bug in the source language can be exploited, much how imperfections in legal documents can be used as a loophole. I'd love to see a software system that is able to reliably output high-quality legal documents. If developed in the open, any law…

> In theory we could build a framework that makes it easy to write loophole-free contracts

You mean similar to how, in theory, we could build a framework that makes it easy for us all to write readable, bug-free code?

Edit: I was mostly being tongue in cheek, but I also recognize that this is about provably correct code à la Coq, etc. That'd be cool for sure. :)

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#76

Post by comex »

elgenie wrote: post #53

This is just nonsensical saber-rattling without Congressional action that stands approximately zero chance of taking place. The relevant portion of the law [1] is pretty clear. The "waiver" granted to California is automatic, with no discretion for the EPA, "if the State determines that the State standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards",…

> or not needed for "compelling and extraordinary conditions".

To clarify, here's the original quote:

> No such waiver shall be granted if the Administrator finds that—

> (B) such State does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions

That is, the heightened state standards themselves must be justified by compelling and extraordinary conditions, in the judgement of the EPA administrator. (Your trimmed quote suggests an alternate interpretation where they'd need compelling and extraordinary reasons to reject the state standards, but it's the other way around.)

It doesn't sound hard to me for the EPA administrator to argue that there are no longer "extraordinary" conditions specific to California that justify additional regulation. Apparently, when the language was initially enacted in 1970, it was meant to refer to smog episodes in Los Angeles [1]...

[1] https://theconversation.com/why-california-gets-to-write-its...

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#77

Post by denkmoon »

evv wrote: post #69
Xcelerate wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reasoning was that he impacted markets by not having to buy wheat and therefore he should be fined for violating farming restrictions I see the government is familiar with interaction-free measurements of quantum systems. But seriously, it sounds like people will "interpret" anything in any way that is most convenient to them. I almost wish we had a formal system of language so these sorts of things would not o…

> I almost wish we had a formal system of language You mean "legalese"? The language used in law is very specific and nuanced. I enjoy how similar it is to programming, where a bug in the source language can be exploited, much how imperfections in legal documents can be used as a loophole. I'd love to see a software system that is able to reliably output high-quality legal documents. If developed in the open, any law…

Fortunately in software we can patch in a matter of moments.

Unfortunately bugs written in legalese tend to take years or decades to patch.

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#78

Post by socialentp »

civilitty wrote: post #26
zamalek wrote: post #2

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.

"Arnie" has absolutely nothing to do with it. California has been the critical point of failure in the conservatives' attack on the environmental regulations since the 70s. Due to the size of the California economy, CalEPA and California Air Control Board emission standards are the floor for regulatory approval, even if national EPA standards are less strict. This is nothing more than special interests dictating poli…

Agreed. Almost all of his actions can easily be explained by looking at how it is benefiting old money — coal, mining, oil, sugar, cars, cable, telecom etc. He is just helping last century’s industries hold onto their power.

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#79

Post by elgenie »

comex wrote: post #76
elgenie wrote: post #53

This is just nonsensical saber-rattling without Congressional action that stands approximately zero chance of taking place. The relevant portion of the law [1] is pretty clear. The "waiver" granted to California is automatic, with no discretion for the EPA, "if the State determines that the State standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards",…

> or not needed for "compelling and extraordinary conditions". To clarify, here's the original quote: > No such waiver shall be granted if the Administrator finds that— > (B) such State does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions That is, the heightened state standards themselves must be justified by compelling and extraordinary conditions, in the judgement of the EPA administra…

Sure, they can make that argument and then attempt to try to sell "climate change isn't real" in a fact-focused forum. That's not going to go too well for them.

The Administator's discretion to get out of giving a waiver that shall be granted is pretty limited.

Re: Trump is going after California’s clean car mandate

#80

Post by khuey »

dahdum wrote: post #68
bikezen wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing preventing it, they've all just decided California rules meet their same goals, and it is more advantageous for them to share the same rules than expand further.

Yes there is, 49 states must seek policy exemptions from the EPA and win approval for them, while California has no such burden. CA gets a perpetual exemption allowing them freedom no other state gets. Edit: I was actually wrong here, no other state may even ask for a waiver. > This power is reserved alone for California, and it only covers pollution from cars. No other state can ask for a waiver. (In all of federal…

When Congress passed the Clean Air Act they wrote an exception for California into the law. If they don't like it they should get Congress to change the law.
Post reply on HN