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

81–90 of 141 posts

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

#81

Post by epicureanideal »

acobster wrote: post #75
evv wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. :)

Maybe more similar to strongly typed languages vs weakly typed languages rather than frameworks. Static types, linters, virus scanners, etc.

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

#82

Post by Xcelerate »

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…

> You mean "legalese"?

No, more so something that could be verified using an interactive theorem prover; e.g., Coq (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq).

All lawsuits would then consist of running a computer program against the legal "code".

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

#83

Post by dmode »

product50 wrote: post #50
pmichaud wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

If you have been in manufacturing, you will know that building 2 differently spec'ed cars is much more expensive than have an assembly line with a same spec'ed car. And California has a large population to be a lucrative market. In essence, that means that car manufacturers have to build to California's emission standards and distribute the costs to all users (even those who aren't in California).

I don't want to breathe polluted air because car companies cannot be arsed to manufacture 2 spec cars. It's their problem

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

#84

Post by Alex3917 »

dahdum wrote: post #44
Alex3917 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> automakers are forced to comply to keep access to that huge market 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.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the other states only have a say, and not a vote? It's ultimately California's decision what they must accept. Edit: Looked it up, no other states have a vote. 12 governor appointed members and 2 elected members of the CARB board decide.

The other states can either accept the federal standard or the CARB standard. The states adopt the California standard because it’s better, not because the feds are forcing them.

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

#86

Post by khuey »

dahdum wrote: post #44
Alex3917 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> automakers are forced to comply to keep access to that huge market 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.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the other states only have a say, and not a vote? It's ultimately California's decision what they must accept. Edit: Looked it up, no other states have a vote. 12 governor appointed members and 2 elected members of the CARB board decide.

The other states have the choice of the CARB standards or the EPA standards.

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

#87

Post by patrickg_zill »

I have never lived in CA. but I have been affected by CA's usurpation of the market. Let me explain...

CA wrote extraordinarily strict rules (maybe the Feds will call them "arbitrary and capricious" ?) that unduly penalized diesel engines. As a result, great diesel engines and often the cars that go in them, that are sold in other parts of the world, are not available in the USA.

Since CA is such a large market for cars, a car maker will usually not bother to make or import a car that they can't sell in CA.

So, I am harmed by CA's standards and have no recourse - I can't vote in CA state elections because I don't live in CA.

The BMW 320d, which is sold all over EU etc. and has better performance and better fuel economy than the Toyota Prius? CA won't allow its sale because of their regulations.

Meanwhile, up to 29% of SF Bay Area smog is from China (I found different quoted numbers ranging from 20 to 29%)... which has nothing to do with cars being driven by Americans.

see https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/03/518323094...

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

#88

Post by dmode »

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…

Given the record breaking Summers and ever growing wild fires that would be a tough argument

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

#89

Post by nitwit005 »

chrissnell wrote: post #4

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.

You could make this argument about any state law. The companies that cross state lines have to eat the costs of compliance. Should we not allow state laws anymore? Or no local laws at all, since the same issue holds true for counties and cities?

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

#90

Post by joecool1029 »

titzer wrote: post #40
chrissnell wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> It's problematic and I'd love to skip it on my next purchase. I'd like you to go ahead and not pump a crapton of pollution into the air, thanks. Sorry for being so direct, and I would generally prefer to be more civil, but your comment strikes me as incredibly tone deaf and frankly, destructive. You are one inch away from advocating peeing in the swimming pool because it's cheaper than building toilets.

Since you probably haven’t owned a modern diesel vehicle I’ll tell you why owners don’t like the equipment on small vehicles. (Cars and light trucks)

It mostly comes down to the diesel particulate filter (DPF) that reduces visible soot. This is not really a problem outside some major cities.

Why don’t we like the DPF systems? Consider something like a VW Golf or Jetta TDI. With these systems you’re adding hundreds of pounds of extra dead weight, a regen cycle is required which wastes fuel by blowing it into the filter to regenerate. Combined, this wastes around 10-15%. The cherry on top is you cannot run blends of biodiesel higher than 15% or it ruins the DPF since it doesn’t volatilize like diesel does. Biodiesel is renewable and already comes with reduced emissions without extra controls.

I do give a bit of a shit about the environment and if given the option I would not have a DPF on a light diesel. I have a hard time seeing how decreased fuel mileage and a restriction on running renewables equals care for the environment.

Keep in mind, we removed sulfur from our on-road fuel in the US back in 2007 (way behind europe). This was a big help in allowing new catalyst controls to work as well as reduce conventional diesel pollution.

But yeah, this is not stuff most people consider or know about until they own a noxwagen after previously owning one of the pre-2007 tdi’s, read the bosch whitepapers on the controls, and have a dpf fail just outside federal emissions warranty (VW’s motto: If you can program it to cheat, you can program it to fail!)

EDIT: Forgot to mention the cost of just the DPF is usually $4-6k. It’s a huge failure component and I can’t recommend anyone purchase a lightt vehicle with one for city use as it won’t be able to properly regenerate and will fail early. Since the cost is that high the car/truck may be prematurely scrapped.

Post reply on HN