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

101–110 of 141 posts

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

#101

Post by jhall1468 »

patrickg_zill wrote: post #87

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 c…

> 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.

You aren't harmed by California's standards by any stretch of the imagination:

You can't show any actual harm by not being able to purchase specific diesel engines.

> 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.

Sure, let's sign a bill telling the smog it can't go to LA anymore. That should do the trick. Do you understand the purpose of the regulations are to give Bay-area residents breathable, healthy air, and these regulations are the ones California can actually enact?

But hey, it's a conservative mantra to only think of the individual, so you fit the mold pretty well. Poor guy, can't buy a BMW 320d, and the damn Bay-area residents should get sick and breath horrible air so he can.

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

#102

Post by seltzered_ »

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…

>I'd love to see a software system that is able to reliably output high-quality legal documents

I think that's what Meng Wong's startup 'legalese.com' is for: https://legalese.com/

He gave a talk about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlGqifLBsy8

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

#103

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #73
onecooldev24 wrote: post #42

Elon musk want only his car to sell in the state of California. People are upset now cause Trump wants things to be fair. Edit: LOL at the hate for Trump. He is the only guy who wants to stop the consistent H1B misuse but people here are to dumb/sensitive to support him.

[deleted]

[deleted]

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

#104

Post by millstone »

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.…

CA is large but circa ~10% of national truck sales. 10% is no monopoly - hell the Texas truck market is at least twice the size of CA.

What's missing is the fact that 12 other states (the west coast and most of New England) have voluntarily agreed to adopt California's standards. So yes, the rest of the country does have influence, and they're wielding that influence on California's side.

Nobody is being "forced" to comply. Instead CA's standards are reasonable enough that it's more economical to implement them nationally than to build two models.

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

#105

Post by derefr »

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…

I know the case. If he was literally only “growing wheat for himself” as a subsistence farmer, the commerce clause wouldn’t apply. The reason it applies is that he was already operating a business that does interstate commerce.

Such a business, when it makes a choice to not execute a sale that it would have had an opportunity to execute, has “mens rea” for that act’s effects on interstate commerce—because such companies keep track of such things, and their decisions are driven by such metrics.

It’s just like insider trading: not executing a trade that would have otherwise (i.e. given only public knowledge) been in your best interests to execute, where you didn’t execute it because of corporate-internal knowledge, is still just as illegal as the reverse. In either case, since it’s your job as a trader to be aware of the effects of both executing and not executing trades, either “act” can be said to be the result of an explicit, intentional choice you made.

(Of course, that’s different from just not executing a trade that you would have had no particular reason to execute. You can’t blame someone for insider trading just because they don’t short a stock, if they don’t already have a pattern of shorting stocks!)

In all such cases, the guilty party is a more abstract type of actor than an individual (e.g. a corporation; an accredited investor) and their guilt is driven by the fact that such actors behave predictably according to some preference function, such that it’s clear where such actors act against that preference function both through explicit action; and through inaction.

Or, as a formalism: when it’s 100% of your job, as an agent in a system, to decide whether to make deals, then a lack of a deal, together with evidence that you considered the deal, can be regarded as an explicit choice you’ve made to not make that deal.

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

#106

Post by consp »

ape4 wrote: post #56

Maybe the EU can adopt the California standards.

While there are some differences for diesel engines due to the way it is measured (in favour of diesel engines in the eu), the Euro 6b standard is on par with the californian standard for the most part.

The comparison is not easy though as the european standards focussus on hydrocarbons and the californian on NOx.

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

#107

Post by product50 »

dmode wrote: post #83
product50 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I am with you on this. I was just trying explain how 1 state's decision can impact other states' too.

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

#108

Post by dahdum »

GW150914 wrote: post #54
dahdum wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting downvotes for saying this, but why should California be the only state allowed to set stricter emission standards? Why not New York or Rhode Island? I don't want standards to be rolled back, but it's hard for me to defend the principle of this waiver even if I like the outcome.

Because those states haven’t sought an exemption, but there’s no reason to believe they couldn’t have gotten one. The notion that power not reserved default to states is enshrined in the American constitution.

Per this article in the Atlantic, other states are not allowed to even ask for a waiver.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/trump-ca...

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

#109

Post by noelwelsh »

joecool1029 wrote: post #90
titzer wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

How available is biodiesel in the US? I"ve never seen it here in the UK, so it's not a consideration for me.

The DPF should be self cleaning if you do an occasional high-speed trip (such as on a highway), so it shouldn't be wasting fuel unless you're doing exclusively city driving (in which case I agree; petrol or electric is better in this situation).

Our 2016 Golf Bluemotion gets at least 50mpg in normal driving, usually over 60mpg, and occasionally we crack 70mpg.

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

#110

Post by LyndsySimon »

derefr wrote: post #105
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…

I know the case. If he was literally only “growing wheat for himself” as a subsistence farmer, the commerce clause wouldn’t apply. The reason it applies is that he was already operating a business that does interstate commerce. Such a business, when it makes a choice to not execute a sale that it would have had an opportunity to execute, has “mens rea” for that act’s effects on interstate commerce—because such compan…

How do you reconcile this with Gonzales v Raich? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
Post reply on HN