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

121–130 of 141 posts

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

#121

Post by jonathankoren »

dahdum wrote: post #59
jonathankoren wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other states can adopt the California standard or the Federal one, and 14 other states and the District of Columbia has done so. What they’re not allowed to do is to set their own standard, because 300,000 people in Wyoming is just too small of a market.

You picked the smallest US state to compare with, but if it's only market size, why not Texas with 29M or Florida with 21M compared to CA's 39M?

Because you can’t have 50 different standards. I mean you can, it just kills the market.

It’s funny that you take exception with me using Wyoming, when your example was Rhode Island, the 7th least populous state.

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

#122

Post by atomi »

mrunkel wrote: post #6
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…

It “helps” automakers. As it stands now, they only build to the California standards since it is too expensive to build two sets of cars. Until they do away with California’s stricter regulations, the loosening of regulations at the federal level has no effect.

Some California cities used to have some of the worst smog in the world. These regulations and exceptions were put in place to curb that. And considering the trade tariffs on some vehicles the difference could be a wash in terms of margin for car manufacturers. What happens to our clean air?

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

#123

Post by kyrra »

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…

Then maybe another state could sue and possibly get make it so all states could get a waiver (since it sounds at least a little like the ports betting law):

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/us/politics/supreme-court...

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

#124

Post by patrickg_zill »

danso wrote: post #98
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…

California is much bigger than just the SF Bay Area. And I don't understand the relevance of the effect of the Chinese smog.

The smog from China is not under the control of CA...

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

#125

Post by sbalea »

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…

> 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.

The BMW 320d that is sold in Europe is exactly the same car as the 328d that IS sold in the US, including in CA. I know, because I have one.

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

#126

Post by tmaly »

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…

This was from the famous Stitch in Time that Saved Nine. Since the US Constitution does not put a limit on the number of Supreme Court justices, FDR threatened to increase the number and stack the court in his favor if they did not rule in his favor.

Given my understanding of how lower courts work on case law, this set a whole bunch of biased precedents from this one ruling. The ability of California to set good environmental law could still prevail if they could get a ruling using some other way like the 10th amendment.

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

#127

Post by mcphage »

patrickg_zill wrote: post #124
danso wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California is much bigger than just the SF Bay Area. And I don't understand the relevance of the effect of the Chinese smog.

The smog from China is not under the control of CA...

> The smog from China is not under the control of CA...

Right, which is why it's not relevant.

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

#128

Post by mcphage »

zamalek wrote: post #93
civilitty wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phrases you're searching for are "state's rights" and "free market capitalism." No one is forced to do anything. Car manufacturers have the privilege of selling in California if they follow California's rules. They have decided that the privilege is worth standardizing emissions requirements everywhere in the united states .

I am going against my rhetoric against Trump, but to be fair: they have standardized production lines. This is possibly a downfall of Fordism and mass manufacturing in general.

> This is possibly a downfall of Fordism and mass manufacturing in general.

I don't think "Car manufacturers have to make cars better for everybody, not just some people" will lead to the downfall of mass manufacturing.

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

#129

Post by GW150914 »

dahdum wrote: post #108
GW150914 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

No other state can ask for a waiver under the existing exemption. Nothing was stopping other states from seeking similar leeway in the bill, only California tried. Also per the article, the reason for that was the unique geography and circumstances of LA.

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

#130

Post by patrickg_zill »

jhall1468 wrote: post #101
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 nothi…

My point is that people in the other 49 states are harmed by CA's action and have no representation to fix it due to CA's veto power over diesels.

If a 320d is MORE efficient than a Prius, even though it doesn't have batteries, wouldn't you want it to be sold in the USA?

EDIT to add: it seems that the latest gen of the 320d is sold in the USA, as the 328d. The previous generation was not, which is what my comments were based on.

Post reply on HN