Isn’t that what the current POTUS is doing W/R/T state referenda on medical marijuana? That seems to be precedent for a POTUS saying, “Emphasize enforcement of this; de-emphasize that.” I don’t see that as I violation of the Oath of Office; I see that as “setting a standard” for what is effective governance.
I fail to see what the fundamental difference between “Let’s allow the states discretion on [issue a]” and “Let’s allow the states discretion on [issue b],” except that, in this case, “issue b” is car-related.
Research how VW got away with a scam that lasted for years building cars that polluted much more then they should, while other companies were towing the line and losing sales. When pollution controls and regulations are outmoded, the unethical companies prosper and literally, local employment can suffer. This was a reason VW diesel cars sold while others throughout the world, did not. Like up to date regulations for safety equipment helped even the competition between Ford and GM, it does in emissions. Car makers want fair regulations if the alternative is bankruptcy.
"Environmental Commissioner Janez Potochik wrote a letter, advising his colleagues that the outdated testing methods and protocols could enable auto manufacturers to skirt regulations: “There are widespread concerns that [automotive] performance has been tailored tightly to compliance with the test cycle in disregard of the dramatic increase in emissions outside that narrow scope.”
Clearly we’ll never agree, so it might be better to save everyone a long drawn out debacle with no end.
I’ll move on to more car-specific debate without comment.
Obviously, when you use a test procedure as a proxy for some desired behavior or learning, “testing well” takes priority over “doing well IRL,” whether that test is the SAT, or the “EPA Combined cycle.” Everybody “teaches to the test,” always has, and an intelligent administrator could have predicted this in advance. (A mediocre one is caught by surprise, after the fact.)
TSM: in general I agree with you re inspections. But I disagree with you re Nuclear power plants. Look at the alternative, coal and oil plants. A coal plant releases N times the radioactivity into the air as does a same size nuclear plant. I don’t remember N’s value, but it’s high.
The waste from a Nuclear plant can be dealt with with some work and money. The radioactivity, the heavy metal pollution, the CO2, etc, released by a coal plant are all more difficult to deal with. Or, if they can, no one is making that attempt.
Yes, solar, wind, geothermal power are one solution, but they are not economical at this point without government subsidy.
I have never agreed with a one size fits all emissions standard. Sure, the Los Angeles basin needs the cleanest cars that can be built, but in wide open Wyoming, we would be better served with cars designed for maximum fuel economy and “good enough” emissions.
I also think we have reached the point of “enough already” and we should start balancing affordability and state of the art cleanness.
Nature has ways of dealing with carbon monoxide. If it didn’t, life on earth would have been wiped out long ago, from forest fires and fireplaces.
Fair enough. I’ve always believed that hydroelectric power is seriously underutilized and could be a substantial replacement for carbon based fuels. There were studies done some years back on the issue. http://hydropower.inel.gov/hydrofacts/pdfs/a_study_of_united_states_hydroelectric_plant_ownership.pdf
There are literally thousands of small private hydro generators across the nation, but the laws in most states are prohibitive either specifically or by making a single farm’s hydro generator on its own land comply with the same regulatory mandates as one feeding 70,000 homes, making it cost prohibitive. Combine that with the age of the equipment in most hydroelectric facilities and I believe the potential for hydroelectric power is a multiple of its current use, even using just existing sites. A serious study of potential sites would probably expand that yet again.
I believe nuclear plants are too dangerous on their face, and until the waste problem is resolved a hiatus needs to be imposed. The waste problem is already serious, and it’s going to get worse.
I accept that there are different perspectives on the issue.
Well, considering the consequences of a dam failure, I, for one, am “dam” glad that it takes actual engineering to put one up, and I don’t have to worry about living downstream of “redneck rigging!”
I understand your point, Joe, but there are numerous small hydro generating systems offered on the market that do not require a dam or disrupt stream flow. If regulations were written to promote these while ensuring safety, they could be a major factor in the overall grid. Current regulations in most states are designed to protect the markets of the major providers.
The main problem that led to the dam failure was that Frick lowered the dam so that his car could drive from one side to the other. That led to water flowing over the dam during the deliuge and eventual failure.
This would not happen today. The dam owner would have to get permission from the government entity at controls these structures, and professional engineers would determine what, if any, alterations could be made to the dam.
@MikeInNH Looks like a step forward, but I also do not think we have found a reasonable solution for nuclear waste, maybe this is it, so how soon will there be a nuclear powered car?
I don’t know, maybe the same way you get Californians to trade in their 10 year old clunkers. (grandfathered pollution) If everybody in Wyoming moved to California, California would hardly notice it, just like they don’t seem to notice when Jay Leno takes one of his pre WWII cars for a spin.(really grandfathered pollution)
Things don’t have to be perfect, including laws. As long as the vast majority of people buy California legal cars to use in that state, that’s good enough.
You DO realize that many of those so-called clunkers were anything but
A lot of good cars were destroyed, just so that a bunch of people could make financially foolish decisions, thus digging themselves an even digger hole. I know many people that fit that description
We got a cash for clunkers offer, an 03 ford windstar qualified, at the time it was not worth going through the hassle of replacing the vehicle. Kept maybe 4 more years it and got 3500 trade in instead of 3k to trash the vehicle under the cash for clunker program. Kia called, we want your lease car and will save you money, only $50 a month more at the end of the day for a 1 year newer, slightly upgraded optima, CR)(**&TE&W$%WEWREUTRIYUTOYUTOIUYOIUTOYRO^%(&^$&R$OYROYU
A million ways to get ripped off I guess.
We already have 49 state motorcycle and auto models. I suppose that you could enact laws that make the Wyoming compliant vehicles unregistrable in places like California with grandfather exceptions for original owners who moved there.