Future Emission Standards


#1

As per the latest budget announcements, there any not be any increase in fuel mileage or stricter emissions, at least during this administration. Any comments?


#2

We already have a EPA/MPG discussion going.

President Plans To Roll-Back EPA Fuel Rules And Eliminate Burdensome Automaker Regulations

It’s had almost 100 hits, so far.
CSA


#3

Good move but this topic was already covered. My nose is feeling a little better today after getting bloodied yesterday. You’re never going to convince those wanting more central control of government and more regulation. But the growth in DC programs has been going on for 30 plus years. These programs will not be easily dislodged and there will be lots of tales of doom and gloom “for the sake of our grand kids”. Such is life when two opposing groups meet. In the end we just vote. Problem is when the attempt is made to overthrow the vote.

A relative in Ohio was beside her self with glee when there was a huge multi-million dollar federal grant to put in self-driving cars downtown. I just said they have no money so are just borrowing some more. Why I in rural Minnesota need to have my tax dollars pay for an urban self-driving car experiment, I have no idea. So I think there is lots of room for a hair cut and EPA is just one of them.


#4

Feedback loops in politics & national opinion polls tend to return things to the center over the long run. For example if this plan causes increased gasoline consumption, that may well make gasoline more scarce, and therefore increase the price per gallon of gasoline, and the public will respond by purchasing the models with the higher mpgs anyway. Along with a lot of complaints about the price of gas.


#5

Yes money is a wonderful motivator. The high gas price kept artificially high by OPEC, spurred exploration and development to produce more. Then all heck broke loose and OPEC lost their hold on the market and the Russians found themselves with a commodity not so valuable anymore. Good things tend to happen out of bad circumstances.

In my own opinion though (a little uninformed) I thought it was nuts on Mexicos part way back to restrict petro production and side with OPEC. They needed the money and we needed the petro. They could have plowed the income back into major development for their own people. Between the three of us, US, Mexico, and Canada we would have been self sufficient and everyone would have been making money except the Saudies. Would that have reduced the need for the influx of Mexicans looking for a better life? Would that have reduced the money available to the Saudies to attack us? Who knows but often one stupid decision can have long term implications.


#6

Such as voting for a guy with an orange comb over . . . ?! :scream:


#7

Many blame the explosion of the popularity of SUV’s on the CAFE fuel mileage standards for automobiles.
In the last election, the voters said “enough already”. Saying that we want to go back to the days of burning rivers and eye stinging smog is a strawman. Nobody wants to go back to those days. My car has 165,000 miles on it and you can wipe the inside of the tailpipe with a white glove and it won’t be sooty black. Yes I tried it recently. Maybe it’s time to say enough with even more draconian regulations and start enforcing the regulations we already have. Impose big fines on the jerks who modify their diesel pickup trucks in order to make their trucks belch out huge clouds of black smoke every time they pass someone for starters.


#8

Yes, we are talking diminishing returns. The best way to cut greenhouse gasses from motor vehicles is to generate less. Smaller, lighter cars making up the average fleet will make that happen. As will more hybrids.

Europe has grams/kilometer coming out of the tail pipe as a measure, not miles per gallon. Manufacturers have to meet that target as a fleet average. Mercedes and BMW are objecting since most of their vehicles sold are high performance machines.

I have two neighbors next door with large pickup trucks and two across the street. Only one actually uses his truck for towing; he has a boat. All four couples are empty nesters.

A horsepower and weight tax that is very progressive would gradually reduce the vehicle and engine size and so reduce emissions over time as the fleet ages.

On a 3 week holiday in England I saw only two pickup trucks, both owned by companies and used for deliveries.

I’m all for increasing efficiency and clean exhausts, but in a cost effective manner and without affecting durability.


#9

@bing, probably the biggest problem for rural America is underfunded hospitals. Currently, they are funded in part with federal dollars that may well be cut by the current federal legislature and administration. What happens to you and your neighbors if you don’t have a hospital that is less than an hour or two away? We city’s folk pay for that, you know. Should we take away things you need in the country just because we don’t need them here?


#10

I have never desired to live in England or anywhere in Europe, for that matter.

This government over-regulation is strangling people’s choices. A one-size-fits- all approach is ridiculous.

Coerce people out of performance cars and pick-up trucks? Most of the vehicles where I live are SUVs and trucks. Most people have to travel great distances to buy anything and they need to be able to haul it. Everybody I know hauls golf clubs, too. Also, nearly everybody has trailers and boats and trailers.

Last I checked this was the U.S.A. If tree huggers and environmental advocates want to drive little cars and live like Europeans they can have at it, but don’t include everybody in this. I don’t have a dog and don’t want one, but if somebody wants to contribute to the Humane Society fine. Just don’t tax me for it.

Vehicles are already small enough and light enough, and clean enough. Enough is enough. Besides, you’ll never make the tree-huggers happy. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile, and 2 miles, and…
CSA


#11

Neither do I for that matter. I’m not for over-regulation either! The issue here is that legislating miles per gallon only and nothing else will result in undriveable and unreliable cars, without having much effect on overall fuel usage.

The “Efficiency Paradox” kicks in here. The less gas a vehicle uses, the more we drive or we’ll buy a bigger vehicle and use the same amount. The price mechanism is the most efficient driver of behaviour.

To rebuild our highway system to proper standards could be achieved easily with a 50 cent per gallon gas tax. Instead of using income tax money this would be self financing. Tom and Ray advocated this a few years back and were vilified for it.

Since you live in the boonies where no one will deliver large items, your case is not typical. I am referring to a friend in Boston who “needs” a high powered SUV to get to work in town or the grandmother in Houston who drives a Ford Expedition to take two grand children to Macdonalds.

I was raised on a farm and we had two cars and a pickup as well as a large tractor.

Whether you like it or not, some regulation is necessary in a country with 340 million people.

Even if you live in Alaska, some form of regulation will enter your life.

The key issue here of course is, will reduced fossil energy use by Americans have any measurable impact on global warming? The jury is still out on that as long as most other countries are still increasing their energy consumption.


#12

More power to them! What separates the U.S.A. from other places is the freedom and choices afforded to its citizens. The problem with criticizing others for their choice being different than yours or wanting them to pay for their choices is that there is no limit.

Some want smokers to pay an extra tax because they don’t like it. Others want soft drinks taxed. Some even want plastic grocery bags taxed.

We recycle most of our refuse at my house, but if somebody else doesn’t want to then fine. My incentive for it is economics. I pay for trash pick-up and recycling is free.

It’s self-righteous people pointing fingers at other people. The best policy is to do what you think best as long as it’s legal. Buy a tiny car, don’t smoke, don’t drink anything. But, lets not have a society where different factions tell other factions how to live or to make them pay when their choices are different.

Sooner or later the fingers will point at everybody and everybody will be criticized or made to pay. Who wants to live like that?

"Whether you like it or not, some regulation is necessary in a country with 340 million people.

I am aware of that, but we passed the point of having enough regulation quite some time ago.

I hope our president can make good of his eliminating 2 regulations for every new one. Also, every politician in Washington and at every level should be required to follow their own regulations. Excepting themselves from ACA was the final straw for me.

Also, I hope he can roll-back all the ridiculous power and regulative authority of EPA, DEQ, etcetera.

America, what a country! Let’s make it great, again!
CSA


#13

I’m just trying to stay on point. What does hospital funding have to do with cars or the EPA regulations? Ours is about 10 minutes away and we do have helicopters now for critical cases. So in order for a rural hospital to receive any federal funding, it is necessary for a capital city to get multi-million dollar grants for self-driving cars? Oh that makes a lot of sense and is the kind of thinking that put us in the situation we are in.


#14

I’m all for Trump dropping unnecessary and ineffective regulations.

Just recently two tourists from Boston (both doctors!) died in an avalanche in the mountains here. They were not found for 4 days and cost the Parks department many thousands of dollars to find those careless tourists who defied all warnings and set out for the back country.

We need those persons to buy their own hiking insurance and pay for their rescue from that. As a tax payer and careful hiker for 40 years I’ve seen too many of these incidents!


#15

Starting in 2014, USA legislators and their staff are required to buy health coverage through the ACA exchange in DC. The source was last updated on 3/12/2017.

If you have more accurate information, please provide the source.


#16

…and absolutely no substance or gravitas, aside from his ownership of two Bentleys.

(Did you really think that I would fail to include a reference to something automotive in nature, even when referring to the current, fatally flawed, POTUS?


#17

Yup!
Please refer to the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution for a how-to.
:expressionless:


#18

The hair looked kinda gray to me already but maybe it was just the lighting. One needs to ask why would anyone want the job unless you needed to continue the scheme of shaking down millions from foreign governments? An interesting point is that you are not allowed to drive if you are a POTUS. That would be hard, especially if you had a couple Bentleys in the garage.

When my BIL swung by, he showed me his hat in the trunk. He only wears it in certain company. Sad but I would never be able to wear one for fear of starting a local war. Too bad people are so polarized and politically correct that issues can’t even be reasonably discussed any more.


#19

At the risk of having Carolyn criticize me . . . I think, as far as the current POTUS goes, we can leave out the capital T and the capital U :smirk:

You’d think Trump would be bragging about his ownership of two Cadillacs or Corvettes, instead of 2 Bentleys. Unless something happened that I don’t know about, Bentley remains a foreign-owned company, and the cars are not built in the US. My Camry was built by a foreign-owned company, but it was built in the US, in Kentucky. And I presume those are considered good factory jobs.


#20

Well that depends on where they live, and to some degree, on their financial situation

Where I live, nobody has a big enough driveway or even a big enough property, to be able to store that trailer or boat