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



It only had 2000 miles on it so doubt it was abused. I couldn’t tell what kind of transmission it had in it and never had a chance to look at the drive train much. It did look a little weird so maybe it was a CVT or something. I’m used to quiet V6s though so to me it was noticeable.

As far as regulations, I never said the number wouldn’t go down but just not a whole lot. 85,000 out of 100,000 to me is not a significant reduction. But the thing is its like everything else, you don’t really start to look at unnecessary ones until the pressure is on. Just as the old rule of work expands to equal the time allotted, regulations expand to their limit to keep everyone busy. Everyone knows you need to put pressure on to get efficient.


Trump gave his speech!
“The assault on the American auto industry is over.”

Car lovers! The Trump visit was better than I thought it could be! He gets it!

" ‘Buy American, hire American,’ he said at Willow Run Airport near the American Center for Mobility, adding that it is a pledge he plans to keep."

" ‘Americans should be able to choose the vehicle that best fits their lifestyle instead of having Washington bureaucrats dictate what cars they can and cannot buy,’ Pyle said."

"As someone who’s covered the automobile business for decades from a Motor City perspective, I found it remarkable — heartening, actually — to see an American president stand before autoworkers and executives and declare, ‘The assault on the American auto industry is over.’ ”
"The reasonable regulatory relief Trump offered won’t doom the earth."



Amazing how someone can believe someone who’s turned lying into a new art form. I judge trump by his actions - not by what he says (which has a very good chance of being a lie). I base my opinion on his actions - which is Trump has outsourced American jobs for Decades.


If only there was some way to control those undeserving people who are so demanding… Whichever ones come to mind.


Fair enough, Mike. I guess we’ll both have to wait and see.
Did you/will you get a chance to read the articles?


Believe it or not I’m NOT against the possible rollback of the EPA rules. I don’t want to go so far back that we have the pollution problems of the 60’s and 70’s.

I’m all for the Big-3 bring good manufacturing jobs back to the US. If Trump has anything to do with it I’ll praise him for it. We’ll have to wait and see. I seriously doubt he’s actually for American jobs. But we’ll see.


Ya know they banned fireplaces in CA, now I like a nice fireplace, but I have lived through pollution of the past, voluntary compliance for any standard is a pipe dream, so I believe in regulations.


It’s insanely unrealistic to expect politicians to accomplish any significant changes that they promise when campaigning. Washington,as well as state capitals are roach nests of petty fiefdoms that control most of the day to day business of government and regardless how worthwhile a project is there is little hope for its success unless all the involved fiefdoms put their stamps on it. Just look at the gasohol cabal. Good sense be damned regarding the situation the EPA, Agriculture, Energy, etc, ad nauseum, find themselves with another slot to draw coins from and despite Rick Perry’s demand that Energy be eliminated that was then… Things have changed for him now. Likewise the President and Congress. What wall? And about those 11 million being deported, on second thought… But there will be tax cuts including an elimination of the estate tax. SURPRISE-SURPRISE-SURPRISE.


This problem does not fit the diminishing returns model.

Burning a gallon of gasoline in the current internal combustion engine produces a set amount of CO2 as there are no on-board technologies to reduce the CO2 emission, compared to other gases where catalytic converters help. With a fleet average of 24.8mpg we produce 358 grams of CO2 per mile.

The only two ways to reduce the CO2 emissions for the current gasoline powered cars/trucks is to increase the mpg and/or reduce the number of miles driven.

Certainly we need a global effort that targets all vehicles. And there are many things we can do in the long term to reduce our need to drive, and change the power source when we do.

But Transportation in all forms is the second largest greenhouse gas emitter in the US. Within Transportation, gas powered cars/trucks are the largest contributor.

With low gas prices we are driving an increasing number of miles. Now this administration, which denies the globally accepted climate science, is attacking one of the best ways to address CO2 emissions, increasing mpg.


I think you need to get out more, like spend some time in the middle of Nebraska or Montana to see how big this country really is. Might change your focus a little. No offense to anyone in those states but you can drive for miles and never see anyone.


Do you think that’s a pragmatic, reasonable goal, Mike? I’ve got tap water, and a river clean enough to swim in…impressive in an urban environment that’s still somewhat industrial. Do I really want to go broke trying to attain the impossible? Or are there other, more pressing, areas to invest our scarce tax dollars?

Many people don’t get the concept of opportunity cost: a dollar spent doing “A” is one less dollar available to do “B, C, D…” If you really want to spend money chasing such a goal, then appreciate that you now have less capital (economic, political, goodwill, what have you) to…make sure the elderly have heat in the winter, for example.

Besides, I have NEVER heard anyone recommend (even in wilderness areas) drinking anything other than spring water without filtration. Probably for the same reason W.C. Fields was distrustful of the stuff! (Funny joke, but you’ll have to Google it if you don’t already know: there’s no way I can write it here!)


You have to realize that voluntary reduction of CO2 will never happen in amounts large enough to do anything other than slightly postpone the inevitable. It’s the equivalent of buying a drunk a bottle so he doesn’t detox today, but tomorrow.

OTOH, MANDATED reduction of CO2 violates the rights of man so severely that, frankly, the cure would be worse than the disease: far better to live as a man, in a somewhat hotter, drier world, than to live as a mouse, and say “Mother May I?” every time you want to turn up the thermostat.

And besides, “polluting less” is the stupid way to deal with ecological pressures; the SMART way is to use our superior brains to engineer our way out of the mess we’re in! (Example: when London suffered Cholera outbreaks and a Thames so stinky that it was impossible to hold Parliament on windless days…did everybody “endeavor to poop less?” Of course not! Sir Bazalgette engineered a sanitary sewer that solved the problem.)

Thinking that the solution to GW is “everybody, burn less stuff!” is akin to thinking London’s solution was: “Everybody, poop less!”


Warmer perhaps, but I don’t see how it would be drier. What goes up has to come down and water that evaporates from the oceans eventually has to come down as rain somewhere. Some areas of the world may become drier but others will be wetter.

The problem with being carbon neutral is that nobody is prepared or willing to live a carbon neutral lifestyle. Driving a Prius is not enough, not even close.


Not exactly. You can play with the air/fuel mixture, engine temps, compression ratio, exhaust size, the size of the catalytic converter, and a couple other factors when it comes to the amount of of emissions a given vehicle makes. For example a circa 1986 Chevy Sprint (Precursor to the Geo Metro) produces more emissions than a modern Suburban, despite the Sprint getting 2 or 3 times greater fuel economy. Both had catalytic converters, but the new Suburban has an evap system that doesn’t consist a gas cap that vents directly to the atmosphere. Also the Surburban benefits from 30 years of advances in engine management, and design and manufacturing improvements.


Who says it’s IMPOSSIBLE. How do you know if you’re completely unwilling to even try? Anything that you PRECEIVE will cost more money and you’re against it.

Stopping pollution does NOT cost a lot. In fact in many cases it’s cheaper to the consumer.


If taken to their logical conclusions the successful efforts of either party would result in a distopian society.

For anyone who enjoys Laurel and Hardy and has nothing better to do you might check out their post WW II movie Utopia, or as titled in Europe Atoll K.


@FoDaddy, you are mixing things in your statement.

Burning 1 gallon of fuel by both reference cars you pointed will produce roughly the same amount of CO2, but older '86 Sprint will produce more CO, NOx, etc…, which can be classified as “pollution”. These are tiny minority of overall EMISSIONS, as CO2 is the major burning process result, alongside to H2O.

@stew point is right: “there are no on-board technologies to reduce the CO2 emission”

This is not about technology, this is about base chemistry :slight_smile:

Now, since that one gallon produced pretty much the same EMISSION for both cases, having more MPG in '86 Sprint spreads it to have less EMISSION per mile as it has higher MPG


All of what you said, including the bit above makes sense.

However, people still need to be able to purchase vehicles they can afford.

As the CO2 emissions go down, the price of vehicles goes up. That’s the bit you haven’t factored into this equation. There needs to be a reasonable middle-ground until technology has time to evolve.


Meanjoe For President!
Joe, that speech to Stew was eloquent! Very refreshing. Bravo! Bravo!

Man Made Global Warming or Climate Change or whatever they call it lately, hasn’t come to my neighborhood.

Our golf course is still covered in snow, I’ve got mountains of it in the yard, the lake is frozen thick and solid, the Grand Prix is still in hibernation waiting for salt season to end. It hasn’t been up to 32 degrees here since February something. I’m spewing out CO2 from my continuously running furnace!

I could use some warming! [quote=“meanjoe75fan, post:52, topic:101442”]
OTOH, MANDATED reduction of CO2 violates the rights of man so severely that, frankly, the cure would be worse than the disease: far better to live as a man, in a somewhat hotter, drier world, than to live as a mouse, and say “Mother May I?” every time you want to turn up the thermostat.

Man, that is music to my ears! I think the fear of a little warming causing great harm (even if man could prevent it) is way overblown.


That’s why it’s called GLOBAL. But science denying is part of the Conservative movement.

You do know there’s a difference between Weather and Climate? If not look it up.