Slashdot Mirror
EPA Prepares To Roll Back Rules Requiring Cars To Be Cleaner and More Efficient (nytimes.com)
Coral Davenport and Hiroko Tabuchi, reporting for The New York Times: The Trump administration is expected to launch an effort in coming days to weaken greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards for automobiles, handing a victory to car manufacturers and giving them ammunition to potentially roll back industry standards worldwide. The move -- which undercuts one of President Barack Obama's signature efforts to fight climate change -- would also propel the Trump administration toward a courtroom clash with California, which has vowed to stick with the stricter rules even if Washington rolls back federal standards. That fight could end up creating one set of rules for cars sold in California and the 12 states that follow its lead, and weaker rules for the rest of the states, in effect splitting the nation into two markets.
Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is expected to frame the initiative as eliminating a regulatory burden on automakers that will result in more affordable trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles for buyers, according to people familiar with the plan. An E.P.A. spokeswoman confirmed that Mr. Pruitt had sent a draft of the 16-page plan to the White House for approval. Further reading: EPA to its employees: Ignore science when talking about climate change (ArsTechnica)
Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is expected to frame the initiative as eliminating a regulatory burden on automakers that will result in more affordable trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles for buyers, according to people familiar with the plan. An E.P.A. spokeswoman confirmed that Mr. Pruitt had sent a draft of the 16-page plan to the White House for approval. Further reading: EPA to its employees: Ignore science when talking about climate change (ArsTechnica)
Surely this change in regulation would do more to hurt US car companies that help them? If they don't design and build for efficiency, then surely this would limit their ability to export to any market that cares about efficiency or where fuel costs are already high? This feels like another short term action, just like trying to protect the coal industry, that will end up hurting more in the long run, than doing any real good.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
from the /. summary:
The Trump administration is expected to launch an effort in coming days to weaken greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards for automobiles, handing a victory to car manufacturers...
It is a victory for consumers, who would otherwise be forced to pay much higher prices for automobiles.
The extreme warming predictions have proven wrong. We are heading into a solar grand minimum. The only people who need to worry about global warming are the alarmists who have staked their careers on it.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Scott Pruitt should know other parts of the world are moving forward on this and companies like Ford and GM will have to to meet them no matter what the laws are in the US.
CAFE (Corp Average Fuel Economy) standards were always a silly way of doing things, since they specified average economy within a given class of vehicle. Car, truck, later there were more categories based on wheelbase and width. It encouraged automakers to make more "trucks" that were used as cars, actually lowering real-life average fuel economy for the cars on US roads.
Better solution would be to tax fuel at a fairly high rate and let the markets decide what to buy. Use the tax money to subsidize clean (electric) transport like electric cars and trains, roll out charging stations, encourage solar installation, maybe even subsidize the (relatively clean compared to fossil fuels) nuclear power industry.
Make America Grungy Again
The important line from the article is
"The United States and Canada are the only major nations that have adopted mandatory emissions standards through 2025. The European Union has only recently proposed standards for 2025 and 2030, while China has only started to work on standards for those years."
Only the US and Canada are doing this. Why handicap ourselves in a global market when no one else is doing it at all?
"EPA Prepares To Roll Back Rules Requiring Cars To Be Cleaner..."
Armor All and Simoniz are going be very upset about this.
I swear to God, if Obama had found the cure for cancer, these f.cking trumptards would repell it, and in a sickening display of intellectual travesty, they would somehow claim that this is a Good Thing (tm).
Seriously, you can't be more ideological than this. Way more than those so called leftist SJWs they condemn and whine about all the time.
Trumptards are hell-bent on bringing society back to the dark ages, when humanity basically acted like a cancer of the planet. And they're proud of it.
Should be considered to be limiting California rules as much of the standards are basically California desires. Why should one state impose their standards on everyone else?
There's like, the 49-state version and then there's a California version with extra emissions equipment. At least that's the way it's been in the motorcycle world since.... the 80's?
But I don't think any of this matters, what Trump EPA does or what Obama EPA did. World will pretty much be all electric in the near future. Not because of ideological beliefs, but because of the march of (technological) progress means it will simply make more economic sense for people to buy electric cars than petrol burning cars.
It's time to amiably split the USA. The civil war never really ended, and we don't get along. Let's end this ugly tug-of-war.
The right is poisoning people & Earth for profit, reject inconvenient science and subject experts, fill the country with dangerous firearms, embed the evangelical agenda into government, discriminate against non-evangelicals, and select dangerous ADHD clowns as leaders.
Table-ized A.I.
A lawyer (and Republican politician) head of the EPA is simply doing his job.
California already has stricter emission standards that have held up in court (for new cars, you can still bring a "Federal standard" used car into CA if it exceeds 15,000 miles on the clock).
Some counties ban alcohol sale, others allow it year around. Some states allow AR-15s, others ban them from sale. States don't have an obligation to allow a given item to be sold in their state or city.
...b...b...b..ut you guys keep telling us about states' rights and limited government interference! Surely you aren't just a sour-grapes hypocrite more concerned with "sticking it" to whatever you imagine liberalism and by extension California to be?
LOL, anyway, I'm sure _this_ will be the time that the courts side with the Trump administration, over the last 50 years of California's regulation of emissions produced by vehicles in their state.
Really? So if Ford was offering a 10mpg car and Honda was offering a 35mpg comparable car, you gonna buy the Ford? How many car manufacturers are out there? You are free to buy from the most fuel efficient car maker. And buying a more fuel efficient car saves you money, so why would you need a law to force you to buy the more fuel efficient model? Why not a law to force CPU makers minimum flops? Or RAM makers minimum Ram speeds? Or hard driver makers minimum terabytes?
Well it's clear what they're charged with "protecting" now.
(Corporate) Economic Protection Agency
Environmental Piss-taking Agency
It doesn't handicap us -- cars sold outside the US by the same makers won't be subject to US standards anyway. If anything, it will force them to do research to meet future EU/China/Japan standards NOW, and make them more prepared to compete when those laws come down.
Higher US standards would also favor US manufacturers over foreign ones as far as sales in the US.
Let's roll back the calendar to the Good Olde Days (approximately 50 to 75 years, that is), when we were totally ignorant about the impact we have on the planet we have to live on, we did what we wanted because that's the American Way, and God had the last word on everything!
That's also what this is.
The Dominionists should love this, it's one more thing to check off their to-do list: hasten destruction of the Earth, so Zombie Jesus will come back to them and take them Home that much sooner.
We have to get the Trump administration out as soon as possible, while it may still be possible to repair the damage being done to pretty much everything.
I like your optimism that the EPA will behave differently than the FCC.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Couldn't California accomplish almost the same effect by raising the gas tax? That will give residents an incentive to buy more efficient cars, as well as cut down on miles driven by existing cars.
they've been doing that for Europe for years. The problem with fuel efficiency is that we subsidize gas with our military, using it to keep a lid on the cost of gas by stabilizing the flow of cheap oil from the middle east (yes, I'm aware we are currently a net exporter, but the oil market is global, and if the price of oil out of the mid east shoots up then US producers will sell overseas at higher prices and the domestic price goes up as a result, globalism's a bitch).
Anyway for my money anything that reduces the need for those subsidies is a good thing. >half our budget just went to the military. That's not defense, that's empire.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Cut taxes adding another trillion to the national debt we spent years rallying against. Make sure 80% of tax reduction goes to top 1% all the while giving a massive one finger salute to our children.
2. Gut any environmental regulation our billionaire buddies want
3. Give Putin locations of US nuclear submarines
4. Allow traitors to covertly change republican party platform to be PRO-Russia
5. Allow traitors who will now likely spend the rest of their lives in jail to run your campaign
6. Install a traitor into the role of national security advisor
7. Publically invite hostile foreign nations to attack your political opponents
8. Hire a bunch of low life scum to work in your administration having no chance of ever obtaining security clearances.
9. Install Manchurian leaders to destroy any congressionally mandated agency you disagree with.
10. Trump's own wife wants nothing to do with him.
Tax will have little impact for people who can afford more fuel thirsty vehicles (SUVs, trucks, and sports cars). Meanwhile it'll hi the working poor like ton of bricks.
Only the united states and canada has those standards at all...
Kinda fucking stupid to be the only ones doing it.
Winning!
How does the Supremacy Clause or the Interstate Commerce Clause prevent a state from having stricter standards than the federal government?
Another sad day for the USA. From a sad administration...
The day of the faggoty Prius is over, bring back the muscle cars!
You know, the Trump philosophy summarized simply as, "Fuck you, environment!" What bothers me is that they could make cars that got 50mpg 70 years ago, e.g. the Fiat 500. However, with all the safety rules they are now required to follow, they have to go to great lengths to build an efficient hybrid car... that still cannot do better than 50mpg. Technically, it is possible to build a vehicle that gets over 100mpg, but the regulations won't let you drive it on the street.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
> the military budget is maybe 40% of the budget, at most.
Phew. The OP almost got me worried. I feel very much relieved now. Thanks a bunch for that!
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
Requiring cars and trucks in California to have a "California Emissions" package started in the 1970s. CARB still has requirements for cars and trucks in California. Lots of lawsuits, all won by California.
In fact, there is nothing in the Constitution nor Supreme Court precedent that stops California from doing this. It would only be a problem if California was attempting to regulate cars and trucks in other states. It isn't.
There is existing legal precedent for California's emission controls. The manufacturers produced regular and "California only" vehicles before. The market for them and the other states that follow CARB guidelines is more than 90 million people. That's more than sufficient for the manufacturers to have different vehicles if they have to.
Bill Clinton's administration passed all sorts of new regulations, the most-famous being his "clean water" regulations, before he left office and scheduled to take effect during the term of his successor. Clinton got to claim all the credit for this do-gooder action to remove lead and aresenic from water, while having absolutely NONE of the downside of extra costs and bureaucracy during his time in office. When the Bush team got in and the regulations were about to kick-in several things had become clear: (1) many towns in middle America were being told to make their SEWAGE cleaner then the water nature provided their citizens in their well water, (2) many towns could not afford to make the drinking water as clean as the new regs required, and (3) there was no proof anybody would be healthier with the new extreme purity demanded as opposed to the clean water already available in those towns [this had NOTHING to do with the much later Flynt Michigan bad pipes issue). The Bush administration, faced with this insane situation, rescinded the new water rules and was immediately branded as evil and wanting lead and arsenic in drinking water (by leaving the standards exactly as they had been through the 8 years of Clinton).
Now, the Obama administration put in place new fuel standards that NEVER applied during the 8 years of Obama and were scheduled to massively increase over the 8 years post-Obama. These standards are completely unrealistic (big pickups and SUVs getting nearly 60MPG within less than a decade????) and would probably REQUIRE pixie dust and spells from magic faries. In cancelling the huge ramp-up in regulation, the rules will revert to what they were during the 8 years of Obama, but apparently if the Obama-era mileage and emissions standards are in place during the Trump era, Trump will be KILLING THE PLANET, killing children, killing women, killing the elderly, etc.
This is a political scam the Democrats pull every time and the Republicans in DC are always reliably too stupid to counter-message. You cannot blame the Democrats for doing it, since it works as a strategy and as politicians schemes like this are tools of their trade. The general public, however needs to wise-up and spend a little less time at the movies, on twitter and facebook, at and just a little more time paying attention.
The EPA did not tell it's employees to ignore science.
The EPA said the science to be used shouldn't be kept a secret.
I like your optimism that the EPA will behave differently than the FCC.
The Internet is fundamentally cross-border, despite the ridiculousness of Pai I can see the FCC having legitimate cause to say that a state can't have their own set of Internet rules.
But cars are different, the EPA shouldn't have any pretext to overrule state regulations.
More importantly, California is a very big and very rich state, big and rich enough that car manufacturers might decide it's better just to make one model that hits California standards rather than investing in a second dirty model, especially when the federal standard is likely to revert once Trump is out.
I stole this Sig
Not at all.
Electric cars are rated at around 120 mpg for the purpose of the law. Let's assume 20% electric car sales.
"Regular" gas sedans now get 35-40 mpg routinely, call it 35. Let's assume 30% gasser sales.
"Hybrid" gas sedans get 50-70mpg average, call it 60, depending on whether they have a "plug in" option or not. Let's assume 20% of sales.
"Other" cars like efficient sports (not muscle) cars can be made to average 40 mpg. 10% of sales.
"Trucks and light trucks" should be able to eke out 25 mpg average. Last 20% of sales.
(120*.2) + (35 * .3) + (60 * .2) +(40 * .1) + (25 * .2) = 55.5mpg.
Perfectly doable with current tech assuming the mix of cars sold drifts towards hybrids and electrics over 7 years.
How does that cause net neutrality rules in one state to affect another state in a way that's different than California emissions rules affecting other states?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Personally I am done buying gasoline engine vehicles. I've got my last SUV and motorcycle in 2011. I'll be picking up an electric car if I have to commute more than 10 miles. These days I mostly bicycle and only use the vehicles when I need to haul stuff or go a longer distance.
I'm waiting for someone to come out with an electric 4x4 truck or SUV. (Most of the garbage they sell these days are neither, they just look pretty with no actual capability under the plastic and fake bumpers) and are way overpriced for what they are.) Then I'll pick up another.
Tesla needs to hurry up and come out with one, though if the Semi ever got below $100K I would be interested. Road warrior it up and use it as an angry daily driver.
More like the Joker, who wants to watch the world burn...
[($)]
Those numbers are a bit optimistic.
What we have today are electrics at about 90, regular sedans at about 31, hybrids at 45, sports cats about 25 and trucks at about 18. Granted they should improve a bit, but I'm not sure that 55 average is really attainable without some major changes in the tech.
Now there are a few bright spots with things like opposed piston diesels, but I don't think they will be ready for mass production by 2025.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for better mpg levels across the fleet, I'm just not 100% sure that the current mandates are actually attainable.
Moreover, this "debate" is like most others - the so-called champions of science have long since abandoned any attempt to convince people about their theories or prove them [...]
There are people who believe that the Earth is flat, that the moon landings were a hoax / directed by Stanley Kubrick, that the children in the Newton shooting were faked / false flag, and that 9/11 was an "inside job". And that's just the easy stuff: let's not get into evolution (which even the Catholic Church has accepted for many, many decades--though the Vatican runs their astronomical observatory and has a meteorite collection, so science isn't really a problem with them).
The Left certainly has it's own issues (see sacking of James Damore) as you say, but treating the two sides the same is false equivalence IMHO.
You cannot reason people out of a position they have not used reason to get into in the first place.
Trump would undo it, just because. What a tool.
Obama's law said average "new cars and trucks to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025." That's impossible to attain in 7 years, so Trump is doing the right thing again and Liberal media is attacking him for it.
Not if mild hybrids become more popular. It actually makes sense for trucks to use electric engines, especially at low speeds. This helps in reduced idling, thus upping mileage, and helps in towing (electric engines have awesome torque).
I have no experience / knowledge of auto design, but it seems to me the next most logical step is: e-engine, modest battery, plug-in charging and/or range extender.
Using your numbers, you get to 52 mpg with a mix of 15% trucks, 5% sports cars, 40% hybrids, 10% normal cars, 30% electrics. Still doable. Even more doable if automakers concentrate on weight reduction at the expense of some un-needed features (do able-bodied people really need electric chairs up front?).
I may add that there are "credits" built in to the CAFE numbers for things like natural gas cars and ability to run on alternative fuels. So the MPG numbers used for the law tend to be better than at first glance.
based transportation is a goal.
I totally agree, but then...
No, wait, no, stop. Don't subsidize anything with this money. And you can't afford to subsidize things anyway, once you look closer at your true liabilities.
Use this money to mitigate the effects of the pollution. Plant forests with it. Build atmospheric scrubbers. Use it to treat people who are sick from pollution. Use it to build multi-trillion-dollar projects to put our coastal cities on stilts. That sort of stuff.
The goal of the tax should simply be end the subsidy that we're currently giving to everyone who burns things. You won't need to give incentives to cleaner tech, because they'll already have the incentive of their users accruing less tax to clean up after themselves.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Seriously, the best thing that can happen is that ownership of ICE remain high, part of which is due to low mpg. EVs are much cheaper to drive, but with the exception of Tesla, EVs are more expensive to buy Vs comparable ice cars. But as car makers produce more, prices are coming down. So high cost of ice ownership simply speeds EV ownership.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
How the US ever elected a mental patient for a president completely blows my mind.
The same way that States can't have stricter immigration laws than the Federal government. Air pollution is the domain of the EPA not the States. If States cannot have more-lax emissions standards than what EPA sets they likewise cannot have more-strict standards.
Maybe the EPA shouldn't have been given so much power, but the Left kept on expanding the EPA's power for decades. Now when it does something you don't like suddenly there's a problem?
Cry me a fucking river..
How does that cause net neutrality rules in one state to affect another state in a way that's different than California emissions rules affecting other states?
For vehicles it's easy to say if you want to register in state X you need to meet standard Y, other than affecting the market you don't really affect other states.
But for Net Neutrality what happens if the server and client are both in NN states but an intermediate network isn't, is that intermediate carrier allowed to slow down the traffic? What if the ISP and user are both in NN states but the ISP routes the traffic out of state, are they allowed to degrade the traffic there?
These aren't insurmountable problems by any means, but I could see the FCC being given the leeway to make those kinds of determinations, and if you care as little for evidence or proper procedure as Pai then you might take any excuse to block the states.
I stole this Sig
The headlines on this story have all been uniformly Disingenuous and Sensationalist.
Twelve Mile a gallon cars are NOT going to be coming back, Standards are not going to be weakened.
What is changing is that the highly unrealistic target of 50 mpg for fleet average requirements in 2025 are going to be scaled down to something that is actually achievable.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
the last spending bill was $1.3 Trillion, of which nearly $700 billion is military. 700/1300 = 53% (rounding down since 'nearly'). And if you think the next spending bill will be any different you haven't been paying attention to who's running the government.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Pruitt would not know science if it sat on his face.
You've clearly never heard of California
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
It's not anywhere near 2025 yet - why quit trying so early?
It's time for any Americans who still have a brain, wherewithal, and the desire for a brighter future for themselves and their offspring to GTFO.
We can't MAGA with all these mouthbreathers, government/political apologists, and general sheeple standing in our way AND outbreeding us.
It is time to realize that America is done, and figure out how the driven and the intellectuals amongst us can create a new society, purchase or extract precious minerals, and generally make a society that follows the ideals espoused by the Constitution, Declaration, etc but never actually implemented in the Nation that espouses their virtues while living up to few if any of them.
Regular mid-sized sedans do not average 35-40mpg. Midsized hybrid sedans do not average 50-70mpg. Electric vehicles only account for 1% of sales and hybrids only account for 2% of sales so I don't know why you believe those numbers will grow from 3% to 40% in only 7 years http://www.hybridcars.com/dece...
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
No one actually makes a hybrid truck yet because hybrid trucks have been notoriously slower than their V8 counterparts, tow far less and cost far more so it was a lose lose lose scenario. Ironically, none of the most efficient trucks on hybridcars.com are hybrid trucks http://www.hybridcars.com/amer...
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
This is why i still only by Honda and Toyota. If you really think suv is the future, then remember 2008? Next time, I will be extremely vocal about not bailing you shit-cos out.
The rest of the world is moving towards electrification, and USA is going to make itself great again by going backwards.
It will be fun to visit, show the kids a giant museum they can interact with.
on their fine for the emissions scandal?
I am sorry ? But since then the US is setting standard WORLDWIDE on emission, pollution , or whatnot ? For fuck's sake they can't even adhere to a unit measurement standard like the meter...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Firstly the US started MAD, Russian did not have really that amny A bomb , the US generals lied to your own president and pretended they had a lot of them, thus they started the nuke run since the russian saw the US having a lot of nuke and they needed at least to have the same number to be able to compete, or even more since their aviation was not as advanced as the US. So thank to you asshole to having started that. Arguably you *may* have helped a bit in some region, but you definitively destabilized a lot of other region, south america certainly won't thank you about non evasion since your CIA destabilized a lot of government there. The Jury is still out whether you helped or thing would have been identical without your military in western europe - the danger of russia invasion being vastly dependent on your own military action. For russia it was never in their interrest to invade europe, especially with the few economic ties they had in the 70-80 ies.
So no your military did not stabilize the world until the 90ies. Afterward ? It destabilized it frankly. Yes saddam and khaddafi were horrible dictator, but they stabilized the regions. Thanks to you the region has been a horrible mess since then. Arguably the jury is out for Afghanistan, they seem to go back as they were before your intervention, but it seem you killed a lot of civilian there which would have other wise lived. . The myth that the US military protected the world is just a myth. A propaganda by your own country.
Rcx free et
Congress could pass a law or Act that mandates uniform emissions standards nationwide with EPA enforcing them, or Trump could simply use that pen and phone that your boy Obama left behind that you liked so well when he used it for what you wanted.
That's one of the bad things about having a large and powerful Federal government and weaponizing it against political opponents...it's not always the people you agree with that control it. One must consider the implications of one's political opponents inevitably coming into possession of the tools of partisan political government power you advocate for and create to further one's own agendas, regardless of Party or ideology. If left unchecked it eventually reaches a tipping-point and ends with one side finally seizing total power once they gain office and then the brutal and extremely bloody & horrific pogroms and cleansings begin.
Stop deciding on issues with emotion and start using logic and reason. Outrage and anger prevents rational thought and critical thinking.
When will the President of Trumpistan and the Head of the Environmental Destruction Agency be put on trial for serving their swamp buddies instead of serving the people? "Democracy is direct self-government, over all the people, by all the people, for all the people.”
a lot of countries outside the USA are proposing no more sales of ICE cars around 2025 and beyond. Seems like Norway is starting the trend https://www.independent.co.uk/...
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Of course! Tax for fuel!
Go ahead, I am sure the persons that drives a $150,000 car will feel the hurt of a fuel tax.
We spare no expenses. Except for the ordinary folks. Fuck em.
Our politicians have let the people down. Again.
Thanks Trump voters.
Get up!
Your use case is so out of the norm it's not even worth mentioning.
An imaginary race. Drive for fun?
... Rules Requiring Cars To Be Unrealistically Cleaner and Impossibly More Efficient
FTFY.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
... there is no fucking way the taxpayers of this country should have to bail Detroit out, again.
If the fuckers start building Trump-mobiles that no one but Trumpster-divers want to buy, when they next recession hits and they start to have problems, they should be allowed to fail this time.
Holy crap Trumpicans, it's only been ten years since the Great Recession, can you really not remember what caused it? Or, is it just that you all got so damn rich during it, and afterwards, that you can't wait to start another one?
Apparently, CO_2 is now "dirty," with news photos to prove it, of taipipes spewing blue smoke, and smokestacks spewing vast quantities of CO_2 ash and soot.
As was seen in the late aughts, when oil spikes due to some poorly thought out military engagement, economic bubble burst, or zero thought comment from our nation's leadership, the market will self correct.
If five dollar a gallon fuel became the new normal, consumer demand will drive for for fuel efficiency. Let the free market drive the innovation, not overregulation.
Personally, I think most of my fellow Americans are short sighted and not long term focused. I drive a moderately fuel efficient midsize domestic sedan and have never felt like I needed an SUV/CUV. I still prefer an ICE vehicle until the infrastructure is in place for an alternative to be common enough to take place. The market will get there on its own, though.
Congress could pass a law or Act that mandates uniform emissions standards nationwide with EPA enforcing them
Congress could also pass a law requiring blowjobs every Tuesday. It's about as likely to pass.
See, CA and all the other states that passed laws which said "follow CA's rules" would not want such a law to pass, killing it in the Senate.
Trump could simply use that pen and phone that your boy Obama left behind that you liked so well when he used it for what you wanted.
And do what with it? Despite your wet dreams, he is not God-emperor.
That's one of the bad things about having a large and powerful Federal government
Are you drunk?
The subject at hand is a perfect example of Federalism. California wants stricter air quality controls, so it enacted state laws. Which only apply in the state. So where's the ebil federal government out to seize your guns....er....tailpipes?
Stop deciding on issues with emotion and start using logic and reason
Says the guy who's jealous of Obama's "pen".
Trucks tend to have diesel engines and hybrid configurations are much less useful with a diesel engine.
Ask anyone who drives a diesel. Their fuel efficiency has tanked with the stricter regulations. A huge portion of traffic are commercial highway tractors, and they simply are no longer are the super fuel efficient beasts that they used to be, due solely to emission laws.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.