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)

57 of 378 comments (clear)

  1. Disadvantage US manufacturers? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, no, it's MAGA! Making Americans Get Asphyxiated!

    2. Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers? by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      American car companies make money on trucks and SUVs, not high MPG cars.

    3. Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Informative

      "American" cars outside the US are often very different than those sold in the US. US automakers have subsidiaries in quite a few non-US countries, and the cars they make are tailored to local markets.

    4. Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers? by silverkniveshotmail. · · Score: 2

      Because you're stuck breathing the same air as us.

    5. Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      The cowards are correct. In general, a heavy vehicle will win in a collision with a light one. p=mv. If you disagree, drive headlong into a train as a test.

    6. Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Top-heavy pork-mobiles are also less able to avoid an accident. Inertia's a bitch. Honestly, if I wanted to drive a fuckin' truck, I'd get a job for UPS. I'd drive a Miata, classic MR2, Civic, or motorbike over a bloated SUV any day.

    7. Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers? by Lije+Baley · · Score: 2

      As someone who has been shopping for a new vehicle lately, I am dismayed by how many of the new vehicles have implemented desperate measures to achieve the higher CAFE requirements. The low hanging fruit in efficiency improvements seems to have all been picked. Now things like start/stop, exotic transmissions, and some poor turbo implementations are making the vehicles drive worse than the previous generation. And with electric/hybrid vehicles, many hidden costs remain a question, including rumored safety issues around fire and rescue response due to the battery packs. I can't help but feel that the car companies would have an easier sale if they could sell people what they want vs what the government is mandating.

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
    8. Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers? by freeze128 · · Score: 2

      So, what you're saying is that American car makers cannot make efficient, clean cars unless there is a law that requires them to? I don't know if I believe that.

    9. Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, sure, if you limit the competition to a gas guzzler category, an American company can compete.

    10. Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I first drove a car with start/stop in it in Germany over 10 years ago. It worked great. There's no reason for it to be a detriment to driving. Fast forward 10 years, my current car, a 2014 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid has start/stop flawlessly integrated and not even noticeable. No jarring or jerkiness.

      I get 37 mpg combined mileage (based on 4 years of real world driving) and because of the electric assist I get instant torque whenever I want to pass grandma on the freeway. The hybrid drivetrain is a clean a win win, not a desperate measure, and it's what I as a consumer now expect as the minimum technical solution for future vehicles. I'll never go back to pure IC engine--it'd be like going back to flip phone from an iphone.

    11. Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers? by upl8n87447 · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's true. It also makes trucks very dangerous since the majority of drivers aren't in trucks. If a car is an accident with a truck, they will be on the opposite end of that equation and will have a much worse time during that accident.

      Then of course trucks block sight lines, making it much harder to see what's ahead. They take up more space. Are more sluggish to respond. And my personal favorite, have large tires and high backends that allow them to pickup things/rocks in the road and fling them at the cars behind them... since... you know.. there's no mudflap requirement for trucks.

      One of my least comfortable positions on the road is behind a pickup truck. I'd rather drive behind a semi with big fat mudflaps than a pickup truck / SUV / jeep without.

    12. Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers? by Christian+Smith · · Score: 2

      US automakers have subsidiaries in quite a few non-US countries

      . . . but what are US countries . . . ? Besides the US itself, of course.

      Would Puerto Rico be a US country?

    13. Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers? by bobby · · Score: 3

      Unfortunately fuel efficiency and emissions are often slightly at odds, depending on what you're trying to achieve. Higher compression ratios, more ignition advance, and/or leaner mixtures give better performance and efficiency, but cause more NOx, possibly more CO and HC.

      To function properly, catalytic converters need cycling- they intentionally cycle the engine from rich to lean. Not the best for mpg.

      Diesels have been a huge offender on our highways, and since they _finally_ forced them to be cleaner, they are much much better and we all breathe easier. And it turned out to be fairly easy. Idiots like VW only worsened things for diesels' reputation.

      But overall I agree that the car mfgrs. might hurt themselves in foreign markets, and it's up to them to compete in those markets. Foreign car makers have had to modify cars, or produce special models, or just can't sell certain models in the US, especially California.

    14. Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers? by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's

      Mueller
      Ain't
      Going
      Away

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    15. Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 2

      Actually, rollovers demonstrate that the SUV's are MORE deadly

    16. Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers? by rally2xs · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, not "only because." Another big reason is because of these new laws requiring child safety seats. Try getting your triplets into a regular car. Ain't happenin'. You need an SUV or van for all those huge child safety seats, esp. when you can't put any in the front because of the accursed air bag (I've NEVER been in a situation where an air bag would have done me the slightest bit of good, and I've been driving for 54 years.) So, you get kids, and want to go somewhere as a family all in the same vehicle, can you say "SUV?" I knew you could...

    17. Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers? by fisted · · Score: 2

      I think start/stop is questionable at best. My car consumes .6L (that's .15 gallons) of gas per hour of idling. An hour of idling at traffic lights etc is a lot of start/stop cycles causing wear on the starter motor/magnet switch and all related moving part, as well as consuming significant juice from the battery that the alternator has to resupply (which means increased gas consumption while driving). I'm not sure whether it's a net positive or net negative, but I suppose even if it eventually saves you a negligible amount of energy, eventually the starter will need to be replaced which would completely dwarf the saved energy.

      Start/stop is popular because people don't think it through. Marketing knows that. Engineers implementing these systems probably get a good laugh out of it. Garages approve.

    18. Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers? by rally2xs · · Score: 2

      I almost bought a Volt at one time. They were a little under-performing when compared to my Subaru WRX. The reason for my road trips is that I road rally with the Sports Car Club of America, and although road rallies are not the races you see on TV on regular roads, but instead more of a game of Simon Says done with cars at fairly low speeds, there are still some advantages to be had with a "quick" car. Even I didn't used to believe it, and considering the rallies I was running it didn't make sense, but the facts were that my driver and I tried for several years to win the championship with my Jeep Cherokee, and just couldn't. Then I bought a 2005 Subaru WRX and won the championship the next year. The quickness was the factor - you're looking for a turn, find an intersection you think is right and look down there and it says, "dead end", so have to speed up again suddenly because the checkpoint is down the road in the other direction and you have to get there "right now." The Subaru did "right now" much better than the Jeep. So we won the championship. We weren't any better at it than in the previous 4 years, it was the car. And the Volt would have been unlikely to win.

      Other consideration was the cargo carrying capacity of the Volt, I wanted something a little bigger with 4 doors.

      They make an electric I can use, I'll be right there...

    19. Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers? by Cederic · · Score: 2

      At any given speed I would rather be in a smaller more maneuverable car.

      However, the stats suggest that drivers of cheap SUVs die less than drivers of cheap saloon cars: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topic...
      (Drivers of luxury cars are pretty safe, whatever their vehicle style).

    20. Re:Disadvantage US manufacturers? by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      Most likely this is allow greater flexibility to the CAFE standard. So while it eases restrictions on heavier cars, in reality, this would be a broad improvement in performance (more HP) across the fleet. That translates into more competitive offerings to the overseas market.

      IC engine tech has come a long way in the last 10 years alone. They've become extremely efficient for what they do; primarily thanks to advancements in tooling and manufacturing capabilities.

      Yes, the automotive automotive industry could create bigger SUVs (up to a certain point) with more steel and thus be heavier. It also adds to the overall cost in materials. This would reduce MPG. But most consumers don't want a heavy car for the sake of being heavy. They want versatility. In addition, consumers would rather choose more horse power rather than more mass if having to choose between the two in sacrificing MPG.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  2. CAFE standards by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:CAFE standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes and no. Trucks, SUVs, crossovers, and vans were finally included in CAFE by legislation passed by the Bush admin, but they use a "vehicle footprint" formula to adjust their ratings. Despite that, only passenger cars are included for the purposes of the federal "gas guzzler" tax. Everything else is excluded.

      Small trucks are kept out of the US market by a 25% tariff known as the "Chicken Tax". Many of these available in other markets will get about 35mpg and can carry 1500 pounds of payload. Because the US has a protected truck market, the manufacturers have nice fat profit margins on trucks and gives them another reason to promote them more than their other vehicles. It's fucking ridiculous.

  3. Corporate benfactors... by bosef1 · · Score: 2

    "EPA Prepares To Roll Back Rules Requiring Cars To Be Cleaner..."

    Armor All and Simoniz are going be very upset about this.

  4. Re:Victors by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

    Solar grand minimum just delays the problem until the next solar cycle. It doesn't go away.

    Plus, oil has a limited supply. The goal should be to use it efficiently and eventually move to other tech for transportation. Leave the remaining oil for chemical processes that actually require it.

  5. If Obama had found the cure for cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re: If Obama had found the cure for cancer by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Funny

      Moreover, this "debate" is like most others - the so-called champions of science have long since abandoned any hope of convincing cultists with facts, reasoning or citations and have learned to just ignore those engaging in willful dumbfuckery

      FTFY

    2. Re: If Obama had found the cure for cancer by Cyberax · · Score: 2

      My GF had not been able to get pre-Obamacare insurance for ANY cost because of her medical history. So yep, pre-Obamacare plans were cheap... as long as you're healthy.

  6. I thought we already had this by Spy+Handler · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:I thought we already had this by Holi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Several states follow California

      Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico , New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia.

      So it's not quite 49 to 1.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    2. Re:I thought we already had this by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      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.

      Depends on what you think matters. You're right the world is moving towards electric. What trump is doing here is giving USA car makers incentive not to play along and get involved. Fast forward 20 years and you'll all be driving Chinese and European cars and still blaming Obama for killing the car industry.

  7. Re:Victors by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is a victory for consumers, who would otherwise be forced to pay much higher prices for automobiles.

    In the spirit of Good Friday, I'm not going to call you a dumb sonofabitch.

    http://time.com/money/4702421/...

    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.

    OK, you're a dumb sonofabitch.

    https://www.giss.nasa.gov/rese...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  8. Re:Two Words by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  9. Re:Two Words by Jahoda · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...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.

  10. Re:Split by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

    Cheers.

    Though calling him an "ADHD clown" gives a bad name to entertainers with ADHD. How about a harmful sociopath?

  11. Re:Victors by tim620 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are free to believe whatever you want. However, we all need to worry about global warming. It is really happening and is really man-man. The science is correct. I tend to believe the scientists who have studied this for many years, over conservative politicians and talk show hosts.

  12. Pro-business, pro-Dominionist, anti-science.. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2
    ..and anti-human life. That's what this is.

    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.

  13. What winning looks like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  14. Regressive tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re:"handing a victory to car manufacturers " by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    That's a strawman.

    The choice will be more like a 35mpg Honda and 25mph Ford that costs $2000 less, has a more powerful engine, but also emits a *lot* more pollutants of all types, not just CO2, but the smog inducing pollutants that have a direct link in killing people.

    Many people will take the cheap, faster car even if it kills children since that killing is an indirect link, which is why the regulation is needed.

  16. Re:Bout time. by hawguy · · Score: 2

    Only the united states and canada has those standards at all...

    Kinda fucking stupid to be the only ones doing it.

    What are you talking about? Nearly every country has emissions standards:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Even under the stricter Obama led standards, the USA still lags most of the world in efficiency standards:

    http://www.biologicaldiversity...

  17. Re:They just run two production lines by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >half our budget just went to the military.

    Umm, no.

    US Military budget is around 630 billion dollars. Total Federal budget is north of 4 trillion dollars.

    Even if you only count discretionary spending, the military budget is maybe 40% of the budget, at most.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  18. Sad... by tim620 · · Score: 2

    Another sad day for the USA. From a sad administration...

  19. All party of the Trump philosophy by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

    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.
  20. Re:About Time by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The sooner Mar-a-lago goes underwater, the better, baby!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  21. the military budget is maybe 40% of the budget by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 5, Funny

    > 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.
    1. Re:the military budget is maybe 40% of the budget by rally2xs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      " A lot of countries spent far less on defense, and remain oddly uninvaded."

      Because WE are protecting them with OUR (very expensive) military. Before he was elected, before he was even running for election, Donald Trump mentioned in interviews that some big benficiaries of our defense spending should start coughing up for its creation and maintenance. I favor that. If you're in such a situation that you're in danger if the US military goes home, then you should be paying for it.

  22. Re:Split by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The right feeds the left, or haven't you looked at the political demographics of the US farming communities?

    Those farming communities are heavily reliant on "liberal" areas to fund their existence. That's why CA only gets back 80-someodd cents of every tax dollar, while "farming" states turn a profit on federal taxes.

    So I think the evil liberal commies could afford to take some of your subsidy and use it to buy food on the global market.

  23. Tax fuel to mitigate pollution by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Better solution would be to tax fuel at a fairly high rate and let the markets decide what to buy

    I totally agree, but then...

    Use the tax money to subsidize clean (electric) transport

    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
  24. Re:Victors by dryeo · · Score: 2

    One of the logical fallacies is your using regulated things to argue that something shouldn't be regulated. Hospital's are highly regulated with most workers needing various training and licenses as well as regulations on cleanliness and such, which have made them much safer. Cars are highly regulated, with enforced safety features, rules about operating such as seat belts and drivers are licensed, this has made cars much safer over the years as well as saving numerous life's due to cleaner emissions which have also been regulated.
    You seem to be saying that given the fact that people still die in hospitals and automobiles, we don't have to regulate guns, not even regulating a safety, plus we don't have to ensure that people have any training in using firearms and anyone should be free to buy them.
    Good example of how whataboutism works

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  25. Disingenuous and Sensationalist by sycodon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Disingenuous and Sensationalist by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      Unrealistic? Really? The Prius does better than that right now. And AFAIK, all EVs do *much* better than that in terms of miles per gallon-equivalent-amount-of-power. All it takes to hit that target is to produce more electric vehicles, more hybrids, and fewer gas hogs. It literally requires nothing more than changing the number of vehicles in each category that you build, while working to push down the price of electric vehicles to be more affordable. How is that unrealistic? Beyond, I mean, the possibly unrealistic goal of getting automakers to stop dragging their heels and whining and screaming like petulant children....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Disingenuous and Sensationalist by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 2

      Hell... my plain old last-generation, not-hybrid, 2013 Mazda 3 tops 40 MPG on the freeway. First car I've owned, actually, that not just meets it's EPA estimate, but routinely beats it. The current gen already does better. And the new engine going into the next generation is even more efficient. No way is 50MPG unrealistic.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    3. Re:Disingenuous and Sensationalist by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      A lot simpler way to solve the demand for more fuel efficient vehicles would be to scrap the regulations and instead tax the fuel. A tax would be painful for the population but will also be beneficial in the long run - maybe that could help paying off the debt?

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    4. Re:Disingenuous and Sensationalist by Reziac · · Score: 2

      California already does that, in spades (about a third of the cost of gas at present). All it achieves is making poor people poorer, since it's largely working-class people who have to live far enough away from jobs that they're forced to commute (and no, it's not practical to have mass transit handle that when no two people go the same direction at the same time all over a metro area over 50 miles wide). And selling 'em all new efficient hybrids isn't such a good solution either. Most can't quality for a newer used car, let alone a new car loan.

      Also, the only thing higher taxes encourages government to do is... spend more. When did you last see higher taxes go toward reducing gov't debt?

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    5. Re:Disingenuous and Sensationalist by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Not exactly.

      https://taxfoundation.org/stat...

      This is just the gas tax, tho. CA also charges sales tax (not included in the totals), and not just on the price of gas, but on the price after all other taxes are tacked onto it.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  26. Re: "handing a victory to car manufacturers " by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

    Consumers are stupid and have proven that they will

    You know what? Fuck YOU to people who label others as 'consumers.' Everybody consumes. There is no special class of stupid-cow-people who you can look down upon, because you are some fucking enlightened-type dude.