Utilities, Tesla Appeal Federal Rollback of Auto Emissions Standards (arstechnica.com)

A coalition of utilities and electric vehicle makers, including Tesla, are petitioning the EPA to reconsider its recent plan to roll back auto emissions standards. In April, the EPA said that it would relax greenhouse gas emissions standards that had been put in place for model year 2022-2025 vehicles. Ars Technica reports: The National Coalition for Advanced Transportation (NCAT) represents 12 utilities as well as Tesla, electric truck maker Workhorse, and EV charging network EVgo. NCAT earlier this month asked the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, DC to review the EPA's latest efforts to relax the Obama-era fuel economy standards.

The coalition challenge to the EPA follows a similar challenge made by 17 states, including California. The utilities' efforts show that they're interested in protecting one of the major projected avenues for growth in electricity demand. Electricity consumption has stagnated in the U.S. as efficiency measures take effect and, in some states, solar panels make it easier for residents to buy less electricity from the local utility.

Comments

Re:Trump Will Be Victorious

[b0s0z0ku]

Shouldn't electric cars be great for the coal industry?

Live by the executive order.

[HornWumpus]

Die by the executive order.

Shysters must be a sunk cost, at least this will keep them out of real trouble.

Re:Live by the executive order.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this entire process derives from a law passed by Congress under the Bush Administration. The Obama Administration followed through and Congress has not repealed it(note the Federal Register), yet Trump has used his executive position to carve out an exception, though without due process as required by law, much as his travel ban was based on his personal whims, not sound evidence. Even if it had passed by Constitutional Amendment, all evidence indicates that Donald Trump would act to subvert it. Why? Because of his own personal bias, or because he was bribed, or just because the last person who talked to him told him to do it, Remember how quickly he reversed his position on ZTE. All it took was a few hundred million in money and what did he start tweeting?

However, the Donald will be disappointed if he thinks the rest of us will succumb to his corruption, that isn't the way the rest of us work. Millions to challenge, not one cent of bribery.

Re:Live by the executive order.

[Gravis Zero]

Live by the executive order. Die by the executive order.

Seems you don't understand the difference between executive order and regulation.

Shysters must be a sunk cost, at least this will keep them out of real trouble.

Would you say the same thing if the next administration suddenly made companies pay to clean up every bit of pollution they generate and thus shutting down every coal energy plant inside a year? No, you would scream like a banshee.

Environmental capital is a very real thing and it must be repaid to keep the planet from becoming uninhabitable for most species.

Re:Live by the executive order.

[HornWumpus]

'Followed through' by raising the CAFE standards via executive order.

Re:Live by the executive order.

[LynnwoodRooster]

CAFE standard as passed by Congress set CAFE to 35 MPG by 2020; President Obama used an executive action to raise it to 41+ MPG. Well, it's been rolled-back to the passed law.

Re:Live by the executive order.

[LynnwoodRooster]

The law called for 35 MPG by 2020; President Obama used an executive action to raise the CAFE standard above that.

Re:Live by the executive order.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry Hornwumpus, but LynnwoodRooster already provided the link showing that Obama reached an agreement with automakers, states, and other parties as required by the aforementioned law, so it is actually Trump who is trying to defy the will of Congress.

Who signed off on it already. Multiple times.

Re:Live by the executive order.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the citation, LynnwoodRooster. Yes, as your link shows, Obama was following the law in negotiating an agreement with automakers, states, and other parties to fulfill the instructions that Congress had previously given out under the Bush administration.

The Trump régime's singlehanded usurpation of power in defying the legislature is something that the court will rule warrants an order otherwise. And given that I is Scott Pruett, he probably won't even make it out of his safe room to defend his actions.

He'll probably end up resigning in disgrace like so many other members of Trump's Cabinet of Corruption.

Re: Live by the executive order.

[Anonymous Coward]

Although Trump is a jerk, this EPA decision has nothing to do with the "travel ban".

Sure they do, they're both examples of Trump's personal caprice and malice.

Such rollbacks of overly ambitious goals set by politicians for political gain (they usually are not in office by the time the market is destroyed by goals and, if they are, most people have forgotten their position on the topic or they can fool the public by pointing fingers at private enterprise claiming they didn't bother to meet the goals (which is rather absurd as whoever develops the technology to do so can patent it and suck money from all the ICE powered vehicle manufacturers).

Sorry man, but nobody ever invented the miraculous 200 mpg carberator and sold it off to then auto industry. That's just silly nonsense.

The travel ban is clearly within Trump's authority (you will find that conclusion to be unanimous in the upcoming SCOTUS decision although I expect the overall ruling more likely to be 7-2 in Trump's favor as it's likely a couple of the "legislate from the bench" justices from the left side of spectrum will find a reason to oppose the majority opinion on personal rather than legal grounds).

Nope. The Supreme Court will be forced to admit that Trump made no attempt to follow any kind of standard besides his own expressed animus in his travel ban, and with those statements, his clear intent was to impose a religious test in violation of the prohibition in the Constitution. I expect a 6-3 ruling is unlikely, but 5-4 may come without Alito or Roberts joining the opinions of Thomas or Gorsuch.

The countries affected by the ban were much the same countries that Obama identified when banning anyone who was a national of 38 countries and had even set foot in those "banned" countries for years from using the Visa Waiver Program for much the same reason that Trump included them -- they have governments that are either unable or unwilling to cooperate with our vetting process.

Nope. Trump's own administration admitted they had presented no documentation to that effect, that they wrote following the President's own personal instructions.

Trump even tweeted that himself.

The notion that this was a "Muslim Ban" then leads us to conclude that Obama also was trying to discriminate against Muslims.

Nope. Obama does not have a personal history of expressing antagonism towards Muslims. Trump, on the other hand, does, and directly promised to ban Muslims.

If the "travel bans" were a "Muslim ban" they were certainly a very ineffective way to do so -- a small fraction of the Muslims worldwide are affected and there are many individual countries with much larger populations of Muslims that were unaffected.

Yes, Trump is also incompetent, as noted by his imposition of his ban. A sudden, unprepared, and universal ban with zero planning or forethought.

And, while on the topic of Trump vs. Obama, there's really no question that DACA, as Obama implemented it, was beyond his authority -- Congress never authorized creation of a new class of immigrants and issuance of documents to them. The lawsuits against Trump on DACA rollbacks will fail miserably. It's impossible to argue that Trump doesn't have the power to unilaterally dismantle the program if Obama had the power to unilaterally create it. If Obama didn't have the right to unilaterally create it, it's not a legal program anyway so must go.

Except Obama did not create it. Congress did. It authorized the President to act as Obama acted. Congress even consented. If they had objected, they didn't even have to vote to impeach. They could have just passed a law.

They did not. Instead, they allowed Obama to fulfill the roll he was delegated under the law. Accordingly, using his judgment he set up protections and deferral

Re:Live by the executive order.

[BlueStrat]

CAFE standard as passed by Congress [wikipedia.org] set CAFE to 35 MPG by 2020; President Obama used an executive action to raise it to 41+ MPG. Well, it's been rolled-back to the passed law.

The 41.5 mpg standard would have meant that ICE cars would increase in price dramatically while plunging in performance metrics, and also in crash survivability as structure is sacrificed for reductions in vehicle weight to increase mpg.

As a result, people would keep their old ICE cars with lower mpg and higher emissions on the road far longer, defeating much of the reasons for higher CAFE standards that have been touted.

I guess some here would rather see people keeping their old lower-mileage,higher-emission cars on the road rather than settle for 35mpg.

Strat

Re: Live by the executive order.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama had no need to pass a new law, the existing Bush-era law empowered him to negotiate standards with automakers, states, and other parties, to which they formed an agreement that Trump is now unlawfully repudiating.

If Trump wanted the authority to act as he did, he is the one with Congressional majorities now. He never even asked.

So he's the criminal, and contrary to his assertions, he can be arrested, and found in contempt, and he can't pardon himself to the point of ignoring court orders.

Even if he tried, one of the states would just charge him, and there is no immunity for presidents from extradition. Not in the US anyway. Obviously, say Chile or Russia is another matter, but he has yet to flee the country.

Let's grab him now before he absconds.

Re:Live by the executive order.

[Barsteward]

"The 41.5 mpg standard would have meant that ICE cars would increase in price dramatically while plunging in performance metrics, and also in crash survivability as structure is sacrificed for reductions in vehicle weight to increase mpg."

Increased fuel economy is better "performance" and you can get modern smaller more economical engine cars going faster than older larger engine cars. Modern cars are also a lot better at protecting the passenger than older cars ever were. Check the video on this head-on between a 1959 Bel Air and a 2009 Mailbu http://www.core77.com/posts/23...

Re:Live by the executive order.

[BlueStrat]

Increased fuel economy is better "performance" and you can get modern smaller more economical engine cars going faster than older larger engine cars. Modern cars are also a lot better at protecting the passenger than older cars ever were.

Yes, but at ever-higher cost. Why would a working-poor driver get rid of their current working car to spend tens of thousands for a new ultra-efficient car?

And I'm sorry, but IMO I'd be far more likely to survive a collision with a dump-truck in a '75 Eldorado than a 2018 Focus or Malibu,, or even a Tesla. Airbags, crumple-zones, etc can only mitigate so much energy/damage.

Strat

Re: Live by the executive order.

[drinkypoo]

Now now, there's no reason to make a racist reference, you can simply call Trump a buffoon and accomplish your goal.

Calling someone a monkey or ape is only racist if they're brown, not orange.

Can't blame them

[technosaurus]

They invested considerable resources upfront in order to become profitable in the future based on existing regulation. Changing the rules mid-game seems like something Trump has probably been doing since Chutes & Ladders.

Re:Can't blame them

[HornWumpus]

You mean like Obama changed the rules mid-game?

If one was legal and OK, so is the other.

Re: A Sad Day For All

[Bing Tsher E]

Musk is the king of PayPal. That's his big success that is bankrolling all his other projects.

GP didn't say it wasn't legal

[rsilvergun]

he just implied it sucks rocks. As someone who likes breathing clean air I'd like to see more EVs out there. It's lot easier to keep 10 power plant's emissions low or at zero than 10 million cars.

Re: GP didn't say it wasn't legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Your tax dollars have subsidised a shit-ton of rich people's sports cars, that's for sure. Those people are senior executives and shareholders in Exxon et al, who get wars fought on their behalf to protect supply lines, among a whole bunch of subsidies.

Without the emmissions roll backs

[rsilvergun]

there is no coal industry. It's not profitable if they can't pollute. Natural Gas burns too clean and, well, "Clean Coal" isn't.

"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[TheDarkener]

Fuck that reason. Fuck it right in the fucking ass. What a bunch of bullshit. "Oh, we can't be burdened to help preserve the health of our planet."

Fucking assholes.

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[TheDarkener]

That is absurd.

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[drinkypoo]

It's also horse shit. The CARB has been in talks with automakers all along, and all of them have been on track with models which meet the requirements. In fact, they could have met the targets early.

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[Uberbah]

Given the prices of the Nissan Leaf and the Model S, that's just dumbfuckery. And that's not even looking at hybrids.

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[PolygamousRanchKid]

"Oh, we can't be burdened to help preserve the health of our planet."

unfortunately, Big Automobile considers it to be their planet.

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[_Sharp'r_]

There's nothing legally in the way of any automaker who wants to meet the old targets instead.

Well, except for their customers who may want to purchase something other than what they'd otherwise be forced to buy.

But let's be serious here, this lawsuit is just about companies who want the government to restrict their competition for them. The rest is just an excuse.

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[edtice1559]

That's a bit of a naive/cynical interpretation. If certain companies did the work to follow the law and others invested their resources in getting the law repealed, rolling it back clearly benefits the latter group over the former. That's somewhat akin to penalizing the competent. This is analogous to the phase-out of incandescent bulbs. It sounds good on the surface to the libertarian screw-the-environment types. But since the rules were in place for so long, most companies spent a fortune preparing and felt that dropping the regulation would terribly harm their business. It's one thing to not pass a standard. Its quite another to roll it back as this is a disruptive (in a bad way) action to markets.

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[drinkypoo]

But let's be serious here, this lawsuit is just about companies who want the government to restrict their competition for them. The rest is just an excuse.

I don't care why they're doing it, if it benefits me in the long run. And that's what shifting the balance towards EVs will do, since I like breathing.

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[_Sharp'r_]

The decision was finalized and announced January 13th, 2017 for the rules through 2025. In other words, on the way out of town by the Obama Administration.

On February 21st, 2017, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, representing the 12 major automakers, sent a letter to the Trump Administration asking for the rules to be reversed, stating the decision was “the product of egregious procedural and substantive defects” and is “riddled with indefensible assumptions, inadequate analysis and a failure to engage with contrary evidence.”

So sure, maybe in that last week of the Obama Administration some car companies "spent a fortune preparing" before asking for the rules to be repealed, but I doubt it.

You may have missed that it's only the electric vehicle manufacturers (who aren't really directly affected, they just don't get to handicap their competition further) who have come out against the repeal.

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[luther349]

you can only push a gas motor so far. they know this is was just for them to push hybrid and electric sales. relly the case in places outside the usa. as for tesla they need to shit down and shut up until they can get there model 3 out the door without a 5 year waiting list.

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[luther349]

you forgot the chevy bolt thats 30k after rebate and you can get it today unlike a model 3.

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[TheDarkener]

Thank you, fellow UID 100k-er. That's my whole point. It's not about EVs vs gas-guzzlers, it's about the health of our shared living space.

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[TheDarkener]

The ones who have to adhere to tighter emission restrictions will always point the finger.

Imagine Elon Musk complaining about a government regulation that causes them to make more efficient batteries. Wouldn't happen.

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[_Sharp'r_]

Yes, when the government tells companies they aren't allowed to sell their customers what their customers want in their products, then yeah, they "point the finger".

If the government told Elon Musk that he couldn't sell battery-powered cars unless they had a 2,000 mile range, then yeah, he'd "point the finger" as well.

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[TheDarkener]

Is what customers want in their products less efficiency and more pollution? Sorry, I'm confused.

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[_Sharp'r_]

Yes, yes it is. See, we have this thing called a "market" and people demonstrate what they want by what they individually decide to spend their own money on. If people didn't want something different, the government wouldn't have to prevent them from being able to buy it.

Fuel efficiency has trade-offs in cars. Many people don't want to make the trade-offs required to eke a tiny bit more MPG from a vehicle. As far as pollution goes, the regulation in question has nothing to do with air quality.

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[drinkypoo]

Fuel efficiency has trade-offs in cars. Many people don't want to make the trade-offs required to eke a tiny bit more MPG from a vehicle. As far as pollution goes, the regulation in question has nothing to do with air quality.

What? Shifting the market towards EVs has everything to do with air quality. You were doing okay until the end, where you went full wrong.

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[drinkypoo]

Yes, yes it is. See, we have this thing called a "market" and people demonstrate what they want by what they individually decide to spend their own money on. If people didn't want something different, the government wouldn't have to prevent them from being able to buy it.

I want to buy a robot that blows up your house with you in it.

Oh, that's inconvenient for society? I guess I shouldn't be able to do that.

Now we're just arguing over where to draw the line, and you are revealed as a hypocrite.

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[TheDarkener]

As far as pollution goes, the regulation in question has nothing to do with air quality.

Source please

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[_Sharp'r_]

Source? How about the summary? "Obama-era fuel economy standards." Any of the linked articles?

Raising the CAFE MPG number doesn't relate to air quality. Neither do attempts to limit "greenhouse gasses", which are the emissions changes in the regulations.

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[_Sharp'r_]

Carbon dioxide != air quality

Also, the regulations don't restrict the number of internal combustion cars, they just require manufacturers to pay electric car makers and/or give away EVs at a loss (among other options) in order to improve their fleet average.

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[_Sharp'r_]

No, that's not "inconvenient for society". Society isn't a person, it's an abstract concept. Blowing up my house with me in it is a specific attack on me and my individual rights.

Funny how now that your mott argument of "what customers want" has been defeated, you're retreating to a new bailey argument of "so everyone should be able to buy whatever they want."

Yes, everyone should be able to buy the car they want, free of federal government restrictions. No, they shouldn't be able to indiscriminately kill other people. Buying the car they want doesn't indiscriminately kill other people, regardless of alarmist global warming ideas about fuel economy standards for vehicles. The people in our national government have been granted no power to arbitrarily restrict what kinds of cars people purchase.

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[drinkypoo]

No, that's not "inconvenient for society". Society isn't a person, it's an abstract concept. Blowing up my house with me in it is a specific attack on me and my individual rights.

Statistically nobody in government actually cares about your individual rights. They only care about things which might inconvenience them, like preventing them from getting elected. They don't care about you, but if they might get blown up, or if there will be some economic impact to people getting blown up, it will affect their lives.

Yes, everyone should be able to buy the car they want, free of federal government restrictions. No, they shouldn't be able to indiscriminately kill other people.

There's no difference.

Buying the car they want doesn't indiscriminately kill other people, regardless of alarmist global warming ideas about fuel economy standards for vehicles.

Operating the car you think they want most certainly does indiscriminately kill other people, regardless of whether you believe in global warming. Even putting climatological input aside, there is a cost in human lives to burning fossil fuels.

The people in our national government have been granted no power to arbitrarily restrict what kinds of cars people purchase.

There is nothing arbitrary about it. You can't purchase lots of things because the government (at various levels) says so, and only some of them are automobile-related. Other things you're allowed to purchase, but only use on private property. Even absent CAFE, you're still only allowed to market a car if it's got an OBD-II interface, emissions monitors &c. You're only allowed to purchase explosives with a reason and a permit, and there's plenty of chemicals you're not allowed to have or make at all in most of the world — like PCBs, or certain pharmaceuticals.

There's really no support for what you're saying. The US Constitution includes essentially blank checks for the federal government to do whatever it wants, including regulating commerce and providing for people's needs. One of those needs is breathable air, and one way to provide that is to prohibit people from doing things which threaten that. California led the way in legislation to protect air quality, because poor air quality in certain locations (*cough*Los Angeles*cough*) was having a marked and visible negative effect on quality of life, and a calculable effect on quantity as well. And California continues to lead the way on legislation which pushes forward automotive technology in ways that make automobiles safer and cleaner for everyone in the world, and you know what? I'm happy about that, and you're not going to convince me that I should feel otherwise.

TL;DR: there are actual real-world repercussions to your automotive choices, which you should be able to recognize even if you don't believe in global warming; and if you can't, you're not half as smart as you think you are, or you're a trolly mctrollbag.

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[drinkypoo]

Carbon dioxide != air quality

CO2 is not the only emission eliminated by using EVs. They also don't emit any NOx, or any unburned hydrocarbons ("HC" on an emissions test.) This last is actually the most harmful emission of dino-burners, especially when they are gasoline-powered. Breathing diesel isn't exactly good for you, but it's a lot less volatile than gasoline is. Either way, there's none of that coming out of the ass end of an EV unless it's got a leaky reduction drive casing and it's leaking lube.

Also, I'm not particularly interested in your denialism. Ignoring physics, or indeed science, is not going to win you any points here. While there's still plenty of you in-denial types around Slashdot, you don't seem to have the influence you used to. I guess the ongoing climatological catastrophe has gotten through to many of your peers.

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[TheDarkener]

Raising the CAFE MPG number doesn't relate to air quality. Neither do attempts to limit "greenhouse gasses", which are the emissions changes in the regulations.

OIC, so a car that gets 1MPG won't affect air quality any more than one that gets 100MPG. Got it.

Unless I'm missing something here...feel free to clarify.

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[_Sharp'r_]

So now that we've established you don't care about individuals, nor their rights and that you're only rebuttal is to call people names, I think we're done here. I feel no need to read any further replies from you.

Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to"

[drinkypoo]

So now that we've established you don't care about individuals,

That's an idiotic thing to say, which is about par for you.

and that you're

*your

only rebuttal is to call people names

Don't want people to think you're stupid? Don't be a willful idiot.

I think we're done here. I feel no need to read any further replies from you.

I wish you'd have fucked off a long time ago, then. I don't need to hear your lies or evasions.

Absolutely sincere, right?

[mi]

A coalition of utilities and electric vehicle makers, including Tesla

So, the guys, who:

1. Sell electricity
2. Sell electric cars

seek to outlaw other kinds of energy-storage and usage.

Who, me self-serving?!

Re:Absolutely sincere, right?

[Ichijo]

It's like building a coal plant and the day after it's built the government suddenly decides to double the coal excise tax, decimating your profit projections. Wouldn't you seek some kind of compensation?

Re:Absolutely sincere, right?

[LynnwoodRooster]

No, it's not like that at all. It's like the Government gave you a few billion dollars to start a solar plant and add all kinds of extra-legal (in the sense they were above and beyond the legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by a President) restrictions on your competition, hydro dams. And now someone comes in, removes those extra-legal restrictions, and stops giving you billions in tax dollar subsidies.

Re:Absolutely sincere, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh sorry, LynnwoodRooster, Trump has actually proposed additional regulations on the construction of Solar Plants, he's even tried to ban people from installing them on their own roofs.

This is why dealing with imaginary hypotheticals is pointless, like pink dragons and Trump's ethics, they are far too subject to caprice to useful illustration, so all you end up doing is yelling random incoherent strings of sentences.

Re:Absolutely sincere, right?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Citation needed.

Re:Absolutely sincere, right?

[AmiMoJo]

Is it really impossible that Musk and Tesla actually care about emissions?

Re: Absolutely sincere, right?

[Bing Tsher E]

What is it about rectums that causes you to use slang referring to them as a pejorative?

No, this isn't a pedantic query. There seem to a lot of rectal pejoratives being crapflooded on Slashdot threads lately. Where are all these pottymouths showing up from?

Re:Absolutely sincere, right?

[DogDude]

Go suck on a tailpipe.

Re:Absolutely sincere, right?

[mi]

Why would the care about emissions more than the rest of us? The most obvious and the least conspiratorial answer is, they have a personal motif.

Re:Absolutely sincere, right?

[luther349]

they dont care about emissions they wanna sell cars. the issue is they suck at it you cant get a model 3 without waiting for years.

Waiting for the backlash.

[Gravis Zero]

This deeply corrupt administration isn't going to be in charge forever (hell, I'd be surprised if the make it March) and there is going to be a backlash for all of this. Don't be surprised if the new regulation is ever stricter and then subsequently codified into law.

Re:Waiting for the backlash.

[rtb61]

You are really starting to understand now. They do not expect these laws to be permanent, they expect the regulations to come back and they will fight them off for as long as possible. More profits this quarter and bigger bonuses is all they care about, how many they kill, meh, as long as the penalties are less than the profits and besides the investors pay the penalties and the executes keep the profit. They know they damage they are causing, they don't care and will continue to do it for as long as they can. Executives need to be going to prison for life when their decisions kill and don't expect any change in behaviour until that happens.

Re:Waiting for the backlash.

[cascadingstylesheet]

This deeply corrupt administration isn't going to be in charge forever (hell, I'd be surprised if the make it March) and there is going to be a backlash for all of this. Don't be surprised if the new regulation is ever stricter and then subsequently codified into law.

He's got until 2024, as long as the left stays bat crazy.

Yeah, law might be nice. Lovely that you are starting to realize that ... now.

Re: Waiting for the backlash.

[Bing Tsher E]

Get a room, you two.

Re: Waiting for the backlash.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, Donald Trump believes himself above the law.

Sorry, but only the Second Amendment can protect us from tyranny.

Re:Waiting for the backlash.

[drinkypoo]

Executives need to be going to prison for life when their decisions kill and don't expect any change in behaviour until that happens.

It would honestly be enough to simply deprive them of their ill-gotten gains, if you did it regularly and fairly. You don't actually have to imprison people, just take away the profit motive from bad behavior.

all those fundy christian rightwingnuts

[FudRucker]

they think we can trash the planet all we want because jesus will be back any minute now to save the day

religious fundamentalists are the most delusional idiots on this planet

Re:all those fundy christian rightwingnuts

[drinkypoo]

they think we can trash the planet all we want because jesus will be back any minute now to save the day

Jesus is supposed to come back at armageddon, right? Which they're hastening by driving climate collapse. It's their religious duty!

Re:all those fundy christian rightwingnuts

[Daralantan]

Heck, Genesis has God telling Adam and Eve to tend to the garden and animals doesn't it?

Definitely shouldn't be thinking: "Gotta destroy it for Armageddon!" (Especially if it's the Bruce Willis Armageddon)

Products so good

[Crashmarik]

People have to be forced to buy them.

Whats more you have idiots lining up to demand this be done. Makes you think Ayn Rand was an optimist about people.

Let the US consumer buy what they want

[AHuxley]

Why shape and tilt the market with more federal rules and regulations.
The grid has had a lot of investment and can get electrical power to a user to charge their new electric car.
The maker of a car thats "electric" can sell the car on its own range and recharge specs.
The advanced GUI in the electric car can show range and what the range will be under different conditions.

When a consumer wants an electric car, truck, van they will read the reviews and buy that type of advanced product. Allow the US consumer to do the math on the costs of needed servicing and long term battery support costs.
A consumer can also select to buy a new standard SUV, truck, car, van for fun, work, weekends, holidays, moving a boat around.

When electric designers offer what existing transport offers then the market will move to what users want and will pay for.
No federal government needed. No power company and electric car company government advice needed.
The consumer will select the products they want and designers will have to respond to that demand every decade.
Get that mix night and your brand grows. Get it wrong and your brand fails.
Hire smart designers on merit who have real skills and understand what people want. Design safe transport that people will like and line to buy.
If that is electric, well done. If that is not electric, keep working on the design until its ready.

Dont use the US government to make the US consumer have to buy into products they don't want. Have to buy products that don't work and that are not ready for consumers.
A new car that comes with a faulty computer system should not be supported by US federal rules as road worthy.
Stop using federally rules for virtue signalling environmental party politics by setting prices and long term service costs.

Re: Let the US consumer buy what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

Why shape and tilt the market with more federal rules and regulations

Because the vast majority of people are selfish and stupid. They would buy a car that spews out poison if they think they can save a few bucks. Polutes the environment? Kills children? Who cares, I saved money!

Re: Let the US consumer buy what they want

[AHuxley]

AC "think they can save a few bucks".
So poor people should have to save up longer and only be able to select from a limited set of federally approved electric cars?
No small bus, van, SUV, truck. Just a short list of expensive federally approved electric cars AC?
The US electric version of an East German Trabant for the working poor to "select" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The USA has freedom of choice. Car makers in the USA can respond to the needs of people and offer them a wide range of transport.
Some at a low costs, some with amazing levels of luxury.

Cars, vans and trucks, SUV's. Cars to get to work, low cost transport to study.
A low cost van when starting out in business, a trade.
A truck, SUV with the power needed to support farm work. With lower costs to keep it working for years.
People have real world reasons to select the transport they do. That "save a few bucks" AC is the difference between getting an education, starting work, the ability to get to work on time or waiting for a bus for hours every week. A low cost to move their needed equipment and tools from site to site. That first van has to be paid for along with a lot of other business costs.

Staring your own business? Getting into a trade? The federal government, state gov, city should be supporting that person. No demanding the use of a list of approved expensive electric transport options.
Federal rules and the demands for electric cars should not be forced on people who only have "a few bucks".
A low cost car allows people all over the USA to get to work, to study. Not to have to wait for bus, rail adding hours onto travel times every week.
To have the freedom to enjoy their weekends, to travel, to see more of the USA.

Skilled engineers who passed their exams on merit will have to work harder on getting the costs of electric transport down.
Then people can review the costs of new electric transport and find the perfect low cost electric car, van, truck, SUV, bus with the needed support. No long term battery costs years later.

Re: Let the US consumer buy what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

The Trabant is actually an example of the kind of inefficient, unsafe, inadequate, and polluting vehicle that US regulations prohibit.

But good on you to propose requiring that US automakers cease their profiteering by producing over-expensive festure-ridden crap cars instead of affordable, comfortable vehicles.

Nobody should be forced to buy the Homer. That Ford had decided to abandon the public to serve only the luxury market is proof that they have abandoned the ideals of their founder, the great Henry Ford, who diligently sought to improve the lives of his workers and customers rather than treat them as peasants to be oppressed. He realized that their prosperity was his prosperity, but that his wealth was not extracted from them.

Re:Let the US consumer buy what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

Why shape and tilt the market?

Exxon and the others got wars fought and rulers toppled on their behalf, for Christ's sake. Not only does an untitled market not exist, the people who benefit from the current structure have demonstrated many times they will act violently to preserve it.

Re: Let the US consumer buy what they want

[Barsteward]

If you do not give industry targets, they will take the cheapest route to lining their pockets. Your view might work in Utopia, but not in the real world - too many bloodsuckers and ignorant people out there. Engineers can do their best but if it costs the business more, they will be ignored.

Re: Let the US consumer buy what they want

[drinkypoo]

But good on you to propose requiring that US automakers cease their profiteering by producing over-expensive festure-ridden crap cars

The problem automakers are facing is that all the cars in the US are basically pretty good today. They all drive pretty well, they all get pretty decent mileage, and they all have similar performance characteristics because they're all reaching about the same point of diminishing returns on improving the technologies that they're using. You can only get so much efficiency without a more advanced (and expensive) valve control system, for example, or without higher-octane fuels. All of the auto companies are basically competent, and have similar levels of technology. As a result, they have to compete on design (including materials) and features. Anyone who doesn't up-content their vehicle in a variety of ways winds up looking like a failure. The only type of vehicle that can get away with having limited equipment is a sports car, but those cost more to produce specifically because they don't move in as much volume as other types of vehicle. Some automakers solve this problem by basing a sports car on another platform, but that produces an inferior result to a pure effort.

instead of affordable, comfortable vehicles.

What's going to happen, if history is any indication, is that entrenched automakers are going to have their asses handed to them by an upstart. If it's not China, which it probably will be, it will probably be Africa but might be India.

All it's going to take is someone getting enough technical talent and manufacturing capacity together in one of those countries to actually build cheap vehicles that will pass the US crash tests and they are going to devastate the US auto market, because we have a lot of people in this country desperate for cheap transportation. The age of the US automotive fleet continues to increase, which is probably the surest sign of any bump in the economy not reaching the actual consumer. People love to buy new cars. If they aren't doing that, it's for a reason. And I think they'll forgive vehicles with limited equipment (like driving assistance) if they're dramatically cheaper, so long as they're reliable. The Chinese are fully capable of building reliable cars, they're building them for other automakers already. They only have to buckle down on quality control to get there.

Re: A Sad Day For All

[Anonymous Coward]

Drumpf will die in prison. His children will die in prison. His cabinet will die in prison.

The shitstain of Drumpf will be wiped from America.

2020 will bring a new era of universal healthcare, a universal basic income, high taxes on the wealthy, international cooperation, and net neutrality.

Re: A Sad Day For All

[Bing Tsher E]

The money from selling PayPal is his seed. Every other project is based on that $$. There was no implication meant that continued funding comes from PayPal (which is now not the eggregious operation it was.)

Re:Energeian Plans

[FudRucker]

The bible is the story of a very, very incompetent supreme being. He made so many mistakes in his perfect creation that he had to kill everyone on it.. and then did it again.

Makes 2 humans and puts them in a garden of eden, but places them right next to the thing that will screw all that up and does nothing to prevent it, then blames them and all their progeny for all time for something thats his fault.

Makes a magic rule book thats so vague and open to interpretation that there are now 30,000 sects of christianity alone all of which disagree with each other. And he allows many other holy books and does not give any of us a clue as to which one are right and which ones are wrong, proceeds to let us kill each other by the millions over it. He has the power to appear at any time to stop all the killing, chooses not to.

Claims to be supreme being, but still has needs (to be worshiped), desires (to have a son) and failings (he is angry and jealous quite often).

Claims he gave us free will, then gives us a list of rules we must follow or else he will torture us forever... which goes completely against the notion of us having free will (you have free will but you must do as I say) and proving that he has no morality at all since he is offering infinite punishment for finite crimes. And his own morality is lower than the morality of secular society, which is weird since you'd think an all knowing all seeing supreme being would have known that slavery was immoral even thousands of years ago. maybe he could have even put that in his list of commandments, instead of say 'thou shalt have no other gods before me'?

Goes through an elaborate scheme of self sacrifice to change rules that he could have changed at any time without the torture and sacrifice of himself. And again why would a supreme being come up with rules so flawed in the first place that they needed to be changed after the fact?

First you have to prove gods are real, then you have to prove its your god.

Re:US Politics

[luther349]

thats more your congress on a rampage.

Re:Needs a more honest headline

[luther349]

yep ever buy a new focus i made that mistake the car was a total disaster thanks to the epa garbage and cost cutting to meet even the current standards.