AutoblogGreen

The fed gub is getting too big for their britches. States can set higher minimum wage, and CC laws, among other things. The only reason they are fighting this is because they are a bunch of corporate Nazis.

Reply

And I bet most of the higher-ups have part-time jobs as Exxon employees, if you know what I mean.

Reply

California can regulate CO2 emmission, all it has to do is raise the gas tax or charge a fee to register cars. Simple

Reply

EPA to CA: "You can regulate emissions of every kind of gas known to man... except CO2, that one we're keeping tabs on for our own purposes"

As for the term "states' rights", I'm tired of hearing it because it's completely meaningless (because everyone who says it applies a different meaning every time they say it). "I support states' rights to ...", but don't support their rights to ..., but because I don't support it I won't call it states' rights.

Reply

Let California do what they want. The EPA is clearing doing this because of a corporate agenda.

Superdart, I'm so sick of people whining that we can't meet 35mpg or 40mpg. Europe has already surpassed that mark over a decade before the US. Since when are Americans so scared to try to take on a challenge. Plus, the majority of people really don't care that much about what type of cars they are buying. If the market suddenly only supplied cars that averaged 40mpg you'd only hear a few people complain, and then after a couple of years no body would even notice.

Us readers here on auto blogs are a select few who really care about cars. Most people don't. Think about all the people who buy a Taurus, Camary, Accord, Civic, Neon, etc... They just want a car that goes from point A to point B. If it gets 40mpg great. They don't need or want a Hemi V8 or 22" wheels, or AWD, etc...

Reply

I have to admit that I think this violates California's state rights, but due to the changing nature of the world, and our nation, California changing its emissions laws affects every other state. At that point California's rights are stepping on the rights of other states...and I have a problem there.

Reply

You're bashing the Feds for overstepping their boudnries??

Last time I checked, there was a city in Cali that wanted to bad McDonalds because people in some neighborhoods were disproportionately over weight. Tell me now who is overstepping their power.

35mpg is going to be hard to meet, much less 40+. I'll laugh if the only thing they sell in those 18 states are little go karts. They just want to feel more important.

If they really want to fix pollution, they need to look at their industries and transport/railroad use.

Reply

All the technicalities are getting redundant by the naysayers.

It's possible, commercially, and profitably but they WON'T do it since they can survive in the current u.s. market. It's not a matter of infringements of laws but the fact that they just don't need to, that is, to stay in business.

Europe has 118 cars that go above 40mpg and we have a poultry 2 cars and they're not even American. And the WORST is that some of the 118 cars are made by the big 3. Who said that the big 3 can't make a 40mpg car when they already make them?

In the fiery of if the laws are just or being abided by, I highly doubt there is a PRICE to saving our environment and health when it doesn't put anyone out of business.

This 35 mpg has been done in other places in the world, there is NO argument that you can't do it here in the so called great nation of America.

p.s.
If you make a car for California you can sell it in any of the other 49 states so you only need ONE version.

Reply

Mr. Fletcher,

A couple of problems with your argument. First, the EPA has already let California have separate emission regulations in the past. Second, 13 other states have signed up for the same type of emission laws. Third, it doesn't require the automakers to make two different versions it only limits which models they can sell and how many in the state. Any car built for California can be sold in another state. It's not like California is saying only blue cars can be sold here and Michigan is saying only red cars thus requiring two different versions. It more like Michigan saying blue or red are acceptable and California saying only blue.

Reply

As an attorney I believe a commerce clause argument would be the trumping card against California.

Yes California may have their own regulations on things. However once those regs start messing up commerece between the states the federal government is allowed to say no. Please note: whenever a state law and a federal law address the same issue, any conflict is resolved in favor of the federal law (supremacy clause).

A state forcing manufacturers be to make 2 different versions of the same automobile (one for sale in CA, one for sale outside CA) sounds like a commerce clause violation to me.

I would side with the EPA on this one, just not for the reasons they stated.

Reply

I'm telling you... the only way it's going to work is by taxing the most polluting cars. Let the market decide! You have enough experience in regulation to know this is all just wasted time, you'll keep on discussing this and in 10 years time you'll just have to go for taxing the gas guzzlers! So, let the car makers decide what image they want for their brand.

http://www.greencarvalue.blogspot.com

Reply

@ jj,

You miss a couple points when you note that 35+mpg cars are sold elsewhere.

1) gasoline costs upwards of $7/gal in those places, providing an additional incentive
2) public transportation (e.g. trains, etc) is better developed in those countries, made viable by expensive gasoline
3) the size of Europe as a whole is the size of America, east of the Mississippi (the smaller half). France alone is barely the size of Texas. So if you have the need to travel across our country, doing it by car is significantly more comfortable in something larger than a Smart ForTwo.

And @ Carlos,
Taxing less-efficient cars is all well-and-good; I'd say a more direct answer is to tax the fuel consumed. It'll have a more direct impact on CO2 production. I mean, what's the point of taxing a 20-mpg car more than a 35-mpg car, if the 20-mpg car is used to commute the 10 minutes to a train station while the 35-mpg car commutes 50-miles each way into LA?

Reply