Trump bars California from setting auto emissions rules, setting up court fight

I

interestedinEV

Well-Known Member
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/18/tru...ia-from-setting-auto-emissions-standards.html

This is not new or unexpected

I request that this discussion does not degenerate into name calling or political posturing, but a more serious discussion on the impact on EVs, especially BEVs and manufacturers such as Tesla.

Obviously, this rule will not be implemented right away due to court challenges, but clearly the victors are the oil lobby and traditional manufacturers without strong EV offerings.

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that his administration is barring California from setting its own auto emissions standards, setting up a fresh struggle over the president’s push to unravel restrictions on businesses.

In tweets announcing the move, the president said the White House “is revoking” a federal waiver that allowed the state to craft its own rules on greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. Trump argued he blocked California’s ability to do so “in order to produce far less expensive cars for the consumer, while at the same time making the cars substantially SAFER.”
 
I personally doubt that will go through.

I think it's funny that VW had to spend billions because of the Dieselgate scandal and now they want to roll back emission standards.

Maybe they can finally sell all those diesel cars because they now meet standards [emoji12][emoji1787]

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
 
Esprit1st said:
Maybe they can finally sell all those diesel cars because they now meet standards
Click to expand...

Why stop here? Testing emissions means you have to drive the car to the station, you have to do the testing etc., all which causes emissions. Why don't we have VW dealers self certify it when a car is taken in for any type service? :);):cool::D
 
Last edited:
I actually read an article about it and Trump said that the rolling back of the emission standards will increase safety and reduce the cost of buying a car.

I could see the price argument, because car companies wouldn't have to invest into researching better cars, however even that isn't true because the rest of the world keeps increasing standards, so American car companies would fall behind.

BUT please can someone explain to me why it would increase safety?

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
 
Esprit1st said:
BUT please can someone explain to me why it would increase safety?
Click to expand...

Again, don't shoot the messenger, especially as I do not agree with it. The argument being made is that to meet fuel standards, companies have to reduce weight of the car and this can only be achieved by decreasing the structural integrity of the chassis (they have to use thinner materials or alternate materials that have less rigidity.) This in turn decreases the ability of the car to withstand impact and hence is less safer. So by not forcing the manufacturers to make changes to the structural components will increase safety.

This seems to me to be an excuse invented by a public relations consultant. Structural components are only part of the weight of the car. Increase in fuel efficiency is a combination of lot of many small improvements including many changes to the electronics, controls and software. There has been a lot of improvements in material science over the years, and use of composites that are as strong or stronger then metal components is increasing. Hence, the argument that the only way to improve the mileage is by reducing the impact resistance, is grabbing for crumbs.

There may be an cost argument as you have pointed out, but the safety argument is specious.
 
Last edited:
Oh I see, yeah, that totally makes sense. I guess I'll have to sell my Kona now and buy a good o'l gas guzzler. [emoji12]

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
 
Maybe it's that LiIon bomb that we are all sitting on while we drive around...;)
 
Esprit1st said:
Oh I see, yeah, that totally makes sense. I guess I'll have to sell my Kona now and buy a good o'l gas guzzler. [emoji12]

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Hmm, I think it is an excuse and not a factual argument. At the best, it has a limited amount of truth. However, it sounds very plausible and reasonable, and many, especially the climate change skeptics, will buy it with full gusto. Classic FUD tactics.
 
I'm pretty sure the average car has actually gotten heavier, rather than lighter over the last decade.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top