Trump arguments for lowering emissions reqs [Politics]

"ZHP Sparky, the 5th" (e30s2k) 08/02/2018 at 12:13 • Filed to: None

2

25

Politics after this image of a glorious American automobile -

The Trump administration’s 3 main arguments for cutting back fuel economy standards are pretty childish at best

- People will drive more if their cars are too fuel efficient: So we’re really doing them a favor and saving their lives by making them buy less efficient cars! So much for the American ideal of Freedom and being able to go wherever whenever you want, am I right?!

- Fuel efficient cars are more expensive, so people will upgrade cars less frequently: We need to sell them cheaper cars to save their lives!...except when we’re making cars more expensive for them across the board to stick it to them big bad commie furrners trying to stick it to us!

- Fuel efficient cars are lighter, so that makes them less safe: As jalops we should all know what utter horseshit this is. Lighter cars are typically more nimble and have better braking capability. Not only that, if cars across the board are getting lighter then the weight differentials between cars getting in to accidents with each other should pretty much be a wash, no? Also, newer cars whether lighter or not will be safer due to improvements in crumple zones technology, driver aids, etc.

At the end of the day this just comes off as half-baked BS reasoning they pulled together to justify deregulation goals that they can use to be seen as “business friendly” and maybe show some short-term economic benefits with, while screwing us all royally in the long run. But who cares, someone else will be in power when this all comes back to haunt us so there’ll be a conven ient “other” to blame.

Also all this just reeks of weakness – wasn’t MAGA supposed to be the exact opposite of that? Oh us poor americans…we need to be protected from driving too much having more efficient cars! Or we need to hold back innovation so people can afford to buy new cars still. Isn’t the 2020 Trump campaign slogan “Keep America Great!”? Doesn’t sound like we’re quite there yet if industry needs to be coddled instead of challenged to go above and beyond, and our populace is so fragile that it can afford only vehicles built to lower standards than the rest of the developed world. I thought we’re all swimming in it now thanks to tax cuts?!

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > ZHP Sparky, the 5th 08/02/2018 at 12:22

9

Not only that, but the very book that they claim to adhere so closely to expressly and explicitly calls for mankind to be “Good Stewards” of the Earth.

I am not a legal expert, but I am not sure that forcefully continuing a system where a small few profit at the expense of everyone else by ravaging our natural resources and literally killing our only planet counts as being a “Good Steward.”

KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time > ZHP Sparky, the 5th 08/02/2018 at 12:22

3

It’s pathetic and assumes we are all stupid and will lap this up readily(some of us are though, really) . Also, Sharing my comment from another thread:

https://oppositelock.kinja.com/1828009189

Azrek > ZHP Sparky, the 5th 08/02/2018 at 12:26

5

Maybe we should make the speed limit 55 again? That worked well for Nixon! 

fintail > ZHP Sparky, the 5th 08/02/2018 at 12:26

7

This winning is making me tired.

Long-Voyager > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 08/02/2018 at 12:26

1

Have you met the majority of the population????

ZHP Sparky, the 5th > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 08/02/2018 at 12:28

0

Forreallz, man. I didn’t see any other threads that were clearly on this topic – thanks for sharing. What ridiculousness. At least come up with more intelligent arguments, please!

ZHP Sparky, the 5th > Azrek 08/02/2018 at 12:33

1

How about get rid of airbags, seatbelts, ABS, and other safety equipment altogether? We’ll be able to make cars even cheaper. But dammit, then they’ll also be lighter and result in people driving too much given how much money they’re saving at the pump. Can’t have none of that! 

KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time > Azrek 08/02/2018 at 12:37

2

Don’ t gi ve them any ideas!

Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) > ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) 08/02/2018 at 12:37

1

But our l ord and savior  Elon Musk is going to save us all by colonizing and terraforming Mars... /s

facw > ZHP Sparky, the 5th 08/02/2018 at 12:38

4

Yeah, it’s some pretty bad reasoning especially on the safety front. They seem not to consider that even though a heavier car will be (on average) safer for the occupant, it will be more dangerous for everyone else, which seems likely to eliminate any gains.

And that is before you even get to the fact that burning more fuel pollutes more, and that extra pollution will kill people (I don’t know what the impact of the change is, but in 2015 around 155,000 deaths in the US were linked to pollution) .

I don’t think blanket fuel economy targets are the best way to go about limiting vehicle pollution, but that doesn’t mean I want people to pretend there’s no problem, or that having lax standards is helping. I’d prefer a gas/carbon tax/carbon credit scheme to get to a specific target , though you’d need additional changes to counteract the fact any such tax would be regressive.

Azrek > ZHP Sparky, the 5th 08/02/2018 at 12:45

2

Keep in mind, the K Car got 25mpg when it came out. But why/how? We just need to mimic that!! Heh....

Mid Engine > ZHP Sparky, the 5th 08/02/2018 at 13:06

1

What a fucking dumpster fire, every damn day he ups his stupidity. People are burnt out by his foolishness to a point they’ve simply resigned themselves to another 2.5 years of the biggest idiot ever. It’s disgusting

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > ZHP Sparky, the 5th 08/02/2018 at 13:10

3

“ - Fuel efficient cars are lighter, so that makes them less safe:”

Especially funny since the most fuel efficient vehicles on the market right now are BEVs... and they tend to be heavier.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 08/02/2018 at 13:13

2

“ and assumes we are all stupid and will lap this up readily(some of us are though, really).”

*checks voting results from last presidential election*

Well, not ALL stupid, just a little more than half of voters.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) 08/02/2018 at 13:18

1

The book’ s main character also  aborted a bunch of kids during the “flood” too, so take that as you will.

Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap > ZHP Sparky, the 5th 08/02/2018 at 14:02

1

Don’t you be tryin to bring that leftist liberal elitist logic into this. That’s against my freedoms. Now lock her up!

/s

Jay, the practical enthusiast > ZHP Sparky, the 5th 08/02/2018 at 14:06

4

Another  problem with this is that as the world moves toward stricter fuel economy standards this will put US manufacturers at a disadvantage if they want to compete globally. 

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies 08/02/2018 at 14:23

2

That their typical talking points are riddled with hypocrisy and do not actually follow any of the so-called “family values” they espouse?

BaconSandwich is tasty. > ZHP Sparky, the 5th 08/02/2018 at 14:42

2

He's setting up China to be the long term winner. While north America manufacturers are busy making gas guzzling SUVs for short term profits, China is pushing hard for electric vehicles. They are going to take the lead, and eventually Americans will end up buying Chinese owned electric cars.

BaconSandwich is tasty. > Jay, the practical enthusiast 08/02/2018 at 14:44

1

Exactly. It's like they are pushing for their own demise. But don't worry, we'll bail them out again, right?

I like cars: Jim Spanfeller is one ugly motherfucker > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 08/02/2018 at 15:22

1

TBF, more like 26% of people who could have voted.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > ZHP Sparky, the 5th 08/02/2018 at 19:06

0

This is the kind of BS why I am no longer in any political party.

Someone, in this case POTUS or one of his agents, takes a clear constitutional authority case, and then starts ruining it with bullcrap.

The fact of the matter is... the people subject to the law need to have representation in passing, amending, or repealing said law... and whether 16 states agree, 33 states disagree, or whatever... nobody outside of C alifornia has standing to address California legislation, and they KNOW that the emissions double standard will default to the stricter rules, because it is obviously prohibitively expensive for new and highly complex cars to be built and sold to two different standards.

It is a matter of jurisdiction and jurisprudence, and representation.

If we want to talk about the effects of the regulations... and why CA rules haven’t passed federal legislative voting processes, it is because a lot of places are a lot less densely populated, and a lot more reliant on open road transportation than California seems to think they themselves are.

Instead of balancing fuel efficiency, emissions, safety, and production economies of scale, and customer ability to afford current and future new products...

AKA prudence...

California thinks that environmental marginal increases in emissions regulations is worth doubling down on,

regardless of the implications on fuel efficiency mandates,

regardless of safety mandates that simultaneously add vehicle mass,

Regardless that simultaneously increasing emissions, fuel economy, and safety mandates that ALL add cost,

Regardless of the increased state and federal approval bureaucracy that add EVEN MORE cost,

Regardless of what that does to the bottom line, and the costs of doing business,

Regardless of what a new car then has to generate in revenue to remain profitable,

and ultimately regardless of the downward economic pressure of a fewer number of people who can afford said new car responsibly, on flat wage growth due to federal monetary policy, and without long-term, sub-prime, economically dubious lending practices.

As we watch the average price of a new car climb higher than the average new car transaction price, and the average household income level and generally financially stable fraction of that household income that can be allocated to transportation, often required to maintain economic viability in the ability to get to one’s job and source of income to pay for said vehicle.

How many people can’t afford a brand new car, and must buy used, or something otherwise?

How many people choose to buy a used car or multiple, in leu of a new car, due to economic factors? (ME)

How many people buy less of a car than they would need or like due to economic factors. (previously ME)

How many people in urban areas and spreading to sub-urban areas are opting to lease a vehicle below where they would prefer, or relying more on UBER/LYFT ride-sharing services, than buying new cars?

How is the decreasing demand for new automobiles from manufacturers making it all that much harder to operate in the black, financially, while meeting the high overhead costs of the industry, the health care their labor contracts demand, and the increased costs of government regulation?

California can’t just dictate the rules out of wishful thinking, without taking widespread factors into consideration, even aside from political standing and representation in governance.

Sure, the purest possible clean emissions are desirable, but it COSTS something. There is no such thing as a “f ree lunch”, without tipping the balance.

ZHP Sparky, the 5th > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 08/02/2018 at 19:18

1

Of course there is no such thing as a free lunch. The California requirements are a direct result of the state having some of the country’s highest levels of economic and human activity, combined with unique geographical factors that led to unbearable air quality in decades past. It is also a result of the state accurately realizing that individuals in a completely deregulated market cannot and will not make decisions that capture what is best for society as a whole (essentially the tragedy of the commons).

So yes, we could have shittier, cheaper cars that more people can afford. Or like many people in the rest of the world, we can come to the realization that balancing our environmental impacts – and accepting the costs of such balancing – is a necessity when making our purchasing decisions. And mind you, the more spread out those actions are, the costs are spread out amongst a larger population thanks to economies of scale.

I absolutely understand and accept that vehicles have become prohibitively expensive to many people. Finding short term short cuts to make vehicles cheaper is not the solution – that affordability problem is better solved by finding ways to educate and empower people to earn higher incomes, and to reduce this country’s crippling inequality that is resulting in an increasing majority of the wealth inefficiently dilly-dallying amongst the investor class. Not by creating/ignoring a whole other set of problems altogether.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > ZHP Sparky, the 5th 08/02/2018 at 20:05

1

So perhaps C alifornia should consider aspects of dealing with their population density, rather than dictating terms to the rest of the country, without representation or recourse.

Government made up of people has no more capability of capturing what is best for society, than the society itself, either. The fallacy of beneficent overlord government is proven throughout history to be just that... false.

California can decide to dis-incentivize parking, car registrations, and other methodologies that do not affect the way cars are built for the rest of the country, nor make them more expensive.

Actually, making cars more expensive fails to yield the benefits OF cleaner burning engines, because fewer people can afford to buy those new products, and older, FAR more polluting products remain on the road longer.

If your goal is to have the cars on the road emit less pollutants, then YES, making cars more affordable IS your goal, because prohibitively expensive clean cars are a moot point.

California already has some of the highest cost of living, highest taxation rates, and wider socioeconomic range between the working poor and the wealthy in the US... and by extension, the developed economic world.

More education meets economic inelasticity of finding an abundance of high paying jobs. We already have a large group of over-educated, under-employed young people as it is, not that it is a good thing... but piling more education debt on the pile is not going to help people buy newer, more efficient products, either.

Higher incomes aren’t an entitlement, and the revenue that pays those labor costs has to come from elsewhere in the economy, as other people participate in economic activity and being compensated for adding value in other ways. A society of people with Masters and PhDs in English, Philosophy, and Sociology, is going to go broke very quickly, because jobs that pay high wages for those things are ancillary to most core economic survival activities... and there is a low and inelastic number of positions to pay people high wages for that sort of thing.

Especially while people who do more essential labor, some of which requires less education, continues to be under-valued, and substantially under-paid, and has been far below the inflation curve for decades, and perhaps half a century or more, which means they LOSE purchasing power every year, and get farther and farther away from being able to rise above susbistance to consider more efficient, more expensive products to buy.

ZHP Sparky, the 5th > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 08/03/2018 at 13:37

0

They are not dictating anything to the rest of the country. They are setting their own standards - the fact that manufacturers decide to create a single product to that higher standard isn’t their problem.

Other than that, you could’ve just saved yourself a whole bunch of words by just shouting “Hail Ayn Rand!”.