PDA

View Full Version : I know...a "political thread"; BUT this is about cars!



Prince Valiant
01-26-2009, 11:55 AM
As if times weren't hard enough for the Big 2 and chrysler:

Obama's order will likely toughen auto emissions standards (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/us/politics/27calif.html)

Basically under the old rules, California was kept in check and wasn't allowed to deviate too sharply from the EPA. NOW, they'll have free reign to administer their own standards (and that of 13 other states that mirror the rules CA sets). CA has already been granted waivers for a number of emissions controls as it relates to smog, but now will also be given carte blanche to regulate Carbon dioxide. Only way one can accomplish this is via increased fuel efficiency. Think the 35mpg cafe standards were tough? It hasn't even been estimated the impact CA's proposed rules will cause.

Now, some state's right advocate might say "great...more control to the state"; I mean, that's "conservative" right? But, this is simply a ploy to enforce stricter rules that the rest of the nation would not agree too, hence it wasn't passed on the national level. Now, we are essentially being regulated by a body (the CA government), that has NO accountability to us. The Bush administration was VERY wise to deny CA this ability.

The problem is, but giving these 14 states this ability (one of which is the most populous state by far), it effects the whole industry on a large scale...CA itself is the world's 5th largest economy and therefore one of the largest consumers of cars.

Will it effect the auto-industry? Of course! As it stands, they'll have to rush resources (of which they have very little) to retool and meet the escalating standards that will begin enforcement in 2011. These aren't zero-cost actions...therefore, less money will be available in the future to making competitive cars/trucks...companies such as toyota and Honda that have cash-on-hand will be able to more easily shrug off the cost. Companies that are running on fumes (Ford/GM/Chrysler) may well find the burden to great to meet the standards AND field competitive products...and guess which of the two is required by law?

Even if companies say "Okay, we'll just treat those 14 states differently", then how does one do this? Stop selling trucks in those states? Sell only smaller, less profitable vehicles? It's unknown at this point. What picks up the slack? Smaller cargo vehicles already produced by Japanese and European competitors? It seems anyway you shake it, it's not good.

jbiscuit
01-26-2009, 11:59 AM
yea, cuz the big 3 have a ton of money laying around to retool to accommodate this stupid push :rolleyes: Is he trying to make them go under? He said he wants to combat global warming through the american auto fleet...that's like telling a guy that is 5-month overdue on his mortgage payment that he needs a more efficient furnace in his house. What a joke.

Moparjim
01-26-2009, 12:19 PM
F California. Aren't they about to go bankrupt as a state themselves? I say let em (and the other states that adopt their standards) walk around in their Birkenstocks if they don't want to buy cars that meet federal regulations. See how long it takes and the damage it does to their state's businesses and economy before they give up their tree hugging ways. I am all for reduced emissions but jesus it's already tough enough for our country to compete with the rest of the world, much of which has virtually NO environmental policies *cough* China *cough*. California's flawed policies in my opinion one of the main reasons we don't have diesel cars being adopted in this country like the rest of the world. Shit, Europe is over 50% diesel cars nowadays, but California and the states that blindly follow have been damn near single handedly keeping them out over a few parts per million of NOx emissions. Apparently a miniscule difference in parts per million of NOx emissions is more important to tree huggers than the environmental and social impact of using 30%-40% less fossil fuel... Think of the impact of that - all that less oil that needs to be sucked out of the ground, refined, transported all over the country.

Screw California, may they experience a big quake that sinks them into the Pacific!

Voodoo Chick
01-26-2009, 12:28 PM
This is just going to lead to more economic devastation.

DocDave
01-27-2009, 12:50 PM
Does anyone else realize that we are only part of the problem with pollution. This crap is only going to make our lives more expensive and difficult here in the US and do almost nothing for the big picture. While China and India continue to destroy the earth!

What a waste of time.

Car Guy
01-27-2009, 01:16 PM
^^^ That is exactly how I feel about it.....

Karps TA
01-27-2009, 01:17 PM
This is a terrible idea. Matter of fact I'd have it the other way where they took away CARBs power. Working for an engine mfg, I see this being a nightmare for businesses. We already have enough issues with CARB and their whacked out logic.

I'm all for giving States back some power, like the should. But this is not one of those times.

Prince Valiant
01-27-2009, 02:03 PM
My feelings are that if Obama wants CO2 to be regulated, he should then have the courage to direct the EPA to do it...not to hide behind a faceless board in the fantasy land of california.

BAD LS1
01-27-2009, 03:10 PM
This is a terrible idea. Matter of fact I'd have it the other way where they took away CARBs power. Working for an engine mfg, I see this being a nightmare for businesses. We already have enough issues with CARB and their whacked out logic.

I'm all for giving States back some power, like the should. But this is not one of those times.

This shit will roll down hill! The CA spec walk and utility engines are already too expensive to build... I cant see a small engine passing this w/o OHV or DOV and a cat... Not to mention all big and small iron v-twins may have to go to EFI and cats to even get near the regs... Just when this place was turning around:durr

China just first started with emission regs similar to the EU directive the 1st of the year.