Current Events > Trump unveils plan to weaken car pollution rules

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/climate/trump-auto-emissions-california.html

The Trump administration on Thursday formally announced its long-awaited proposal to dramatically weaken an Obama-era regulation on planet-warming vehicle tailpipe pollution.

The publication of the proposal sets up a race among opponents of the change an unusual mix of environmentalists, automakers, consumer groups and states to temper the plan before it is finalized this year.

The proposal would freeze rules requiring automakers to build cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars, including hybrids and electric vehicles, and unravel one of President Barack Obamas signature policies to combat global warming. It would also challenge the right of states to set their own, more stringent tailpipe pollution standards, setting the stage for a legal clash that could ultimately split the nations auto market in two.

The Trump administrations proposal, jointly published by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department, would roll back a 2012 rule that required automakers to nearly double the fuel economy of passenger vehicles to an average of about 54 miles per gallon by 2025. That rule, which would have significantly cut the nations greenhouse gas emissions while saving billions of barrels of oil, was opposed by automakers who said it was overly burdensome.

The new proposal would freeze the increase of average fuel economy standards after 2021 at about 37 miles per gallon. It would also revoke a legal waiver, granted to California under the 1970 Clean Air Act and now followed by 13 other states, that allows those states to set more stringent tailpipe pollution standards than the ones followed by the federal government.

The Trump administration contends that, by promoting the manufacture and sale of lighter cars, the Obama standards could lead to nearly 13,000 more auto fatalities.

It is now recognized that, as the stringency of standards increases, so does the likelihood that higher stringency will increase on-road fatalities, wrote Trump administration officials in the draft of the proposal. As it turns out, there is no such thing as a free lunch. That conclusion is in direct opposition to the Obama administrations analysis of the same rule, which found that improving fuel-economy standards would actually lead to about 100 fewer auto-related casualties.

This weeks publication of the proposed rule in the federal register opens up the next legal step in the Trump administrations procession toward undoing the Obama rule. The Trump administration will ask the public to formally submit comments on the rule. It will then consider those comments and issue a final version of the rule, most likely this year.

It is widely expected that the proposal will meet with widespread criticism, even from the automakers that Mr. Trump has said he wants the plan to help. Critics of the plan including manufacturers of cars and car parts, environmentalists, auto dealerships, consumer groups and at least a dozen states are expected to spend the coming months urging the Trump administration to significantly change the proposal before issuing a final version.

While the chief executives of auto companies last year asked Mr. Trump to loosen the Obama-era rules, they have since asked him not to pull them as far back as he has sought to do in this weeks proposal. Since the proposal seeks to revoke states rights to set their own pollution standards, the states that do so, led by California, are expected to sue the administration. If that were to happen, the plan could end up tangled in litigation for years, leaving automakers caught in regulatory uncertainty.

---

Antifar posted...

That conclusion is in direct opposition to the Obama administrations

I would have never been able to figure that one out
---

Fuck Trump
---

Screw state rights.
---

This is gonna be a hell of a pit to climb out of in a few years.
---

Antifar posted...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/climate/trump-auto-emissions-california.html

The Trump administration on Thursday formally announced its long-awaited proposal to dramatically weaken an Obama-era regulation on planet-warming vehicle tailpipe pollution.

The publication of the proposal sets up a race among opponents of the change an unusual mix of environmentalists, automakers, consumer groups and states to temper the plan before it is finalized this year.

The proposal would freeze rules requiring automakers to build cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars, including hybrids and electric vehicles, and unravel one of President Barack Obamas signature policies to combat global warming. It would also challenge the right of states to set their own, more stringent tailpipe pollution standards, setting the stage for a legal clash that could ultimately split the nations auto market in two.

The Trump administrations proposal, jointly published by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department, would roll back a 2012 rule that required automakers to nearly double the fuel economy of passenger vehicles to an average of about 54 miles per gallon by 2025. That rule, which would have significantly cut the nations greenhouse gas emissions while saving billions of barrels of oil, was opposed by automakers who said it was overly burdensome.

The new proposal would freeze the increase of average fuel economy standards after 2021 at about 37 miles per gallon. It would also revoke a legal waiver, granted to California under the 1970 Clean Air Act and now followed by 13 other states, that allows those states to set more stringent tailpipe pollution standards than the ones followed by the federal government.

The Trump administration contends that, by promoting the manufacture and sale of lighter cars, the Obama standards could lead to nearly 13,000 more auto fatalities.

It is now recognized that, as the stringency of standards increases, so does the likelihood that higher stringency will increase on-road fatalities, wrote Trump administration officials in the draft of the proposal. As it turns out, there is no such thing as a free lunch. That conclusion is in direct opposition to the Obama administrations analysis of the same rule, which found that improving fuel-economy standards would actually lead to about 100 fewer auto-related casualties.

This weeks publication of the proposed rule in the federal register opens up the next legal step in the Trump administrations procession toward undoing the Obama rule. The Trump administration will ask the public to formally submit comments on the rule. It will then consider those comments and issue a final version of the rule, most likely this year.

It is widely expected that the proposal will meet with widespread criticism, even from the automakers that Mr. Trump has said he wants the plan to help. Critics of the plan including manufacturers of cars and car parts, environmentalists, auto dealerships, consumer groups and at least a dozen states are expected to spend the coming months urging the Trump administration to significantly change the proposal before issuing a final version.

While the chief executives of auto companies last year asked Mr. Trump to loosen the Obama-era rules, they have since asked him not to pull them as far back as he has sought to do in this weeks proposal. Since the proposal seeks to revoke states rights to set their own pollution standards, the states that do so, led by California, are expected to sue the administration. If that were to happen, the plan could end up tangled in litigation for years, leaving automakers caught in regulatory uncertainty.

45 is like a captain planet villain but in real life
---

I've let many things of Trump pass, but we'll be damned if this goes through. CAFE standards are a good thing. Automakers know they can make more fuel efficient vehicles, but they don't want to because then they have to innovate.

Look at the Prius. Huge car, gets 54 mpg on average and gets even more when driving in the highway. But ohh no people are so petty and want to have heavier cars, towing packages they don't need, turbo boosts, more than 4 cylinder, etc

Reminder that almost every car in the 90s was pumping out 28mpg city/35 highway when they first tried to innovate, and today that's like the standard for mid sized sedans.

The 1990 Volkswagon Diesel Jetta got 50mpg
---

So much for states rights.
---

Nobody cares about states' rights and that is not the line you should use to criticize these actions.
---

More moustache twirling.
---

I was just getting concerned that next few summers weren't going to be hot enough. Thank you god king Trump.
---

cjsdowg posted...

Fuck Trump

that's right. i prefer clean air. clean water and wildlife especially the ones that look flashy.
---

Why oh fucking why do people think maling cars less fuel efficient is a good idea? Like, are you wallets not hurting enough at the pumps that you want to pay even more?

Also, as a Canadian, thanks republicans for fucking up my breathing air.

Go fuck yourselves!
---

Hurricane Trump
---

Fuck that. I'll try to help counteract this by driving on electric as much as possible, even though that's a drop in the bucket compared to what this does.
---

Hell yeah, time to buy some Jeeps and stuff to get grandfathered in once it's reversed
---

Literally no point in this change except to line the pockets of his corporate buddies.
---

I dont know if it is a good or bad thing that Trump spend more time trying to erase Obama from history than trying to do something new.
---

Solar_Crimson posted...

Literally no point in this change except to line the pockets of his corporate buddies.

That's correct
---

Death penalty for trump
---

Democrats should make it clear that any auto manufacturer that rolls back their own emission standards will not be bailed out in the future and face absolute scrutiny once they take power.
---

The Trump administrations proposal, jointly published by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department, would roll back a 2012 rule that required automakers to nearly double the fuel economy of passenger vehicles to an average of about 54 miles per gallon by 2025. That rule, which would have significantly cut the nations greenhouse gas emissions while saving billions of barrels of oil, was opposed by automakers who said it was overly burdensome.

Not a big deal.
This just means that an automaker isn't obligated to build token amounts of a cardboard deathtrap nobody actually wants or regularly buys, just to goose up the "fleet average" mileage, and isn't obligated to incorporate a skip-shift gimmick that is definitely unwanted by car buyers.

The new proposal would freeze the increase of average fuel economy standards after 2021 at about 37 miles per gallon. It would also revoke a legal waiver, granted to California under the 1970 Clean Air Act and now followed by 13 other states, that allows those states to set more stringent tailpipe pollution standards than the ones followed by the federal government.

Utter bullshit. Or rather, the bullshit is that the waiver even needed to exist.
If a state wants to set tighter standards, go right ahead.

Idk why this dude hates China, he's literally trying to make us China jr.
---

Nice.
---

Literally no one in here understand the CAFE standards in regards to fleet mileage and CAFE credits.

You're all just butt hurt because Trump is doing something in regards to obummers ridiculous 2025 standards and giving some relief to the auto-industry.

All you soiboiz can still buy your prius vagina mobiles don't worry.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Democrats should make it clear that any auto manufacturer that rolls back their own emission standards will not be bailed out in the future and face absolute scrutiny once they take power.

And the following headlines are attacks on Americans by commie libs threatening to force them all to drive electric cars and tell them what they can and can't do sparking that base up hardcore and turning normal people away because "How dare you tell me what I can and can't drive" Remember, almost a decade ago somesome strapped big exhaust pipes on their pick up truck and drove it around with massive smoke blowing out as a protect to people who thought they could tell him what he can and can't do with his car as he doesn't give a shit about the environment.
---

HypnoCoosh posted...

Literally no one in here understand the CAFE standards in regards to fleet mileage and CAFE credits.

You're all just butt hurt because Trump is doing something in regards to obummers ridiculous 2025 standards and giving some relief to the auto-industry.

All you soiboiz can still buy your prius vagina mobiles don't worry.

Do you ever get tired of saying the dumbest shit?
---

Blue_Inigo posted...

Do you ever get tired of saying the dumbest s***?

Haha dude I've worked in the automotive industry for 20 years and work for one of the worlds largest and oldest automotive companies. I even work directly with battery cell integration and electrified powertrain engineering. You don't understand the CAFE standards of implications and impacts on automotive supliers and are just salty because "Trump".
---

HypnoCoosh posted...

Blue_Inigo posted...

Do you ever get tired of saying the dumbest s***?

Haha dude I've worked in the automotive industry for 20 years and work for one of the worlds largest and oldest automotive companies. I even work directly with battery cell integration and electrified powertrain engineering. You don't understand the CAFE standards of implications and impacts on automotive supliers and are just salty because "Trump".

Yes I'm sure you're taking a break from shitposting to actually say something useful and legitimate to us
/s
---

Realistically, the Obama standards are way too strict. The technology isn't there to meet the standards proposed by the Obama administration, unless you want every car to be like the Prius with 120 hp and takes 10 seconds to get from 0-60. It was always going to be the kind of situation where you constantly have to gauge and revise.

I'm all for better fuel economy. I personally own a hybrid that claims to get 40mpg, but on my best week, I average 33.5 mpg at best and I'm a conservative driver. As the vehicle gets heavier, high MPGs are much harder to obtain.
---

HypnoCoosh posted...

obummers

---