Coalition of 13 states challenge Trump on vehicle emission standards

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
Via ABG: http://www.autoblog.com/2017/06/10/13-states-challenge-trump-vehicle-emissions/
New York State's attorney general and 12 other top state law enforcement officials said on Friday they would mount a vigorous court challenge to any effort to roll back vehicle emission rules by the Trump administration. . . .

"In light of the critical public health and environmental benefits the standards will deliver, if EPA acts to weaken or delay the current standards for model years 2022-25, like California, we intend to vigorously pursue appropriate legal remedies to block such action," the state attorneys wrote in a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency including Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa, Washington State, Oregon and Rhode Island. . . .
The entire letter can be found here: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/pruitt_letter_-_greenhouse_gas_standards.pdf
 
I am an educated, aware professional who has been following the automotive/ environment area for the past 40+ years.

Why should we care that Trump does not want to tighten emissions to the point that states need to "sue" in the courts?? What would be the motivation that is so strong to go to court if "at this time" the standards do not change? What difference would it make??

Is this a continuation of being mad at Trump for not signing the Paris "agreements"?
 
I think the worry is that Trumps croneys will then proceed to impede states rights in terms of emissions
 
FYD 2017. It's sooo time for impeachment.

wow. can nobody see how unfit to be potus this guy is? really?

We all lose with donald 'leading' us down 'his' road.

And that's why other sensible heads have to step in and do the right things since he hates America.

Fail.

What an effing catastrophe.
 
So this is going to turn into a Trump conversation..... I am not interested.

States should not "challenge" any federal policies... especially on... of all things.... "EMISSIONS"? That is ridiculous.

What does the country care how quickly the US tightens emissions standards in the future... Are we obsessed with measuring smog in PPM in our backyards?? We have had these LONG TERM standards for improving emissions for decades, and now some nuts choose NOW to complain that we are not doing this fast enough. Is the country choking on bad air? no. This is just another nonissue to complain about for trouble hungry nuts.

Ok, so we continue to use coal, continue with the current emissions standards into the near future. Is the world going to blow up because of this?? We can still develop solar, renewables, and increase the number of electric cars, and stop complaining.

Case in point..... When CDs came out in the 80s, we did not outlaw LP records and force people to buy CDs. They continued to make and sell LPs, and slowly, the CDs slowly took over. Same thing happened with VHS and DVDs...
 
powersurge said:
States should not "challenge" any federal policies... especially on... of all things.... "EMISSIONS"? That is ridiculous.

What does the STATE care how quickly the US tightens emissions standards in the future... .

Case in point..... When CDs came out in the 80s, we did not outlaw LP records and force people to buy CDs. They continued to make and sell LPs, and slowly, the CDs slowly took over. Same thing happened with VHS and DVDs...

On the surface I agree that national standards that do not affect each individual states right to set their own standards is a non issue.

As I stated I believe their fear is the adage ...
When they went for a stranger I didn't care, when they went for my neighbor I rationalized but then they came for me.

The worry is a we are next one founded or not
 
powersurge said:
Case in point..... When CDs came out in the 80s, we did not outlaw LP records and force people to buy CDs. They continued to make and sell LPs, and slowly, the CDs slowly took over. Same thing happened with VHS and DVDs...

This analogy falls flat. LPs did not cause significant damage to our environment and therefore our health. CDs were not solving a societal issue, but were simply a (generally) better technology. Sure, LPs still have an advantage today for sound quality, but that is drowned out by the advantages of CDs (and now .mp3s, and other digital formats).
 
finman100 said:
FYD 2017. It's sooo time for impeachment.

wow. can nobody see how unfit to be potus this guy is? really?

We all lose with donald 'leading' us down 'his' road.

And that's why other sensible heads have to step in and do the right things since he hates America.

Fail.

What an effing catastrophe.
Not everyone shares your point of view, nor your lack of understanding of what impeachment means.
 
I don't see a problem if a state sets an emission requirement that is less than the national requirement. National requirements define the maximum allowable emissions for all states, not minimum levels of emissions that all vehicles must produce. So if a state want to have more stringent requirements, they still comply with the national requurement.
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
finman100 said:
FYD 2017. It's sooo time for impeachment.

wow. can nobody see how unfit to be potus this guy is? really?

We all lose with donald 'leading' us down 'his' road.

And that's why other sensible heads have to step in and do the right things since he hates America.

Fail.

What an effing catastrophe.
Not everyone shares your point of view, nor your lack of understanding of what impeachment means.

Sadly, I find that most people have no clue what impeachment means, or why it would occur. To most lay people, it seems to mean "I don't like this guy, get him out of office now!"

It was thrown around with Obama just as much as it is with Trump, so it's hardly a partisan thing.
 
Ditto... Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean that you do a character assassination, or just decide you want to get rid of him... That is called a ... Coup....
 
Via GCR:
Trump EPA backs away from attacking California emission waiver
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1108647_trump-epa-backs-away-from-attacking-california-emission-waiver

. . . Despite early fears, it now appears that the Trump EPA—led by climate-science denier and fossil-fuel advocate Scott Pruitt—has backed away from plans to attack that waiver, which would eliminate the state's ability to set its own emission rules. According to a report in The Washington Post last Thursday, Pruitt told lawmakers at an EPA budget hearing, "Currently, the waiver is not under review. . . ."

Eradicating every effort made by the Obama administration to reduce carbon emissions and limit climate change has been a hallmark of its early policy actions, including Trump's announcement that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Climate Treaty it signed last year.

The state of California had clearly indicated that it had no intention of going along with any of this, and that it would marshal a strong resistance among like-minded states. . . .

So what is this waiver, exactly? Section 177 of the Clean Air Act gives California the unique authority to seek waivers from the U.S. government to set its own emission standards, which must equal or exceed national standards. This stemmed from the state's efforts to regulate such emissions starting in the 1960s, before the Clean Air Act or the Environmental Protection Agency even existed. States have the option to adopt California's stricter standards—as 10 have done—or to comply with the national standards. . . .

Part of California's current emission law is its zero-emission vehicle sales rules, which require automakers to sell a certain number of vehicles with no harmful tailpipe emissions in the state each year, proportional to their in-state sales volume.

Roughly 4 percent of the cars sold in California today have a plug, meaning they're fully or partially zero-emission (battery electrics and plug-in hybrids, respectively). . . .
 
GetOffYourGas said:
LTLFTcomposite said:
Did they back away from it or did they never actually approach it?

Shhh!!! How dare you question the liberal media's message!
Subtle media bias. Just a few words in a headline carries the message that they made a grevious error thinking they could take on the environmental pitbulls of CA, but they were scared off, partly because they've been weakened by all the ongoing investigations.
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
GetOffYourGas said:
LTLFTcomposite said:
Did they back away from it or did they never actually approach it?

Shhh!!! How dare you question the liberal media's message!
Subtle media bias. Just a few words in a headline carries the message that they made a grevious error thinking they could take on the environmental pitbulls of CA, but they were scared off, partly because they've been weakened by all the ongoing investigations.

Oh, I'm with you 100%. I'm not particularly conservative nor liberal (well, I guess it depends on the issue at hand, but not overall). It still amazes me the blatant (to me) liberal bias in the media. Most "reporters" these days depend entirely on emotions and opinions. Facts be damned!
 
GetOffYourGas said:
LTLFTcomposite said:
Did they back away from it or did they never actually approach it?

Shhh!!! How dare you question the liberal media's message!

All but one of the major liberal news sources have a board of directors and ownership that is majority owned by conservative individuals

Something to think about
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
Did they back away from it or did they never actually approach it?
I guess that depends on your interpretation of their motives and interests.

Via ABG (3/26/17):
California defies Trump and moves forward on emissions rules
http://www.autoblog.com/2017/03/26/california-emissions-standards-carb-defies-trump/

The California Air Resources Board finalized its rules for vehicle emissions through the year 2025 on Friday. These are the same rules that the state agreed to adopt in 2012 as the Obama administration sought to create one national standard that would apply to all 50 states. California also approved an increase in alternative fuel powertrains – batteries, fuel cells, and plug-in hybrids – from around 3 percent today to around 15 percent by 2025.

The Trump administration has vowed to reconsider these tough emissions requirements, which basically determine the fuel efficiency of cars sold in the United States. In a further potential showdown with California, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has said his organization will review the state's right to enforce emissions standards that are more strict than those adopted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. . . . Currently, Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia have all adopted California's greenhouse gas regulations.

Going back further, to Jan. 18th:
Trump’s EPA pick won’t guarantee California’s right to tougher auto emission rules
http://www.autoblog.com/2017/03/26/california-emissions-standards-carb-defies-trump/

WASHINGTON
During a contentious confirmation hearing on Wednesday, Donald’s Trump nominee to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said he’d open up a review of new federal auto emissions standards and also review waivers granted to California to enact auto standards stronger than those of the federal government. . . .

Pruitt, who has filed numerous lawsuits against the EPA while taking contributions from industries supporting those lawsuits, has long argued that states should have more authority to manage environmental issues. But when questioned by Harris and other senators about California’s waivers, he declined to say if he would uphold them.

“Administrators in past have not granted the waiver and have granted the waiver,” Pruitt said in response to questions from Harris. “That is a review process that will be conducted. . . ”

If you prefer your opinions slanted the other way, where it's hoped that he would eliminate the waivers, from Breitbart:
Pruitt, Trump’s EPA Pick, Could Undermine California’s CARB
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/01/24/pruitt-trumps-epa-pick-may-defang-californias-epa-carb/
 
FYD2017

Yeah, that seems about right. WTF.

sorry, but the donald supporters are just too stupid to realize the mess that he and his admin are making.

What an utter fail in our education system.


Please try to come up with more "fake news" to support this guy.
 
Back
Top