California, allies ready for emission-law war with Trump EPA, CARB head says

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.
Why does the electricity have to be pollution heavy? New mexico can generate wind power for California since we know the nimbys will come out of the wood work, protest and weigh the projects down with unnecessary legal BS.
Actually I will encourage California to shoot them selves in the foot when building out renewables.
Yeah, they have been trying to fix the problem locally with their own emissions standards for 50 years and all they have to show for it is worst air quality in the nation.
Time to try something new.
 
As has been pointed out to you numerous times, the severity of California's air pollution is due to three factors: topography, climate and population. No need to take my word for it, see the wiki for "Pollution in California". Any area with the same issues would have the same problems. Yet despite a population increase in my lifetime of around 167%, our air quality is better now than it was when I was born, and I believe (have to check) for any time since

BTW, as you've suggested on more than one occasion that the Federal gov't could do a better job than the state has, we're still waiting for you to explain to us how less stringent federal emissions regulations would result in less pollution than California's more stringent regs.
 
Yeah they know what causes it and they still can't fix it.
Air quality is better but still worst in the nation. What do you want, a participation trophy?

How do they fix it with federal standards only?
Obviously by pushing way more electric vehicles.
Maybe even go so far as only allowing hybrid and electrics to be registered.

The only thing proven to clean the air is get the gallons of fuel burned in and around the bad pollution areas way down.
Slowly tightening emissions regulations over 50 years has only been good enough to stay in last place.

Now we know what works, the Xi virus proved it. Why not go straight for it?
 
Oilpan4 said:
Yeah they know what causes it and they still can't fix it.
Air quality is better but still worst in the nation. What do you want, a participation trophy?


See my previous comments re the need to maintain a functioning industrial society with a similar standard of living. The current shut-down demonstrates one way to solve the problem, at the cost of those two items. Barring a few extremists, the mass of the public doesn't consider returning to a medieval Iifestyle based on subsistence agriculture.

How do they fix it with federal standards only?
Obviously by pushing way more electric vehicles.
Maybe even go so far as only allowing hybrid and electrics to be registered.


Except that the federal government in question is trying to prohibit the state from setting any such quotas and mandates (you know, the subject of this topic) and would also like to end ZEV subsidies. Since the cars remain too expensive to be affordable to the general public for now, how exactly is this transition supposed to occur lacking both subsidies and an ability to force compliance?


The only thing proven to clean the air is get the gallons of fuel burned in and around the bad pollution areas way down.
Slowly tightening emissions regulations over 50 years has only been good enough to stay in last place.

Now we know what works, the Xi virus proved it. Why not go straight for it?


To repeat, we've known what to do to solve the problem immediately, but no one is willing to return to the lifestyle required, here or anywhere else. Are you?
 
No one is saying to return to go medieval life or force people to a live an agricultural life like Pol pot did.
It would appear that fossil fuels use needs to be cut in half around the problem pollution areas. Then for 98% of the rest of the country nothing changes. There's no need to roll out a solution that fixes a mega city problem on to small cities and rual areas with no real air quality problems attributable to vehicles burning fuel.

I went from buying around $200 worth of gasoline per month down to around $40 and an electric vehicle like a 2011 leaf shouldn't even work for me as I'm rural and have absolutely 0 public charging.

Easy. Tax the sinner and subsidize the winner.
If the fed kills the ZEV mandate then California can add a dollar a gallon fuel tax and subsidize ZEVs with that money.
Maybe it won't work.
But we know what doesn't work: 50 years of slowly increasing tail pipe emission regulations.
 
Oilpan4 said:
No one is saying to return to go medieval life or force people to a live an agricultural life like Pol pot did.
It would appear that fossil fuels use needs to be cut in half around the problem pollution areas. Then for 98% of the rest of the country nothing changes. There's no need to roll out a solution that fixes a mega city problem on to small cities and rual areas with no real air quality problems attributable to vehicles burning fuel.


You might want to check the population distribution in this country - the vast majority of the people live in metro areas. Oh, and most of the areas in California with the worst air quality are smaller cities and the rural areas surrounding them, in the San Joaquin Valley (Fresno and Sacramento being exceptions as the 5th and 6th most populous in the state, but Fresno is in the ag heartland) - Bakersfield, Visalia, Hanford/Corcoran. A lot of their pollution comes from ag and truck traffic, plus some from the Ba Area and Sacramento, which are upwind.

Of course, just concentrating on the urban areas won't reduce GHGs.

I went from buying around $200 worth of gasoline per month down to around $40 and an electric vehicle like a 2011 leaf shouldn't even work for me as I'm rural and have absolutely 0 public charging.

Easy. Tax the sinner and subsidize the winner.
If the fed kills the ZEV mandate then California can add a dollar a gallon fuel tax and subsidize ZEVs with that money.
Maybe it won't work.
But we know what doesn't work: 50 years of slowly increasing tail pipe emission regulations.


On the contrary, those regs have given California far better air quality than when I was born, despite the massive increase in population. That it's not as much as I or some others would like based on our personal priorities is true, but then we're not a dictatorship.

You should note that California has the highest gas tax in the U.S., most recently hiked by $0.12/gal. first by the state legislature and then, after the usual suspects put a measure on the ballot to repeal it, the tax hike was confirmed by popular vote. But the willingness and ability of the public to tax themselves is limited, and in this case it was done as a means of catching up with much deferred road maintenance, not for pollution reduction.

In a time of low gas prices I'd be all in favor of raising fuel taxes further, but since many people have suffered a loss of pay that will take years to recover, assuming they even have a job to go back to, do you think there's any likelihood that an extra $1/gal. gas tax has a hope in hell of passing now? Get real.
 
I was going by land area not population, that's why I said "in and around the problem areas".

Wasn't talking about green house gases, one problem at a time.

Either you want to fix the problem or be stuck with worst air quality in the nation.

Has the air around Fresno cleared up?
Because heavily mechanized agricultural doesn't appear to have slowed much.
I know the hand picked veggie producers are suffering with everyone sitting at home on the couch eating junk food.
Just looking at USDA and farm reports out that way there looks to be a lot of vegetable crops.
 
Oilpan4 said:
I was going by land area not population, that's why I said "in and around the problem areas".


OK. Found a McPaper article from last Dec. listing the 30 US metro areas with the worst air quality. NYC metro area is #30, San Francisco - Oakland - Hayward metro (where I live) is #29, and at #28 is . . . Albuquerque, despite it only having 1/5th of our population. Las Cruces is #16, even though it has less than 1/4th of ABQ's population. Google "Pollution: These 30 places have the worst air quality in the US". Why, it might even make you think that local conditions such as topography, climate, types of emitters as well as stringency or laxness of emissions regs and enforcement are as or more important than sheer numbers of people and vehicles.


Wasn't talking about green house gases, one problem at a time.

Either you want to fix the problem or be stuck with worst air quality in the nation.


See above. So what's NM's excuse? After all, the problem should be much easier to fix there, and the solution's essentially the same in both places.


Has the air around Fresno cleared up?
Because heavily mechanized agricultural doesn't appear to have slowed much.
I know the hand picked veggie producers are suffering with everyone sitting at home on the couch eating junk food.
Just looking at USDA and farm reports out that way there looks to be a lot of vegetable crops.


Yes, the air in the central valley has improved during CV, not only due to the drop in Ag, much of which is hand-picked (we grow a high % of the country's fruits, nuts and veggies, and to pre-empt the old joke, I'm not referring to the population), but also because of the reduced pollution in the Bay area, much of which winds up in the valley, as well as reduced N-S and E-W truck/train shipments passing along and across it, respectively.
 
When I Google search "worst air quality in the country" the top 6 or 7 spots are California according to the American Heart and lung association.

Where did I claim topography had nothing to do with air pollution?
Because I'm pretty sure I said "they have known what causes smog for 70 years" one of those things being local air movement or the lack there of.
Now what do you think we have control over:
The lack of air movement that traps smog over a city?
The topography?
Or what we burn, how much, how it's burned and where?
If you know of a way to get the air moving that would be pretty cool.
I guess we could use millions of tons of blasting agents to remove mountains and haul away rubble in rock trucks that burn 1,000 gallons of diesel per shift, but how environmentally friendly is that?

We don't have the worst air quality in the nation and I would say they are doing pretty good for only smog testing vehicles made after 1983 and not having our own special emissions standards.
Oh and I know enforcement totally sucks, have seen plenty of junkers that were made well after 1983 around Albuquerque and Las cruces that would never pass any kind of emissions test.
The best place to start would be to enforce the laws they have now.
I'm pretty sure my leaf would pass and I bet my wife's 2018 Hyundai hybrid would pass of they went state wide.

New mexico also ranks in the bottom 5 or 6 for electric vehicle sales and has almost no public charging out side the big cities. There's a bit of room for improvement there.
 
Oilpan4 said:
...
But we know what doesn't work: 50 years of slowly increasing tail pipe emission regulations.

Actually we know conclusively that it DOES work, has worked dramatically well and you've been shown the data. Yet you cling to your "worst in the nation" arguments which do not support your conclusions regardless of how many times you repeat them.
 
Oilpan4 said:
When I Google search "worst air quality in the country" the top 6 or 7 spots are California according to the American Heart and lung association.

Where did I claim topography had nothing to do with air pollution?


You've repeatedly chosen to ignore it by castigating California for having a large % of cities with the worst air quality in the country, as if everyone were on a level playing field. It appears you are now agreeing that the local conditions in the areas of the state with the worst pollution are tougher to deal with than is the case elsewhere, which is progress.


Because I'm pretty sure I said "they have known what causes smog for 70 years" one of those things being local air movement or the lack there of.
Now what do you think we have control over:
The lack of air movement that traps smog over a city?
The topography?
Or what we burn, how much, how it's burned and where?
If you know of a way to get the air moving that would be pretty cool.
I guess we could use millions of tons of blasting agents to remove mountains and haul away rubble in rock trucks that burn 1,000 gallons of diesel per shift, but how environmentally friendly is that?


I was wondering if you'd suggest an "Atoms for Peace" approach, several nukes to knock the Tehachapis down by a couple thousand feet.

Checking the source, the ALA says the major cause of California's poor air quality is . . . PM from wildfires. You know, the ones made far worse by the AGCC that Dear Leader claims is a Chinese hoax. We certainly do need to increase management fires when possible, but as has been pointed out to you before, most (57%) of California's forests are national forests, i.e. federal land.


We don't have the worst air quality in the nation and I would say they are doing pretty good for only smog testing vehicles made after 1983 and not having our own special emissions standards.
Oh and I know enforcement totally sucks, have seen plenty of junkers that were made well after 1983 around Albuquerque and Las cruces that would never pass any kind of emissions test.
The best place to start would be to enforce the laws they have now.


NM is doing pretty good, with two cities in the top 30 despite your lack of population? Yet you said it would be fine if California's oldest, dirtiest trucks which can no longer be registered here were moved to New Mexico, while simultaneously criticizing California for incrementalism.



I'm pretty sure my leaf would pass and I bet my wife's 2018 Hyundai hybrid would pass of they went state wide.

New mexico also ranks in the bottom 5 or 6 for electric vehicle sales and has almost no public charging out side the big cities. There's a bit of room for improvement there.


There's plenty of room for improvement in every state of the union, and every country in the world.
 
What do you think the priority should be, tens of millions of people choking on the worst air in the nation a half million people breathing the 15th worst air in the nation?
I wouldn't worry too much about it because they don't seem too worried about it, just enforcing the laws they have would likely bump them to at least a few spots better.
If they don't enforce the laws they have, then I have no sympathy for them.
At least with California you can tell they're trying even though they dominate last place.

Weapons grade nuclear fuel costs millions of dollars per pound. Amfo is cheap and with less nuclear fall out. If the people want to blow up mountains for better air let them move it forward.

Does California have crazy wild fires every single year?
New mexico has wild fires too, this is where smoky the bear came from.
 
Oilpan4 said:
What do you think the priority should be, tens of millions of people choking on the worst air in the nation a half million people breathing the 15th worst air in the nation?


I think the priority should be anywhere anyone has to breathe unhealthy air, regardless of the level of government involved.


I wouldn't worry too much about it because they don't seem too worried about it, just enforcing the laws they have would likely bump them to at least a few spots better.
If they don't enforce the laws they have, then I have no sympathy for them.

At least with California you can tell they're trying even though they dominate last place.


Who's this "they" you refer to? Presumably not the people with asthma or other respiratory diseases who struggle to breathe any time the air quality is bad.


Weapons grade nuclear fuel costs millions of dollars per pound. Amfo is cheap and with less nuclear fall out. If the people want to blow up mountains for better air let them move it forward.


I had thought the facetious nature of my comment was self-evident, but apparently not.


Does California have crazy wild fires every single year?
New mexico has wild fires too, this is where smoky the bear came from.


Ever since the record-setting 5-year drought which provided 130 million dead trees as fuel, yes, we do have crazy wildfires every year. Wet years have added lots of brush as tinder, and much of the state's back in severe drought this year, so expect more of the same. See https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA
 
"They" refers to people who pay taxes, vote, those who govern, enforce the laws and breath the air.
15th is a lot better than top 5.

Yeah 5 or 6 years ago new mexico had its worst recorded drought ever, several years after record setting rains 2008 to 2010. Had some fires too, obviously.
 
GCR:
Trump's relaxed auto
mpg, emissions rules now under review by inspector general


https://www.greencarreports.com/new...s-rules-now-under-review-by-inspector-general


Not that anything's likely to happen before the election, and if it does and the result is damning I'm sure they won't hesitate to fire this IG, as they've done with others. It's not as if they could appear any more corrupt than they already do, and people who'd be influenced by this have long since made up their minds.
 
Automakers commit to
tougher California emissions deal—and more EVs


https://www.greencarreports.com/new...ougher-california-emissions-deal-and-more-evs


The California Air Resources Board announced Monday that it has finalized five individual agreements with automakers pledging to adhere to annual reductions of passenger-vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.

The terms, negotiated with BMW (including Rolls-Royce), Ford, Honda, Volvo, and Volkswagen Group (including Audi)—six automakers, as California tallied it—are claimed to be a compromise. They’re more lenient than what was originally required by the state but stricter than the new U.S. EPA rule.

Like existing California Clean Cars standards, the agreement prioritizes putting more zero-emissions vehicles on the road. The exact method as to how each automaker complies with California is left out as an unpublished appendix to preserve confidential business plans and future products.

The companies agreeing to meet California emissions standards also essentially get an extra year to fall in line with former Obama-era national targets for fleetwide tailpipe emissions—corresponding to net improvement in fuel economy of about 3.7% each year from 2022 to 2026. The new contract with automakers begins with vehicles for the 2021 model year. . . .
 
GCR:
Report: California clean cars crusader Mary Nichols on shortlist to be next EPA chief

https://www.greencarreports.com/new...ary-nichols-on-shortlist-to-be-next-epa-chief


. . .Other candidates reportedly included environmental-justice advocate Heather McTeer Toney of Mississippi, National Wildlife Federation CEO Collin O'Mara, former Connecticut regulator Dan Esty, former Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire, and current Washington Governor Jay Inslee—who campaigned against Biden in the Democratic presidential primaries as the "climate candidate. . . ."

Nichols is also expected to step down from CARB at the end of the year, and she was runner-up for the administrator post in 2008. Bloomberg reported just before the election that, if Biden won, the job was Nichols' if she wanted it, citing anonymous sources familiar with the matter. . . .
 
GM hits reverse on Trump effort to bar California emissions rules

https://mobile-reuters-com.cdn.ampp...m/article/us-autos-emissions-gm-idUSKBN2832HF


I always find it refreshing and heartening when a large corporation sticks to a decision made as a matter of principle based on the courage of their convictions, rather than doing a 180 solely because the political winds have shifted, and not changing would have a negative effect on their bottom line.

Yessir, I find it refreshing and heartening, and I look forward to the day when I can credit GM with such behavior. :roll:

I wonder how long it will take Toyota, FCA etc. to show similar 'bravery'?
 
GRA said:
GCR:
Report: California clean cars crusader Mary Nichols on shortlist to be next EPA chief

https://www.greencarreports.com/new...ary-nichols-on-shortlist-to-be-next-epa-chief


. . .Other candidates reportedly included environmental-justice advocate Heather McTeer Toney of Mississippi, National Wildlife Federation CEO Collin O'Mara, former Connecticut regulator Dan Esty, former Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire, and current Washington Governor Jay Inslee—who campaigned against Biden in the Democratic presidential primaries as the "climate candidate. . . ."

Nichols is also expected to step down from CARB at the end of the year, and she was runner-up for the administrator post in 2008. Bloomberg reported just before the election that, if Biden won, the job was Nichols' if she wanted it, citing anonymous sources familiar with the matter. . . .


The answer is: None of the above.
Biden to pick NC regulator Michael Regan to lead EPA, AP reports

https://www-cbs17-com.cdn.ampprojec...gulator-michael-regan-to-lead-epa-ap-reports/
 
Back
Top