Comment by chrissnell
8 years ago
These regulations impose an unfair burden on consumers outside of the state, who must pay for California-spec'ed emissions equipment that they never wanted or were required to have. Non-Californians have litte power in the voting booth to resist California's impositions. By going after the exemption, the administration is making things more fair for the folks in the other 49 states.
I have a sense that there's something wrong here. Wrong layer of abstraction? California imposes whatever pollution regulations it wants, then it's up to the car manufacturers how to handle that. They could choose not to sell to CA residents. They could choose to make a separate line of CA-specific cars. But they choose instead to make all their cars up to CA standard because whatever, it's cheaper for them overall, and consumers will pay the extra anyway.
So there is obviously a market solution here. It seems wrong to target the CA regulation layer on this one.
Also, are we sure that it costs more on the margin to manufacture cleaner cars?
Plus, I can't help but think it's not that bad if we accidentally have cleaner cars, but that's not really a principled stance, it just worked out in this case.
Yup, this also happens with euro-spec engines. The new V6 diesel in the Ram 1500s comes from across the pond is pretty darn efficient/clean.
If you have been in manufacturing, you will know that building 2 differently spec'ed cars is much more expensive than have an assembly line with a same spec'ed car. And California has a large population to be a lucrative market. In essence, that means that car manufacturers have to build to California's emission standards and distribute the costs to all users (even those who aren't in California).
I get it, but it's just not my problem. If they want to figure out how to do 2 lines cheaper or whatever, that's up to them or the competitor that puts them out of business. I think what they actually do (just keep it standard) makes sense and I'd probably do the same, but on principle it's not our problem how they choose to comply with relevant laws.
I don't want to breathe polluted air because car companies cannot be arsed to manufacture 2 spec cars. It's their problem
1 reply →
No it doesn’t impose anything of the sort. Car manufacturers are perfectly free to not sell cars to Californians and therefore manufacture cars that don’t meet Californian regs. The reason California has those regs is precisely because they have exercised their state rights. And why should the feds be making it more or less fair for anyone? Isn’t this a free market?
The exemption just allows California to enforce tougher standards on themselves. If other states want to follow suit, they're not compelled to by California, automakers choose to build a single model that works in all 50 states rather than spend the money to make multiple emissions models, but they are not forced to either.
Only California is allowed the exemption though, I can't think of a good reason they alone should have that power.
Then ask your state to enact tougher restrictions
5 replies →
Republicans really hate the free market when it works against them. Car manufacturers are free to sell worse cars in the other states. They just want CA's money without following CA's rules.
Manufacturers are perfectly free to run separate lines at their plants to make more polluting cars for other states to take advantage of this theoretical market of consumers clamoring for pollution. Also, a number of states require adherence to the California standards.
It should also be noted that California is the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world that's dramatically disenfranchised with respect to its representation in US government.
Car manufacturers are perfectly free to not sell cars in California. Turns out, they want California business.
There's no "more fair to other consumers" here, nor is there any "imposition" by California on consumers in other states. There is, however, an imposition on car manufacturers who wish to have their vehicles operated in California. Not seeing the problem here.
It’s not 49 other states. Over half the US population lives in a state that enforces the CARB standards.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_emission_standar..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ..., and some arithmetic, about 36% of the US population lives in CARB states.
The lack of regulations regarding car emissions imposes an unfair burden on California's air breathing residents, who must live on the same overheating planet as the other 49 states without any power in the voting booth to make them employ more planet-friendly transportation systems.
By keeping the exemption, the state is making things more fair for its residents :)
California-specific fuels have less energy per unit volume, requiring more to be burned per mile, which results in worsened production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in order to slightly reduce oxides of nitrogen.
Global warming is not an argument in favor of CA's policy.
Thanks for the view in support of this decision. It'll be interesting to see whether or not that view holds up in court, as it'll have long reaching ramifications when it comes to states rights. If a law in a state forces others around it to comply simply due to the population/power differences between the states, is that law legal?
If laws could be invalidated simply because "California is a big state". Then so could elections.
Think about that for a second. Then you will understand ridiculous this notion is.
Yes. It’s called market forces. You can make a bespoke edition for Wyoming, but are you going to bother.
For another example, see textbooks and the Texas Board of Education. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/06/21/how-texas-inflic...
So we should only have to follow the intersection of all state regulations? That sounds like a great race to the bottom.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. As the article states, CA has a special exemption to the law. We merely need to set a national standard and have the automakers follow that.
The article isn't quite correct there.
CA only has a by-name carveout for non-public-road vehicles. For cars, they get the same automatically granted formality of a waiver to exceed the standards that any other state can. Indeed, something like 15 other states adhere to the stricter California standard via that process.
You could make this argument about any state law. The companies that cross state lines have to eat the costs of compliance. Should we not allow state laws anymore? Or no local laws at all, since the same issue holds true for counties and cities?
That’s not what historically has happened. Cars in California have special “California” or “50 state” emissions. You can do this economically because California is as large as a market as Canada.
Also, it’s important to know that special California emissions standards have been the case for over 50 years. Additionally, I believe 14 other states have also adopted CARB standards.
There is no economic reason to be doing this in 2018.