Comment by pmichaud
8 years ago
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
I am with you on this. I was just trying explain how 1 state's decision can impact other states' too.