California’s Status As A Special Snowflake In The Automotive World May Be Ending

CA doesn't need a waiver to conduct it's smog check program, Silly!

 

So now you want to mandate actions taken by private companies?
This isn’t just California, it’s 13 states - you constantly bitch and moan about the constitution not being followed to the letter - what part of the constitution allows the federal government to mandate higher levels of pollution to the states?

 

Ut-oh, you are asking progs to think and reason, this isn't going to go well!

 

@ocean515 FYI


Special Case or It's the geology Katie Scarlett O'Hara
The whole Central Valley is increasingly becoming a smog pit. More and more people.
You have the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east, where Yosemite & Sequoia are.
You have the Coastal Range to the west and a valley between the two ranges that creates an inversion layer more and more often as the population increases.
My doctor friend who practices there says newborns are discharged from the hospital with asthma inhalers. I do believe that is an inside joke but could be true.
Now and then the air pollution blows out to the east, and the forests of Sequoia are dying. Redwood's are very intolerant to air pollution. An arborist said that was why my Redwood was dying here in the O.C.

UCLA has buildings with basement levels that go 3 stories down per the elevator.
Smog being heavier, I remember not being able to see down the hallway because
of the concentrated smog. Circa 1968.
Around 1962, Hollywood Hills, I had an E.R. visit because I could not manage myself with a rescue inhaler. Shot of epi in the vein cleared me right up.
They don't do that no more.
Said to be too dangerous.


Yes to California special auto requirements.
More needs to be done about the air pollution from refineries.

And don't forget California's Special Chicken status too. Yes. special Chicken Status.
If your chickens are not raised with adequate breathing room, they are not allowed to be sold here. Take that Arkansas. Anyone who knows California knows a Foster Farms Fresh Chicken cannot be bested. Not by Free Range, , Organic, etc.
I've heard from ex-Californians who were sharing their happiness at leaving.
When I inquired about their fresh chicken compared to Foster Farms, they admitted that they do miss a good Fresh Chicken. And they are so cheap and untouched by inflation too.

And special pesticide status, etc. etc.

Yes to "Special Status". It is part of the Federal system and the 10th Amendment of our Bill of Rights.
BTW I challenge anyone to declare what part of the Constitution the Special Status may violate. It is very clear.
I ain't volunteering sacrificing my special status.


Moi of California
There will always be California
even before it was discovered!

If Not who?
If not now, when!​

 

Just admit you love big government. We all know it's true. You love having huge deficits and a huge federal government, you must if you support Trump.

 

FYI

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weat...fting-into-usa-increasing-smog-west/98647354/

Asian air pollution was, by far, the biggest contributor to smog in the West, the researchers found. The team also looked at other factors, such as wildfires and methane from livestock. Asian air pollution contributed as much as 65% of the western U.S. ozone increase, while wildfire emissions supplied less than 10% and methane about 15%.
​

Bottom line, how will adopting 49 state standards in California result in harm to it, and why should a state be allowed to effectively set National standards?

 

Just to be very clear on this: are those of you who are advocating rescinding CA's ability to regulate their laws as they see fit arguing that the justification is that it negatively impacts consumers of a product by a private enterprise ?(because let's be very clear, no other state is 'subsidizing' CAs laws. The product has become more expensive because private industries have chosen to cater to CA with it's multi billion dollar market rather than to other states wishes).
So if I can argue that a state's building codes, or fishing regulations, or zoning laws, or tax rates are negatively impacting other states, we should deny that state those rights?

 

Please Jesus let this happen. These jerk offs in California require so much more tooling, fixtures and inventory for their special bull ****. Many manufacturers employ their air protections across a products to save money. As a result, I have to allow my tractor to burn off exhaust every 15 run hours. Stupid

 

I don't think that's the argument. I believe the argument is against egregious standards that reduce competitiveness and innovation for the country as a whole.

 

If combustion engines in California cost what they should, no one would buy a car, tractor, etc. In California. The simple fact is, the costs have to be spread over a wider volume in order to compete in that market. I wish manufacturers would charge California whay they should be charged. The cost of living there would be immediately impacted.

 

The private sector has not been able to handle this problem of draconian lunatic inspired state legislation.

 

Seriously?

Was that what caused smog in LA in the 1960's?

 

No other state in the US is allowed to set their own environmental standards. California is the only one allowed to do that.

The other 49 states are absolutely subsidizing CA laws. For example, California has set standards for ZEV vehicle sales - Meaning ZERO emission vehicles. Those numbers are very high, and they have forced automakers to spend billions to develop new vehicles. That has cause the sale price of all vehicles in North America to rise. Estimates vary, but range between $1,500 to over $2,200 added cost to anyone buying a vehicle in North America. The alternative would be to abandon California. Who would do that?

In the end, the politicians in California know they set the bar on environmental standards, because the market is so large, manufacturers can't afford to ignore it, and they can't afford to have different products for different markets. That means California is setting environmental policy for the Nation. Why should they have that right?

 

The key to addressing the problem California causes citizens in other states is to neuter the California Air Resources Board, and it's evil twin, the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

 

The usual stuff, cars, trucks, etc.. California also had a massive manufacturing base, with steel mills, assembly plants, etc.. (Regulations have pretty much driven all those industries out of the state.)

No question air pollution needed to be addressed. Nobody I know or respect would suggest otherwise.

But there is no reason California should be allowed to stand alone and by default, set environmental policy for the rest of the Nation.

I'd like to see an argument in favor of allowing CA to do that.

 

The usual stuff, cars, trucks, etc.. California also had a massive manufacturing base, with steel mills, assembly plants, etc.. (Regulations have pretty much driven all those industries out of the state.)

No question air pollution needed to be addressed. Nobody I know or respect would suggest otherwise.

But there is no reason California should be allowed to stand alone and by default, set environmental policy for the rest of the Nation.

I'd like to see an argument in favor of allowing CA to do that.

 

Just simply revoke the waiver.

 

The funny thing about the whole thing is that California as a state, like any other state, has the constitutional right to pass such regulations.
I would therefore like to see how the EPA wants to do away with this without launching a legal dispute on the general issue of states' rights vis-à-vis the whole US and the US government, etc. That should even outlast a second term of Trump with an uncertain ending ....

In plain English, the EPA can decide and make sure California's regulations are not binding, but if California and the other US states that see it that way insist on its provisions, then it's just worth crap!
I hardly believe that, for example, the company Dodge a RAM according to the relaxed requirements of the EPA for ... no idea ... let's say Missouri builds and a special version for the more stringent California requirements,

 

I dont think we should be taking environmental advice from people who have governed themselves in such a manner that their citizens openly defecate in the streets and openly leave piles of used infected syringes where children play.

 

Youve exceeded the post character limit. Please pay a 50 dollar fine to the forum.
Its fairly easy to make this point.

 

So you also beleive that if California wants to have minimum standards for building material, they should be barred from that? Food safety standards? Barring plastic bags? fishing regulations?

A private enterprise was given the option of either catering to more restrictive regulations or developping two markets, it chose the former of it's own free will and economics.
Should we forbid CA from banning plastic bags because the loss of the plastic bag manufacturers means that they are upping the price of plastic bags in it's other markets? If CA wants to insure that the lumber they use in construction passes rigorous tests before using it affects the price of lumber in Oklahoma should they be forbidden from doing so?
When does it stop?

California is not exercising a 'right' to regulating the market nationwide, the market has done that.

When Nevada made prostitution legal, it very negatively impacted all the strip clubs in the surrounding states (loss of business, because across the border you could now have legal, fully vetted sex). We definitely should stop Nevada!

 

The question at hand is whether California alone can supersede Federal Environmental Laws.

Try to stick to that question, rather than trying to introduce outside issues that have nothing to do with that.

 

So states can not offer a minimum wage above the federally mandated one, thus superceding it?

 

When you're ready to discuss the issue at hand, I'll be ready to offer my opinions.

 

So states can supercede Federal minimum requirements in terms of labor laws, but not federal environmental laws? Isn't that the issue at hand?
The issue at hand is that a state has met minimum federal standards, and has wanted to impose higher standards than the minimum mandated, and all of a sudden Trumpist State Rightists are violently opposed to it, trying to argue that CA is imposing it's will on other states (lets of course make abstraction of the fact that Wyoming a state with less than a million population gets equal representation in the senate as a state 80 times it's size in terms of population). You guys really don't have an intellectual leg to stand on on this one.
Answer this one clearly: should states be allowed to impose a minimum wage beyond the federally mandated one? Should a state decision that negatively impacts other states be stricken?