Toyota, GM, Ford etc start an anti-CARB campaign

I don't think either the auto alliance or CARB is good for the environment.

Take a quick look, and tell me what CARB has done well in the last decade.

KILLCARB.ORG -

The auto alliance is a PAC so ofcourse it is pure politics. CARB is resonsable for fewer teachers and bad science, allong with an added level of ground water polution.

 

You may be suprised. Non CARB states like texas do smog checks. California, allows poluting cars to be grandfathered in to the system and continue operating no matter how much they pollute.

This is lack of enforcement not lack of regulation. But it is also not true. The bulk of Montana polution is from industry like mining and power generation and not from cars. A quick lookup at the most poluted county in montana had 2 unhealthy days for those that are sensitive. Pick your polutant and LA ranks near the top. Houston is the winner for the most poluted for a non CARB city, but really CARB has done an awfull job when it comes to objective measures. Smog checks are required in houston and california because these places fail the measures of the clean air act.

Here is my big problem. CARB wants more power to regulate CO2. How does that help clean up the polution in LA or montana?

That is what the point of the thread is isn't it? Is CARB doing such a great job that its powers should be expanded to regulate ghg?

 

Anti CARB promoted as anti-bureacracy and anti-regulatory duplication is just a smokescreen for a divide and conquer strategy. They fight CARB while allies in congress fight EPA. The auto companies *really* do not want CO2 regulations.

As as dumb-headed as CARB can be (witness their ongoing fascination with the fool cell,) at least they are not climate change denialists. More importantly, congress will likely stay in political gridlock regarding CO2 for years to come, so the only was for the US to advance is through state initiative.This has become another federal vs state rights constititutional fight, and yet another irony as the 'strict' constitutionalists find themselves looking for a way to avoid their ideological preferences of state autonomy.

It is really too bad that Pres Obama did not strengthen the clean air act when he had the political might and congress to do so. Republican reactionaries have the definite upper hand when the only goal is doing nothing.

 

One reason: $$$$$

DBCassidy

 

I agree w/ your view on CO2 reg's being dumb because neither the proponents or the antagonists can prove up CO2 issues with absolute certainty. Besides, collaterally, if/when you stritcly control emissions, CO2 emissions will drop anyway. Focusing so much time and energy and (for & against) "proofs" on CO2 unfortunately becomes so devisive, that good reg's continue to go unwritten and/or unenforced.

 

Any US state may decide to be CARB compliant. Currently the list is about 14 I think.

 

CARB has been trying to grab the ability to set CAFE standards which this is all about since the 1990s. They have been rejected until a very political push in 2009. It is an extreme stretch that the intent of the clean air act was to give CARB this additional power. In fact it is utter non-sense, but CARB has lawyers. The NHTSA has Tthe power to set these things and first did under nixon or ford. The 2016 regulation of 35.5 mpg is a big improvement. NHTSA has not been doing a great job, and is inndated with union and auto copmany lobbiests. Perhaps this should go to the EPA or a neutral agency, but CARB has shown the inability to even follow california law, and should not have been given the EPA waiver. The granting of the waiver was pure politics. When your chief researchers have lied to get the job, and have done impassibly bad research, you don't cover it up you fire them. Do you want these people destroying the auto industry. BTW the auto industry lobbing group has been against all cafe regulation except the last one. They signed on to the tighter standards set under bush and obama. CARB still has not admitted their numbers are made up but has postponed the implementation of the kill diesel lets use more gas law until 2014.

Cutting off the special waiver powers does not restrict california's ability to implement AB32, california's green house gas law. It would remove the ability of carb to set standards for cars and trucks. AB32 may be delayed because of a legal injunction. CARB failed to follow california's laws and analyse its impact on the enviroment, research alternatives, or get public input. It's rules allow co2 polluters to pay a lumber company to cut down old growth forests and plant a tree farm to buy offsets. Many of us believe that the net effect of ab32 will simply be a moving of energy intense industries to other states and countries. The net impact when you count the movement will not be nearly as high as if there was a federal cap and trade policy.

Actually california is the only state with these rights. Its not states rights versus federal. It is california using their political influence to have special rights. Why should california have the right to make an autoworker in detroit, or mississipi lose his job? Because of the warping of an nixon era exemption? CARB does want a gag rule, where you can not debate the impacts of laws on the environment if you don't sound like a believer.

I believe you really are talking about a federal cap and trade. It is a shame that the president allowed the democratic leaders in congress to put forth such an ugly bill. I blame pelosi and reid more than obama for that. There is room for democrats and republicans to put up a cap and trade bill, but not that garbage that was proposed, and it will be at least another two years before they would get to it. This is very different than CARB dictating cafe standards.

 

Uh huh. No doubt I should be legally bound to buy a GM made in Detroit so as to not infringe their worker rights ?

I will not argue with you, AG. You offer no rational basis for discussion. I only wished to point out a fact you are trying to obscure, that while only CA may set standards other than the EPA, any state may choose to follow CARB so long as CARB is more stringent than EPA. In terms of auto market, the CARB compliant states are a huge fraction of the US -- maybe close to half at the moment. Painting CARB as a rogue agency is typical republican claptrap. Now, back to your fantasies. Alone.

 

I actually said the oposite. That the state of california should not be able to add huge regulations that kill choice and jobs. AB32 is not what this is about as that will only kill jobs in california.

I never said anything different than this.

CARB is in a power grab to take away rights and become the sole government authority. IMHO congress should stop this. I think 1988 was the last year that carb actually put forward a law that helped reduce pollution from cars. I did not paint CARB as rogue, just fraudulent and bad. California routinely has 5 of the 10 cities with the most unhealthy air. I also am not a republican, although one created CARB, his name was ronald regan.

Please explain how the tran incident gives you confidence that CARB can carry out its duties. There was fraud, and when it was discovered a cover up, then lying, then lawyers. Now explain why you think california should be given the broad powers to set cafe regulations. If you don't understand the issues inform yourself. California setting these things would make them defacto standards and would likely raise the prices of all cars in non CARB states. These irrationally high prices would likely have the effect of a less fuel efficient fleet.

 

Hmmm - with heavy air pollution a problem in the state, one might thing that there's a reason for CARB...

 

My problem is not that they were granted the power about the time Qaddafi siezed his, nor am I arguing things like the catalytic converter were not progress, it just that CARB should be able to satisfy measurable objectives. If they were doing their job would not non carb states be doing relatively worse in terms of unhealthy pollution. In the last two decades I don't think I have seen progress, only politics from CARB. Other cities under epa have gotten clean air at a rate as high or higher. Houston is a shameful non CARB example, with the EPA setting low fines for refiners like BP that spew pollution over the limits. Shouldn't texas be able to set higher standards for these rogue refiners?

But the big reason for me posting is I think it is perfectly alright for Toyota, Mazda, and Mitsubishi to say that CARB should not take power away from the federal government to set CAFE standards. CARB after all is political and their policies seem to be bent on reducing the sales of these companies. I think they have a responsability to their employees and stockholders to not follow blindly the chairwoman's policies. We saw outright fraud and cover up with the diesel report and law. Maybe Brown will fire her and tran and the other frauds at carb, and let the good people there try to actually reduce pollution.

 

There is a reason why California has one of the worlds largests economies. This same population reason is why it will never have the same quality of air Wyoming has unless something catastrophic happens in the middle of no where.

Nobody lives in "the heartland" and like usual the cleaner the air, the farther away from civilization you are. Having dirty air in a city of millions in a valley is much much better than having pure air in the middle of no where in terms of regulatory measures. If there was no regulation and a large population it would be a bagillion times worse. Yes a bagillion.

 

California has much cleaner air today than when CARB came into existence, and this despite an explosion in vehicle miles driven. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that CA was given an exemption to set its own pollution standards because it had far and away the worse air quality in the country. Absent CARB, places like houston get to compete. It is also true that the feds have been playing catch-up to CARB vehicle emission standards for decades. You will probably say that CARB did not influence fed standards; I say the feds (and Texas) would be authorizing circa 1970's automobiles if not for CARB pushing the envelope and pulling other states and the market along for the ride.

By the way, nothing prevents Texas from requesting an exemption from EPA to set its own standards just like CA. Funny that you blame CA for Texas' kowtowing to polluters.

 

It's not all bad.

Your car can go 100,000 miles between tune-ups, instead of needing tune-ups and new points ALL THE DAMNED TIME, mainly because stricter emission standards meant electronic ignition and fuel injection went into everything, replacing fickle carburetors and mechanical distributors.

And those 'awful' laws that made them change their engine and accessory designs so your car doesn't leak nasty, toxic chemicals all over the place, and eventually into the ground water? So it's not just the air emissions that make cars filthy.

I grew up in Southern California in the 1970's. I never knew there were mountains on the other side of LA. The air was BROWN all the time.

As far as the 'credentials' of CARB members, I should point at the U.S. congress and the complete morons who got elected with a degree from mail order bible colleges. Creationists and even stupider people.

I'm less worried now about 'air pollution' than our economic dependence and EPIC federal spending to keep oil 'cheap'.

 

Actually that is not true. Only california is granted special permission under the clean air act for these wavers. Texas has requested that the EPA tighten the penalties. BP in texas city has actually murdered people with their practices and let out large amounts of hydrocarbons into the air. The EPA has insisted on low fines.

The day the new head of the EPA came into office CARB requested the waiver again to set CAFE standards, and did it with political pressures and tv cameras. I would think they could concentrate on cleaning up california's pollution instead of insisting they need more political power.


None of the good things anyone points too on carb has happened in the last 20 years. I do not want the CAFE standards in this country dictated by a chairwoman that decided she should cover up fraud instead of firing the person committing it.

 

What prevents Texas from using CARB air standards, if the state is unhappy with the EPA ?
As for the last 20 years -- start with the progressive tightening of auto emissions from LEV to ULEV, for a start. Or more recently, manufacture of PZEV vehicles to meet the ZEV mandate.

By the way, I am not surprised to hear that the EPA is ineffectual. The Bushites spent 8 long years gutting the department and putting cronies in influential positions instead of scientists.

Pointing out CARB flaws is fine, but it is ignorant and stupid to miss the big picture. You are whining about CARB while ignoring wars promoted by Halliburton and its neo-cron cronies and political allies.

 

The rules don't allow texas to pick and choose. I would love us to be able to set our own emissions and fines for refineries. Taking CARBs refinery type laws would make us take all of their laws and that is unpalatable for environmentalists to get through the Texas legislature.

These would happen anyway under the clean air act and epa regime, just a few years later.

But, this is one of my big problems with carb, the AT-PZEV mandate has antiquated testing standards and requirments. They can correct it in LEV III, but things like a 15 year 150,000 mile warenty is required for batteries, toyota has a waiver for 10 years, has slowed innovation of and use of hybrids, phevs, and batteriers. How does is a honda accord a more advance technology vehicle than a phv prius with a 8 year warranty? Could it be that the chairman at the time had accepted a job to lobby for hydrogen, and wanted to slow introduction of hybrids and plug ins? No, I can't believe that.

;-), EPA went and let carb mandate mtbe without testing so many more years ago. Now we know its a carcinogen, and mandate meant mbte in california's water. Its not even remotely a demo or repub issue. Nixon and ford put forth most of the good legislation of the clean air act and cafe standards. Regan gutted a lot of it. Clinton seemed to be less environmental than either bush when the policies are taken as a whole. We do have 35.5 mpg cafe standards for 2016 and don't think the next ones should be totally up to california politics. Many of us believe that higher prices for these vehicles actually slow sales so that the fleet mileage ends up being lower.

I am upset with carb because they influence the national fleet, and I think things like cool cars and carb set cafe standards, and outdated at definitions hurt the fleet.

 

The issue is not tran's credential, it is the fact that he got the job based on a fraudulent phd. In private industy you get fired for that.

The problem with carb is not that they were fooled into hiring tran, it is that members of the board when they found out covered it up during the vote. When the cover up was discovered the chairwoman lied and said tran did not have much to do with the report. Two board members found out that tran worked on the most important 50%. The chairwoman still insisted that it was good research even if done by a researcher that was a fraud. One thing to wonder about is, why now when the facts came out that the science was also completely exaggerated, does tran still have his job and legislation is still based on his research.

Now do you understand the personnel problem more, or do you think CARB is so great they should continue basing policy on researchers with fraudulent credentials.

 

In general, states are free to go beyond federal standards (CAA section 116). The only area where this doesn't apply is motor vehicle emissions, and this is where the CARB waiver comes in.

Texas could easily implement California's (SCAQMD or SJVAQMD, really) refinery standards if they wanted to. They just don't want to.

 

I may be off, but can we change the maximum penalties. That has been the problem with BP Texas city. The Texas AG is regularly suing them because the penalties are so low, and so many people have been harmed. Judges have regularly given the maximum EPA penalty. I thought California had special rights here as well, but I could be wrong.

In the worst disaster where 15 people were killed in 2005, I believe as many epa regs were violated as CARB, but the worst offense only got a $50 Million fine. There were and are of course the wrongful death lawsuits that add significantly more money. The judge ordered bp to fix the violations, but they continue.

The lastest lawsuits are happening because of illegal flares which occured just a little before the BP gulf spill. They were caused because BP still has not fixed many of the violations from 2005. California's laws would have forced a shut down of the plant during these illegal flares, and BP would have been forced to report them earlier, so other laws might have helped but the low penalties are really the problem. The AG has to show harm to health from all all the dumped hydrocarbons. EPA has set a very low cap for environmental penalties. If texas can change the penalties, maybe texas city refinery will finally be shut down. Even the oil people hate what BP is doing there.