
E.P.A. Prepares to Roll Back Rules Requiring Cars Be Cleaner and More Efficient - blondie9x
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/29/climate/epa-cafe-auto-pollution-rollback.html
======
maxxxxx
I don't get it. Emission regulations are market friendly. All competitors play
on a level playing field. Less emissions improve quality of life enormously.
To me rolling back environmental rules is plain evil and extremely
shortsighted.

"Make America dirty again"?

~~~
brobdingnagians
Here are several thoughts, you may disagree with them, but they attempt to
convey why some people would oppose these sorts of regulations:

An easier to see example is with dishwashers and toilets. The new generation
of toilets created by EPA regulations has made toilets that don't really flush
very well and are more expensive than before; people end up flushing multiple
times which then wastes water. You pay a premium for the privilege of a less
effective toilet. Same thing happens with dishwashers; politicians aren't
always very good at engineering constraints.

Just because a law applies to all people in your country's market doesn't mean
it is market friendly. You may be handicapping everyone equally, but still
handicapping the engineering with regards to reality and physical constraints.

If the US regulates itself into having a difficult time making or using
working/economical cars, then other countries can more economically create
better cars (which people would argue already happens; American cars have a
terrible reputation) or having better transportation networks using better
transportation.

You could end up having really clean cars and horrifically expensive
logistics. Maybe, maybe not, but just letting the market be more adaptive is
usually a good course.

~~~
davidgould
I'm old enough to remember what cars were like both to drive and to maintain
before the bulk of the air pollution controls went in and am still interested
enough to care about current cars. At the time there was a big (probably
astro-turfed) outcry that the smog standards would ruin cars performance and
driveability. Yet, we now live in an golden age of efficient reliable cars
with excellent performance.

Have you ever changed spark plugs? set the points gap? rebuilt a carburetor
[0]? Had to use starting fluid on a cold day? let the car warm up for minutes
before it could be driven? Cars back then were considered worn out at 100,000
miles, now that is the first major service interval.

As for performance, most hot hatches and sports sedans will blow away the
muscle cars from the 60s:

1969 Pontiac GTO Convertible Ram Air IV 0-60: 5.8 Quarter Mile: 14.5 mpg: 8-13

2013 Honda Accord Coupe EX-L (Manual) 0-60: 5.5 Quarter Mile: 13.8 mpg: 18-28

Serious fast modern cars are at levels that would have been unimaginable then.

The same sort of foot dragging and complaining about over-regulation happened
with safety features in cars. Cars then are deathtraps compared to modern
cars. Every day people walk away unharmed from accidents that would have been
100% fatal in 1970.

My point here is that despite the resistance at the time the air pollution and
safety standards are the best thing that ever happened to cars and to the
public and to the auto industry overall.

[0] "carburetor" French colloquial, "don't fuck with it".

~~~
saas_co_de
Technology improved over time but that had nothing to do with environmental
regulations.

If you want an even comparison pick a random European car and a random
American car and see which one you would rather drive.

The European car will likely be some <2 liter, maybe diesel, tiny box that is
like a slightly improved Yugo, and the American car will be a luxury tank.

Trying to force Americans to cut down to European standards of living through
government mandates is not politically popular. As long as we have democracy
it would probably be better to come up with some alternative policy
approaches.

~~~
gumby
> “Trying to force Americans to cut down to European standards of living...”

Spoken by someone who has presumably not lived in both places. “Cut down”
indeed!

~~~
saas_co_de
Spoken by someone who has lived in both places.

America is vastly more wealthy than any European country and the standard of
living is higher at all levels of society.

Europe is fine if you have lots of money but it would be hell to be lower
class there.

Personally I prefer to live in neither but if I had to choose I would take
America any day.

~~~
lazerpants
>America is vastly more wealthy than any European country

You do realize your statement includes Monaco and Switzerland, correct?

~~~
saas_co_de
Of course. Monaco and Switzerland have nothing compared to the US. They are
tiny. They have a high level of wealth per capita but an insignificant level
of absolute wealth.

------
saagarjha
> Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is expected
> to frame the initiative as eliminating a regulatory burden on automakers
> that will result in more affordable trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles
> for buyers

I don't understand why the _head of the EPA_ has any business in making
trucks, vans, and SUVs more affordable for buyers.

~~~
daveFNbuck
Cost needs to be a factor in the decisions the EPA makes. If it weren't, cars
wouldn't be allowed at all.

~~~
davidkuhta
I think this may be more nuanced by the addition of a caveat that the EPA
should be factoring cost in _if_ cost is necessary to explain the "technical,
operational, and legal details necessary to implement laws" enacted by
congress which they seek to implement regulation. For example regulations
pertaining to a "Consumer Re-affordability Automotive Program Act" versus a
"Countrywide Automotive Reduced Emissions Act"

(Quote from EPA's regulatory agency description)

------
rconti
Seems like yet another own goal. If 12 states are now following the CARB
model, and european emissions for both petrol and diesel engines are getting
ever more stringent, why would automakers even want to _bother_ with the
remaining 38 states that have more lax standards? I'm not saying it's equally
easy to comply with CARB and euro standards, just that the effort involved in
meeting _both_ of those is probably not worth skipping out on just to sell
cars in less-populated states.

So, pass a pointless regulation that does nothing but point out how limited
your power is?

------
winrid
This won’t do much good for the automakers either. They want to sell one
version of a platform to all states. Dividing the standards makes things more
expensive - they would absolutely have to do something about California’s
waiver, which I doubt will happen while Trump is still in office. I don’t get
their agenda.

~~~
URSpider94
They’re going to take on California. If they can pack the Federal bench with
enough conservative judges, they just might win.

~~~
tankerdude
They don’t have to. The EPA has final word and CA has been filing an exemption
that the EPA has said yes to until this bozo came into office.

My dislike of the guy in Washington has been very high the last ~1.2 years.

~~~
Gibbon1
California could just impose a carbon tax on the sale of cars and trucks
calculated based on mileage.

Truck gets 15mpg. Expected life 200,000 miles. That's 13,333 gallons of
gasoline, or 20 lbs Co2/gal * 13,333 /2000 lbs/ton = 133 tons of CO2.

Say $50 per ton X 130 tones -> $6600 carbon tax.

Do the same thing with NOX emissions. Bump it high enough that a non hybrid
will cost an extra $5000.

------
ageek123
Honestly I have a hard time getting bent out of shape about reverting
regulations -- whether I agree with them or not -- to how they were five years
ago. It's not like we're going back to the 1970s or something here.

~~~
radiorental
While true, this issue is we are not where we need to be _today_.

Any roll back is a set back.

------
leeoniya
if you're an automaker, why risk not following cleaner standards even if not
legally obligated? the probability of the next administration enforcing
stricter standards is very high, so might as well get a head start rather than
save a few $ today and be left unable to compete 4 years from now due to R&D +
mfg stagnation.

who actually sees a long term trend towards greater inefficiencies?

------
myrandomcomment
Trump will be gone in 3 years, 7 at the longest.

Two paths...

It is highly likely the next administration will be more forward thinking and
science minded then the dark ages thinking of the current one. When that
happens and they clamp down on this again with much less of a time window it
will leave the industry that cheered Trump on dead. Oh well.

It is likely that California can keep this in court forever so no matter what
the “rules” are nationally with 12 of the most populous states siding withCA
it will not matter.

------
vikeri
While policy will always be more important than individual contributions, for
people wondering what they can do to address their personal carbon footprint
without having a negative impact on their life:
[https://www.goclimateneutral.org](https://www.goclimateneutral.org)

Btw, I'm not affiliated with them in any way. Just think it's a great service.

------
landryraccoon
Fuel efficiency is a national security issue. Reduced dependence on oil means
less involvement in the middle east and less vulnerability to energy sources
controlled by foreign nations that may be adversaries (Russia in particular is
a huge oil exporter). I am somewhat surprised that those who claim to be
conservative would take up the mantle of increasing dependence on oil.
Renewable resources based in the US are better for the long term security of
the nation.

~~~
jey
Currently, the USA is the top or nearly the top oil exporter.

~~~
landryraccoon
Do you have a source? Wikpedia
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_expor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_exports))
lists the US as 14th. Saudia Arabia is number 1 and Russia as #2, as I
expected.

Another source ([https://www.investopedia.com/articles/company-
insights/08231...](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/company-
insights/082316/worlds-top-10-oil-exporters.asp)) also lists Saudi Arabia as
#1 and Russia as #2

~~~
jey
Sorry, I should have looked for primary sources. I do recall hearing that
we've massively accelerated output over the last couple of years. Best I can
find right now is that we are _projected_ to take the lead in production[1],
which admittedly is very different from being the lead exporter currently.

1\. [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-iea/u-s-to-
overtak...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-iea/u-s-to-overtake-
russia-as-top-oil-producer-by-2019-at-latest-iea-idUSKCN1GB0C6)

------
bencollier49
This seems like it's designed to alter the playing field to sustain the price
of oil against the rise of electric vehicles.

~~~
saas_co_de
Quite the opposite. Electrical vehicles benefit from high oil prices so
eliminating regulations that would reduce demand for oil (thus reducing
prices) would reduce demand for EVs.

Increasing demand for oil and increasing oil prices will increase demand for
EVs because it makes them more competitive.

~~~
ianai
The oil market in the US is almost completely divorced from reality through
subsidies and external costs.

------
Consultant32452
EPA emission regulations for vehicles is going to become less and less
relevant as we migrate to full electric.

------
JustSomeNobody
It will not make cars more affordable. Any cost saving will get funneled up to
the wealthier shareholders.

------
p0wn
Great we can finally drive the 6000 SUX.

------
headmelted
I'm not really familiar with how the electoral system works in the US with
regards to this, but there's something about this that really confuses me
(even leaving my own politics and literally all science aside with regards to
climate change and particulate pollution).

It seems like it would be really expensive to roll all of these policies back
just to reinstate them later, but isn't that inevitable when the pendulum
swings back to the left?

(i.e. Won't the next left-leaning administration move to redo everything
that's been undone under your current administration?)

Is there some structural feature of your electoral system that would prevent
this kind of flip-flopping?

(This isn't a put down by the way - I say this being from Northern Ireland,
where our entire political system is based on a single divisive issue, at the
cost of getting literally anything else achieved.)

~~~
richmarr
[Edit to clarify what I was saying "not necessarily" to]

I wouldn't necessarily assume that manufacturers will waste that time.

I did a day's worth of policy work with the UK Department for Transport and
the regional heads of some manufacturers so know a little bit about how
they're thinking about the problem. In the past there's been a progressive
reduction in emissions, pushing manufacturers to work fairly hard in the short
term to meet the targets they've been set. There've been some noteworthy
examples of cheating because it's not easy to balance emissions targets
against cost and all the other constraints on manufacturing.

One of the policies they're already discussing is to give manufacturers short-
term breathing room in emissions standards so that they stop chasing local
maxima and dedicate some proper R&D time to making super-low emissions
possible in the medium term.

So yeah, I think manufacturers will try and get away with what they can, but
they're not stupid. They know this problem isn't going away (both from an
environmental and a regulatory perspective) and solving it will be a
competitive advantage.

~~~
patentatt
That’s actually good to hear, and a reasonable stance. I’m not a mechanical
engineer, what’s the difference beteeen local maxima and more long term
solutions when it comes to ICE though? My lay perspective is that there is no
big breakthrough on the horizon that will dramatically change ICE tech, am I
uninformed?

~~~
richmarr
I don't know.

The context of the policy day was around encouraging adoption of EVs and HEVs
rather than better ICE vehicles. Perhaps that's a signal.

I personally see it as mostly a marketing challenge so spent most of my time
chasing things like charging point standardisation & visibility, and pushing
approaches that might change perceptions of EVs, such as changing the standard
yellow for blue (or green, jury's out) to make them stand out whilst driving
to address the perception that it's unusual.

~~~
headmelted
The blue-tinted badges seem wrong somehow, if only because "blue" is assocated
with Diesel (BlueHDI, BlueMotion etc).

I would expect them to be green-tinted (although there may be a
counterargument to that based on something I'm not seeing), although I
acknowledge that it's nitpicking.

~~~
richmarr
Personally I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "BlueHDI", I
had to look it up, so clearly there's an element of subjectivity here.
Similarly things like football team colours may also come into play, so
perhaps there should be a choice.

That said, I have no idea whether (a) apparent social norms are actually the
main problem to adoption or (b) whether the DVLA could be convinced to adopt
new policies for rear-plate colours.

