On the Obama/Auto post down below, regular reader Robert Jacoby comments:
Yes, by all means let us have 50 different automobile standards. That’ll keep the number of cars made real low & real expensive, so that the masses will no longer have cars. Only our betters will have them.
I’m afraid Robert has misunderstood what’s going on here.
California — combined with the states which have laws in place to mimic California’s emissions regulations — accounts for half or more of all cars sold in the United States. What Obama’s regulations are meant to do is allow the tail to wag the dog, not to have 50 different tails. Let me explain.
California’s laws are so nutty, they might not even get passed by our current Congress. They’d certainly have a tough time in the Senate. So, by letting California set its own standards, Obama and Congress are essentially allowing the nuttiest state assembly in the entire Union to set the standards the entire nation will end up using.
No automaker is going to produce two entirely different lines of cars for California and its legal dependencies, and the rest of the nation. So buyers in Maine and Alabama and North Dakota will be buying cars designed to appeal to greenhouse emissions fanatics in Hollywood and their beneficiaries in Sacramento. What the Greenies can’t accomplish in Washington, they’ll certainly get away with in California, and the whole country will get stuck with the results.
Welcome to Hope! and Change! — a place where Federalism has been turned on its ear to let local pols in California decide what’s best for everyone, everywhere.
Back in the 90′s we here in the ‘Golden State’ came within a gnats ass of having a real live Zero Emissions Vehicle standard put into actual practice.
Just imagine…( and I don’t mean “gosh wouldnt that be cool! because it wouldn’t. )
Now, can someone tell me why it is we have States again?
There used to be two different versions of cars, california and non-california. I don’t know if there still are differences.
For motorcycles, there are still different versions. I have two non-california motorcycles in my garage right now.
Based on my recent stay in San Diego, I don’t think the US automakers have much to lose by writing off the California market. Other than pickups and the occassional SUV, the overwhelming majority of cars I saw in 2 1/2 weeks were not from the Big 3.
Larry –
The point is, they *can’t* write off the California market. Some states, my home in Colorado included, have enacted emissions laws which mirror whatever the bozos in California come up with. Those state, plus California, total half or more of all domestic car sales.
So in essence, what Obama has done is to nationalize California’s standards. And he did so by leaning on the Federalist principle so hard it snapped.
[quote]Obama and Congress are essentially allowing the nuttiest state assembly in the entire Union to set the standards [/quote]
Which is why the Supreme Court will not allow it. In fact, they have already ruled on an almost identical case–where a state tried to regulate truck tires. The supreme court said “abslutely not.”
Really, We’re talking about a court that can rule that a small roadside inn engages in interstate commerce because some of its guests probably live in other states. They can surely find an interstate commerce angle in the emmission regulation of automobiles.
Some states…have enacted emissions laws which mirror whatever the bozos in California come up with….
So in essence, what Obama has done is to nationalize California’s standards.
Sounds like a great chance for some states to throw their legislatures out on their asses. If they don’t, well, the people will get what they voted for, and they’ll get it good and hard.
Consider that everything that is being done is not being done for better Air quality and efficiency. Consider that none of this is being done to benefit the taxpayer, the consumer or the manufacturers.
Consider instead that this is being done to separate you from the basic freedom of mobility and to benefit the political careers of lobbyists.
“No automaker is going to produce two entirely different lines of cars for California and its legal dependencies.”
I’d like to think they would, if complying with California emissions adds a whole lot of base cost to a given car. While it’s expensive, to a point, to do so, it’s really no different than producing a separate trim level.
I’d like to think this would be challenged legally, of course, but in the end I honestly hope it comes down to the various manufacturers saying, okay, screw you guys, here’s your much slower, more expensive Californian car. Enjoy.
So does Federalism mean the Feds get to say or the States get to say what they want? Is it States Rights or not? Sometimes, we get stuck with another State’s standards. Some things just aren’t available in some places for various reasons sane and insane. In Arizona, I can’t get a pet hedgehog, but they’re okay in California, while somewhere else has banned ferrets. In New York, a licensed massage therapist has to study things unrelated to massage, while in Connecticut, they don’t. I’m sure the cattle ranching regulations are different in Wyoming and Hawaii, too.
Federalism gets turned on its ear all the time, always has been, and always will be. The problem isn’t what California wants to do, but the size of California. That the Federal government wants to or doesn’t want to do what California does is a Federal issue to be fought Federally, and that’s where smaller states with representation equal to California’s in the Senate can decide if this is sane or not.
We’re already at that point. I’m seeing nothing but 50-state-emissions vehicles in Wisconsin.
You guys are gonna love it when you get our other leadership issues: a ban on mylar balloons, mandatory pet neutering, bans on fast food franchises, surtaxes on sodas to fund nutrition classes, oh and speaking of education try our “First to Worst” strategy. 50% dropout rate in Los Angeles Unified School District, aiming for more!
OK, lets play “What if”:
- What if the California legislature bans cars from Japan, ostensibly for violating some new ‘green’( er, uh, sorry Steve…) standard?
Gee I like Japanese cars myself, but its come to my attention that certain unions don’t. Might this be the way that they finally get a backdoor trade embargo? Let see, What’s “smoot hawley” spelled backwards…
- What if the California Legislature bans 4 wheel drive vehicles?
Oh those big nasty 4 wheel drive cars. why would anyone need one of those here in LA? Let us save you, the voters of Colorado from the burden of deciding this for yourself…
- What if the California legislature bans private vehicles over a certain weight class? A weight class that just happens to be big enough to tow a boat or trailer.
No trucks, no boats, no trailers. That sounds good for the environment to me! Besides I hate it when people have cooler stuff than me…
- What if the California legislature sets a standard for “carbon footprint” and then requires manufacturers to demonstrate that the entire footprint over the life of a car is to meet a certain carbon footprint size?
and then only cars built in California would qualify. wow, I didn’t see that coming. hmmm. no opportunity for ethics problems there…
- Oh heres a fun one. ‘What if’ the California legislature requires a plan to convert commercial trucks that operate in California to some sort of spiffy new hybrid engine requirement. Just California trucks you see, we don’t want to get into any sort of battle with the rest of the states, because that would, you know, be “wrong”…
Then all trucks will be “green”! Neat! Forget about how much it will cost the consumer during the changeover because trucks are just icky smelly things driven by rednecks who probably voted for Bush anyway. I hate them. I just buy all my groceries at the organic farmers market. I think everybody should do that…
Oh heck, why limit it to cars? They already regulate commercial maritime shipping that docks in California, how long until they impact General Aviation and commercial jets? Railroads! yeah! bring it on baby!
…and on and on and on. That’s the beautiful thing about the green movement, you can use it to justify just about anything you want to justify for any reason you want. So long as you can say “its good for the environment, you’re all set. You don’t have to prove it, you just have to say it.
Yes, The states have a role in this sort of legislation, but no state should become a defacto tyrant to the others( ed: that’s the job of the feds after all!). This is what I have a problem with, california acting like the feds when its not, its just one of 50. In this case, the Federal government should establish these standards, out of nothing else other than common sense.
You know, the Civil War settled that states couldn’t secede from the Union.
Has anyone looked into whether the Union can secede from one of the states?
Please, please, pleeeeeeeeze, can we also have 50 different standards on full-auto weapons?
Pleeeeeeeeze!
I’ve always wanted a pair of ma-deuces behind the headlights of my extra-large SUV.
For sporting purposes.
I’d think based on other Commerce Clause litigation that this would get struck down by SCOTUS.
Actually, we do have 50 different standards on full-auto weapons. Even if one had a no-longer-available Federal Firearm License, one cannot have a fully-automatic weapon in Wisconsin. Fitting that one can’t carry a loaded weapon, concealed or not, here either (unless one is a criminal, that is).
This would be a perfect application of the doctrine of federal pre-emption: the classic example is federal railroad law, which pre-empts the states from imposing their own different standards because having 50 different railroad laws would impede interstate commerce.
That assumes that the Obama Administration wants a smoothly-running system of interstate commerce, as opposed to wanting to impose insanely higher requirements without having to have a nasty inconvenient Congressional vote on it where the non-California parts of the country could actually express their opinion.
If Stephen’s concerns pan out, I forsee a new industry: renovating used vehicles.
Not classic-car restoration, but something like the Air Force SLEP (Service Life Extension Package) which extends the life of a jet.
Buy a used car with a decent frame, find a rebuilt engine, and so on; and Bob’s yer uncle.
A lot of countries are following that plan right now by dropping Western engines into Soviet tanks and jets, and replacing the avionics/electronics as well. The result isn’t state of the art, but it’s good enough, and a lot cheaper.
The ultimte SLEP practice on old vehicles has been underway in Cuba for the last 50 years.
We’ve had different standards for California and other states since the ’70s. On a new (gas powered) car what it typically means is there are a few more O2 sensors for more monitoring and possibly an additional catalytic converter per bank of cylinders which is smaller and heats up faster. Due to the costs of these parts it makes sense to a car company to design the exhaust system to be modular enough to accomodate both sets of rules.
The real issue here is that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is not accountable to anybody. They can pretty much come up with whatever rules they like without any regard to cost or even weather or not it is even possible.
There’s actually an answer to this one: competing Federal standards. Let the Federal gov’t create alternative licensure that must be accepted in all 50 states. Don’t prohibit the states from licensing any way they want, and certainly don’t put the other 49 states legally in the control of the legislature of a chosen state as Obama has just done. Simply erect a competing Federal standard that must be allowed to practice.
yours/
peter.