Trump admin rolling back plans to raise fuel economy standards

Mar 2012
60,128
41,546
New Hampshire
The Trump administration on Thursday revealed its long-anticipated plan to roll back Obama-era standards meant to cut planet-warming emissions from tailpipes and boost fuel efficiency in cars and trucks sold in the United States in the coming years.

At the same time, the administration confirmed it will seek to strip California of its special authority to set its own fuel economy levels for autos, escalating a legal battle with more than a dozen states.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration and Environmental Protection Agency say they intend to reverse ambitious targets for fuel economy and emissions reductions, which the agencies developed under President Barack Obama. Instead of requiring automakers to steadily increase the average fuel efficiency of passenger vehicles through 2025 as previously planned, the Trump administration would freeze those levels after 2020.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/02/trump-administration-rolls-back-plans-to-raise-fuel-economy-standards.html
 

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
78,512
70,729
So. Md.
This is exactly the kind of regression that is going to continue under the orange disaster in the White House.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
Sep 2017
5,469
6,537
Massachusetts
The Trump administration on Thursday revealed its long-anticipated plan to roll back Obama-era standards meant to cut planet-warming emissions from tailpipes and boost fuel efficiency in cars and trucks sold in the United States in the coming years.

At the same time, the administration confirmed it will seek to strip California of its special authority to set its own fuel economy levels for autos, escalating a legal battle with more than a dozen states.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration and Environmental Protection Agency say they intend to reverse ambitious targets for fuel economy and emissions reductions, which the agencies developed under President Barack Obama. Instead of requiring automakers to steadily increase the average fuel efficiency of passenger vehicles through 2025 as previously planned, the Trump administration would freeze those levels after 2020.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/02/trump-administration-rolls-back-plans-to-raise-fuel-economy-standards.html
Since I supported Bernie Sanders during the primary, I ended up interacting with a bunch of people on the left who also supported him. When the general election came around, I took the view that anyone in a remotely competitive state needed to vote for Clinton, because a Trump presidency was going to be a nightmare. A number of my fellow Sanders supporters were so bitter about his loss, and their perception that he'd have won if the DNC had played fair, that they preferred to punish Clinton by voting for someone else or not voting. One of their major bits of rhetoric is that it didn't matter, anyway, because there was little difference between Clinton and the Republicans. That always frustrated the hell out of me, since it was such an obvious and willful lie. Whatever you think of Trump and Clinton, it should be incredibly obvious that Clinton wouldn't have taken the large majority of major steps Trump has taken. She wouldn't have befouled the executive agencies with a bunch of completely inexperienced hacks like DeVos and Carson. She wouldn't have named Gorsuch to the high court. She wouldn't have pushed to gut Affordable Care. She wouldn't have fought to lower income tax rates for the wealthy. She wouldn't have started a trade war, she wouldn't have destroyed our relations with our leading allies, she wouldn't have pushed for a Muslim ban, and she wouldn't have implemented a new policy for splitting up families at our border to try to terrorize people into not seeking asylum. She also sure as hell wouldn't have planned on reducing fuel efficiency standards.

I'd like to think those dishonest lefties have trouble sleeping at night -- that, deep down, they recognize the key role they played in making possible this dystopian turn of events. But, I expect, they lack the self awareness for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 people
Mar 2012
60,128
41,546
New Hampshire
Since I supported Bernie Sanders during the primary, I ended up interacting with a bunch of people on the left who also supported him. When the general election came around, I took the view that anyone in a remotely competitive state needed to vote for Clinton, because a Trump presidency was going to be a nightmare. A number of my fellow Sanders supporters were so bitter about his loss, and their perception that he'd have won if the DNC had played fair, that they preferred to punish Clinton by voting for someone else or not voting. One of their major bits of rhetoric is that it didn't matter, anyway, because there was little difference between Clinton and the Republicans. That always frustrated the hell out of me, since it was such an obvious and willful lie. Whatever you think of Trump and Clinton, it should be incredibly obvious that Clinton wouldn't have taken the large majority of major steps Trump has taken. She wouldn't have befouled the executive agencies with a bunch of completely inexperienced hacks like DeVos and Carson. She wouldn't have named Gorsuch to the high court. She wouldn't have pushed to gut Affordable Care. She wouldn't have fought to lower income tax rates for the wealthy. She wouldn't have started a trade war, she wouldn't have destroyed our relations with our leading allies, she wouldn't have pushed for a Muslim ban, and she wouldn't have implemented a new policy for splitting up families at our border to try to terrorize people into not seeking asylum. She also sure as hell wouldn't have planned on reducing fuel efficiency standards.

I'd like to think those dishonest lefties have trouble sleeping at night -- that, deep down, they recognize the key role they played in making possible this dystopian turn of events. But, I expect, they lack the self awareness for that.
The problem is there was overlap with some of Sanders and Trumps positions. They both were against trade agreements and supported tariffs. So I think that really separated Clinton supporters and most Sanders supporters at the get go. I remember one poll saying trade and healthcare were the two most important things to Sanders supporters. So some of those in the rust belt figured, they were close enough. We have a lot of Sanders supporters up here and I heard a lot of them say "well we want single payer so we are hoping that Trump damages the ACA so bad, people will be desperate for single payer." It was sort of a "Burn it all down" on both sides to some extent. Some Sanders supporters felt Hillary would be happy enough to keep the ACA and improve it not reach for single payer. They felt she would keep NAFTA and sign the TPP. They felt that was horrific. Which is why some of his supporters acted so badly at the DNC convention shouting at her and booing her over trade.
 
Mar 2015
32,495
18,141
Mad Prophet
Most people now believe that pollution is causing problems with the earth heating up. Donald Trump does not give a shit about the planet, he cares about money. He is doing this for his corporate buddies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Apr 2012
62,275
47,994
Englewood,Ohio
The problem is there was overlap with some of Sanders and Trumps positions. They both were against trade agreements and supported tariffs. So I think that really separated Clinton supporters and most Sanders supporters at the get go. I remember one poll saying trade and healthcare were the two most important things to Sanders supporters. So some of those in the rust belt figured, they were close enough. We have a lot of Sanders supporters up here and I heard a lot of them say "well we want single payer so we are hoping that Trump damages the ACA so bad, people will be desperate for single payer." It was sort of a "Burn it all down" on both sides to some extent. Some Sanders supporters felt Hillary would be happy enough to keep the ACA and improve it not reach for single payer. They felt she would keep NAFTA and sign the TPP. They felt that was horrific. Which is why some of his supporters acted so badly at the DNC convention shouting at her and booing her over trade.
Weird thinking when the ACA was supposed to be Single Payer until 3 bought and sold Senators stopped that. But even then Democrats hoped the ACA was just the first step to Universal Care.

Bernie is way too left for me. I believe in moderation in most things!
 
Jul 2014
38,922
33,912
Border Fence
Trump has a big fight on his hands if he thinks he can change California's influence on what car makers do.

Californians most likely purchase the same number of autos that all the Red states in the middle of the country do.
 
Jun 2014
51,697
53,633
United States
Trump has a big fight on his hands if he thinks he can change California's influence on what car makers do.

Californians most likely purchase the same number of autos that all the Red states in the middle of the country do.

The worldwide market is also demanding better fuel economy. I doubt that it will make much difference in auto manufacturers' long term plans even if Trump does kill the federal mandate. He'd have as much luck attempting to force people to go back to horses and buggies or coal powered steam engines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Mar 2012
60,128
41,546
New Hampshire
The worldwide market is also demanding better fuel economy. I doubt that it will make much difference in auto manufacturers' long term plans even if Trump does kill the federal mandate. He'd have as much luck attempting to force people to go back to horses and buggies or coal powered steam engines.
I have to agree. Its unlikely they will make different cars just for the US. Most of them research fuel economy so they will find that cost effective. Although its curious Ford is getting rid of cars in favor of SUVs. They typically get better fuel mileage but I suppose they are bumping their ecoboost engines.
 
Sep 2017
5,469
6,537
Massachusetts
The problem is there was overlap with some of Sanders and Trumps positions. They both were against trade agreements and supported tariffs.
From what I saw, though, that wasn't the reasoning of the Sanders supporters who chose to squander their opportunity to keep Trump out of office. They didn't argue that a trade war would be such a lovely thing that it outweighed the impact of the other 95% of stuff where they were more aligned with Clinton than Trump. Instead, they argued there was no appreciable difference between the two options.

I remember one poll saying trade and healthcare were the two most important things to Sanders supporters
The polls I saw showed Sanders supporters closer to Clinton than Trump on almost all the issues:

On most issues, Sanders primary supporters further from GOP voters than Clinton backers | Pew Research Center

"On nearly all issues where Clinton and Sanders backers diverged, they did so because Sanders supporters were more to the left of Clinton supporters and further away from the opinions of GOP voters."

"well we want single payer so we are hoping that Trump damages the ACA so bad, people will be desperate for single payer."
That's effectively Bolshevism -- the view that moderate positive change is the enemy, because the revolution will only come when things get so bad that people can't stand it any more. A Bolshevik believes it's the job of the revolutionary to heighten the contradictions: to make sure that moderates can't lessen the suffering of the people. That way, the people are forced to support the radicals. I suppose it's possible that a handful of Sanders supporters were secret Bolsheviks. But, again, that's never the argument I heard them making. It was always the idea that there was so little difference between Clinton and Trump that it didn't matter which of them won, so you may as well make a protest vote.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person