Automakers Tell Trump His Pollution Rules Could Mean ‘Untenable’ Instability and Lower Profits

Automakers Tell Trump His Pollution Rules Could Mean ‘Untenable’ Instability and Lower Profits - The New York Times?

Well this is way more complicated than I thought it would be…

"In a letter signed by 17 companies including Ford, General Motors, Toyota and Volvo, the automakers asked Mr. Trump to go back to the negotiating table on the planned rollback of one of President Barack Obama’s signature policies…

In asking Mr. Trump to revise his proposal, the automakers effectively withdrew their support for the current plan…

The automakers conceded in their letter that they were seeking to solve a crisis that they helped set in motion. Soon after Mr. Trump took office, chief executives from Detroit’s top automakers personally asked the president to loosen the some elements of the Obama-era regulations.

However, the Trump administration went further than the industry expected…"

The Trump administration is going to effectively carve the auto industry into two pieces and this thing is going to be in court for a decade.

Yet another industry that will suffer under Trump.

And one more thing. Why don’t Auto manufacturers sell directly to the public? Why all the middle men?

1 Like

Nope. All the EPA has to do is revoke individual states rights to be more strict than the national standard and all will be good.

A federal judge SHOULD hold that as legal and constitutional as congress is given the explicit authority to regulate commerace among the states, and has given EPA the authority to give the wavers (and it would be able to take them away).

Then all states are on an even and level playing ground.

Wouldn’t such a ruling also cut into each State’s individual minimum wage laws that are higher than the Federal Government’s minimum wage law? After all aren’t wages an act of commerce? Or should each State determine such laws within each state as it is those individual state governments that are to regulate commerce within those states rather than the Federal government? Isn’t the Federal government only supposed to regulate commerce that occurs between multiple states as in “interstate commerce” as specified under Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution and Amendments IX and X as well?

Then why did they have to issue a waiver to California to exceed the EPA guidlines?

Apparently the auto industry disagrees with your opinion

The letter to Mr. Trump says, “We strongly believe the best path to preserve good auto jobs and keep new vehicles affordable for more Americans is a final rule supported by all parties — including California.”




Who is they? What waiver? Are you talking about the EPA or the auto manufacturers?

It’s like we said this would happen and cons were like…nah…we gonna double down on the stupid…


Because the middlemen lobbied the government to legislate protectionist measures for their businesses.

It’s estimated that dealership exclusivity can add anywhere from 10-30% onto the price of a car you purchase.

1 Like

Yep that would be the cool thing to do.

“California- you are trying too hard to make the air clean. You’re making us look bad. Start dirtying that ■■■■ up!”



Cut out the friggin middlemen.

Article says EPA issued a waiver to california in 1970 allowing them to set their own milage requirments.

Since the 1970 Clean Air Act, California has had special authority to write its own pollution regulations.

The Trump administration last year unveiled a draft plan that would have rolled back the Obama rule and stripped California of the right to set tougher state standards.

Now if the law itself didn’t give Cali the authority, or is written in a way that it can be revoked, then Cali has no leg to stand on.

Yah, state’s rights!

Hush y’all.

1 Like

That’s quite the flip from your previous stance on states rights. I remember you going on about federal overreach and states rights when Obama designated all that Utah land as parkland.



I’ve said that Obamma went beyond his authority of the law passed by congress (in accordance with the constitution) to protect the minimum amount of land possible.

Small government conservatism at work. :rofl:

1 Like

It’s illegal in every state for anyone besides dealers to sell vehicles. It is why Tesla has had so many fights in the states.

Using the interstate commerce clause to tell states to be less restrictive with pollution regs = winning political message.


The worst part is though I say that somewhat mockingly…in today’s political climate it probably IS a politically winning message.

While China and India win the Green Revolution…mostly using tech they stole from us…we’ll go back to the 1950s.



Nope. Following the constitution and the law. Constitution give congress the right to regulate interstate commerace (aka vehicles). The law alows the president to grant a waiver to california. Trump essentially is going to do as the law allows and deny any new waivers for california (after further reading doesn’t look like any will be revoked).