[home][rumors and news][model release matrix][dealer network][desktop calendar][exhaust notes][tov forums][links][search][sponsors][garage][login]

Tire Rack Upgrade Garage
 Search for a Dealer:
 Canadian Flag US Flag
 Honda Acura
 ZIP  
American Honda Reports December Sales
More.......................
American Honda Reports November Sales
More.......................
2019 Honda Passport Makes World Debut: Adventure-Ready All-New 5-passenger SUV at 2018 LA Auto Show
More.......................
LIVE from Los Angeles: TOV's coverage of the 2019 Honda Passport reveal
More.......................
First Look: DNA Collectibles releases Urban EV Concept 1:18 scale model
More.......................
All-New 2019 Honda Passport Starts Adventure with Global Debut in Los Angeles
More.......................
2019 CR-V goes on sale with few changes, nominal price increase
More.......................
2019 Honda Civic Type R and Civic Hatchback Accelerate into Dealerships
More.......................
TLX --> Re: Non-Type S ?
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Cars for a mid life crisis
Join Discussion......
Fuel Cell Technology --> Re: Incomplete recall
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: BMW trying to out ugly Lexus
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: 2020 Toyota Supra
Join Discussion......
Accord --> Re: Accord back in the family
Join Discussion......
Fuel Cell Technology --> Re: ICE to FCEV "engine" swap
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: My talk with Honda's Motorsports Boss
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Suzuki Grand Vitara experience?
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: 2019 Acura/Honda Debuts
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Honda's new marking word - "Spay-flu"
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Documentary - the true price of electric mobility
Join Discussion......
RDX --> Re: Torque Capacity of 10 Speed Auto
Join Discussion......
RDX --> Re: Hondata Flashpro for 2019 RDX
Join Discussion......
Civic --> Re: Civic 8th gen engine swap
Join Discussion......
2019 Acura NSX PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................
First Drive: 2019 Acura ILX
Read Article....................
2019 Acura ILX PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................
First Drive: 2019 Honda Pilot
Read Article....................
2019 Honda Pilot PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................
First Drive: 2019 Honda Insight
Read Article....................

[fancy] [flat] [simple]
TOV Forums > Today's Reading Links > > Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...

Go to:

Viewing Threshold (What is this?)

Thread Page - [1]
Author
  Post New Thread
HondaForever
Profile for HondaForever
And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-13-2018 09:45
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
"The Oil Industryís Covert Campaign to Rewrite American Car Emissions Rules"

When the Trump administration laid out a plan this year that would eventually allow cars to emit more pollution, automakers, the obvious winners from the proposal, balked. The changes, they said, went too far even for them.

But it turns out that there was a hidden beneficiary of the plan that was pushing for the changes all along: the nationís oil industry.

In Congress, on Facebook and in statehouses nationwide, Marathon Petroleum, the countryís largest refiner, worked with powerful oil-industry groups and a conservative policy network financed by the billionaire industrialist Charles G. Koch to run a stealth campaign to roll back car emissions standards, a New York Times investigation has found.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/climate/cafe-emissions-rollback-oil-industry.html

Mr. Taggart
Profile for Mr. Taggart
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-13-2018 10:45
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
If it is in the New York Times then it must be true. Lolz
HondaForever
Profile for HondaForever
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-13-2018 11:09
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Mr. Taggart wrote:
If it is in the New York Times then it must be true. Lolz


https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Marathon-refining-group-covertly-worked-to-13463165.php?src=hp_totn


https://jalopnik.com/the-american-oil-and-gas-industry-is-as-cynical-as-you-1831071142

All fake news, I suppose...

HondaForever
Profile for HondaForever
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-13-2018 12:42
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply

https://www.autoblog.com/2018/08/03/oil-companies-lobbied-fuel-economy-freeze/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/ct-oil-industry-fuel-economy-standards-20180808-story.html


CarPhreakD
Profile for CarPhreakD
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-13-2018 12:48
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
While this is a investigative report piece, the fact that BIG OIL is lobbying for emissions rollbacks should be zero surprise.
HondaForever
Profile for HondaForever
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-13-2018 14:35
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarPhreakD wrote:
While this is a investigative report piece, the fact that BIG OIL is lobbying for emissions rollbacks should be zero surprise.

You are right, of course. But at least it clarifies for me the mystery as to why a move that was supposedly meant to help the auto industry ended up creating a situation they themselves now find intolerable and makes very clear who is the 500 pound gorilla in the transportation industry: certainly not the auto companies.

It is a shining example of the old adage: "Be careful what you ask for"


NSXman
Profile for NSXman
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-13-2018 17:47
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Got to love those gotcha words.

"Powerful" oil-industry...

"Conservative" policy...

"Billionaire" Charles Koch.

Besides the fact that rich oil people will continue to figure out how to be rich from oil, do you not think that Americans benefit from a strong American energy industry?

And as someone else stated, how is it hidden that America's oil industry lobbies for their own benefit? I'd argue if the New York Time or the Houston Chronicle didn't know this already then they really aren't that good at their job.

Also, why did Honda and GM balk? Could it be that they had plans on cornering the electric market in California? I highly doubt they balked because they were "offended".

HondaForever
Profile for HondaForever
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-13-2018 19:49
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
NSXman wrote:

And as someone else stated, how is it hidden that America's oil industry lobbies for their own benefit? I'd argue if the New York Time or the Houston Chronicle didn't know this already then they really aren't that good at their job.



Then why did they try to hide their lobbying efforts?

That doesn't mean they're eager to talk about it publicly. On August 2, as automakers, refiners and environmentalists all rushed out statements on the plan, the oil industry's top lobbying group, the American Petroleum Institute, kept quiet.

Asked about the organization's view, an API spokeswoman said only: "We are reviewing it."


https://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/ct-oil-industry-fuel-economy-standards-20180808-story.html


Chris_6MT
Profile for Chris_6MT
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-13-2018 20:01
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
What exactly is the news here?

Would it be a shock if green organizations lobbied for solar power and wind energy?

I donít get it. An industry is self serving...the horror!!!!!

NSXman
Profile for NSXman
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-13-2018 21:07
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
HondaForever wrote:
NSXman wrote:

And as someone else stated, how is it hidden that America's oil industry lobbies for their own benefit? I'd argue if the New York Time or the Houston Chronicle didn't know this already then they really aren't that good at their job.





Then why did they try to hide their lobbying efforts?

That doesn't mean they're eager to talk about it publicly. On August 2, as automakers, refiners and environmentalists all rushed out statements on the plan, the oil industry's top lobbying group, the American Petroleum Institute, kept quiet.

Asked about the organization's view, an API spokeswoman said only: "We are reviewing it."


https://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/ct-oil-industry-fuel-economy-standards-20180808-story.html




Because there is quite literally nothing they can say that will keep the masses with pitchforks at bay?

Grace141
Profile for Grace141
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-14-2018 07:04
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Does that NYT article mention the CAFE standards being reversed are the Obama-era 2025 requirements of a 54mpg average? I don't believe in Fake News. I do believe there is inadequate journalism and it might have been nice for some transparency in a newspaper during a time when Ford and GM are ending the production of cars and shutting plants down in the US. The next Accord would be the one expected to meet that 2025 standard and I was guessing we'd see the 2.0T to discontinued and the boost turned down on the 1.5T.

The next step should be in reversing the footprint regs which allow larger vehicles to get substantially lower economy ratings so we Americans get off this path of driving ever larger cruise ships on our highways. I'm no expert but I don't see the overall net fleet average of the cars around me in traffic every day improving.

Fitdad
Profile for Fitdad
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-14-2018 08:48
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Grace141 wrote:
Does that NYT article mention the CAFE standards being reversed are the Obama-era 2025 requirements of a 54mpg average? I don't believe in Fake News. I do believe there is inadequate journalism and it might have been nice for some transparency in a newspaper during a time when Ford and GM are ending the production of cars and shutting plants down in the US. The next Accord would be the one expected to meet that 2025 standard and I was guessing we'd see the 2.0T to discontinued and the boost turned down on the 1.5T.

The next step should be in reversing the footprint regs which allow larger vehicles to get substantially lower economy ratings so we Americans get off this path of driving ever larger cruise ships on our highways. I'm no expert but I don't see the overall net fleet average of the cars around me in traffic every day improving.



Iím glad we donít even read the articles before declaring them fake news.

HondaForever
Profile for HondaForever
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-14-2018 09:41
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
NSXman wrote:
HondaForever wrote:
NSXman wrote:

And as someone else stated, how is it hidden that America's oil industry lobbies for their own benefit? I'd argue if the New York Time or the Houston Chronicle didn't know this already then they really aren't that good at their job.





Then why did they try to hide their lobbying efforts?

That doesn't mean they're eager to talk about it publicly. On August 2, as automakers, refiners and environmentalists all rushed out statements on the plan, the oil industry's top lobbying group, the American Petroleum Institute, kept quiet.

Asked about the organization's view, an API spokeswoman said only: "We are reviewing it."


https://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/ct-oil-industry-fuel-economy-standards-20180808-story.html




Because there is quite literally nothing they can say that will keep the masses with pitchforks at bay?


This is quite fascinating. First you say "how is it hidden?", then when I show you that they are in fact hiding their lobbying efforts, your response is effectively, that, yes, they ought to hide it otherwise they'll piss off the masses? I would hope that we can all agree that democracy works best when we have full transparency relative to our government's operations. But I guess those days are gone in this new era.

Fascinating, quite fascinating...

cksi1372
Profile for cksi1372
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-14-2018 09:57
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Fitdad wrote:
Grace141 wrote:
Does that NYT article mention the CAFE standards being reversed are the Obama-era 2025 requirements of a 54mpg average? I don't believe in Fake News. I do believe there is inadequate journalism and it might have been nice for some transparency in a newspaper during a time when Ford and GM are ending the production of cars and shutting plants down in the US. The next Accord would be the one expected to meet that 2025 standard and I was guessing we'd see the 2.0T to discontinued and the boost turned down on the 1.5T.

The next step should be in reversing the footprint regs which allow larger vehicles to get substantially lower economy ratings so we Americans get off this path of driving ever larger cruise ships on our highways. I'm no expert but I don't see the overall net fleet average of the cars around me in traffic every day improving.



Iím glad we donít even read the articles before declaring them fake news.



It's really not that hard to guess what the NYT (or Bloomberg or many others) is going to write...almost every time. I won't call it "fake news", but their agenda is pretty clear.

Yes, Grace, and with the usual boogeymen thrown in...Koch brothers, ALEC, oil companies the devil, Trump of course, yada, yada.

longhorn
Profile for longhorn
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-14-2018 09:58
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Grace141 wrote:
Does that NYT article mention the CAFE standards being reversed are the Obama-era 2025 requirements of a 54mpg average? I don't believe in Fake News. I do believe there is inadequate journalism and it might have been nice for some transparency in a newspaper during a time when Ford and GM are ending the production of cars and shutting plants down in the US. The next Accord would be the one expected to meet that 2025 standard and I was guessing we'd see the 2.0T to discontinued and the boost turned down on the 1.5T.

The next step should be in reversing the footprint regs which allow larger vehicles to get substantially lower economy ratings so we Americans get off this path of driving ever larger cruise ships on our highways. I'm no expert but I don't see the overall net fleet average of the cars around me in traffic every day improving.



You are going to dissuade my wife from wanting a big CUV by what? How?

HondaForever
Profile for HondaForever
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-14-2018 10:00
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Chris_6MT wrote:
What exactly is the news here?

Would it be a shock if green organizations lobbied for solar power and wind energy?

I donít get it. An industry is self serving...the horror!!!!!


Chris, if you read my posts carefully, you'll notice that I am not suggesting that the oil industry NOT lobby for its interests. Indeed, I take NO position on the desirability of either the original proposed regulations or the roll backs.

My point was that, it had always mystified me how it came to be that the new regulations which, supposedly, were in response to auto company lobbying, would result in new regulations which were so aggressive that they themselves are now lobbying against them. The apparent role of the oil companies was quite hidden I believe, until now.

My post was simply to clarify how this odd situation came to be, for any TOVers who were as mystified as I was. If this situation was clear to you all along, then you were not the intended audience for my post.

Fitdad
Profile for Fitdad
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-14-2018 11:06
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
cksi1372 wrote:
Fitdad wrote:
Grace141 wrote:
Does that NYT article mention the CAFE standards being reversed are the Obama-era 2025 requirements of a 54mpg average? I don't believe in Fake News. I do believe there is inadequate journalism and it might have been nice for some transparency in a newspaper during a time when Ford and GM are ending the production of cars and shutting plants down in the US. The next Accord would be the one expected to meet that 2025 standard and I was guessing we'd see the 2.0T to discontinued and the boost turned down on the 1.5T.

The next step should be in reversing the footprint regs which allow larger vehicles to get substantially lower economy ratings so we Americans get off this path of driving ever larger cruise ships on our highways. I'm no expert but I don't see the overall net fleet average of the cars around me in traffic every day improving.



Iím glad we donít even read the articles before declaring them fake news.



It's really not that hard to guess what the NYT (or Bloomberg or many others) is going to write...almost every time. I won't call it "fake news", but their agenda is pretty clear.

Yes, Grace, and with the usual boogeymen thrown in...Koch brothers, ALEC, oil companies the devil, Trump of course, yada, yada.



What is their agenda exactly? I donít understand that comment. Rolling back fuel standards and trying to limit states rights (CA) is a news story. Lobbyists spending millions of dollars to influence congressmen is a news story.

How else are they supposed to report this story exactly? President Trump rolled back the standards beyond what automakers wanted. Why did he do that? We have some of the answer now. It may not be surprising that Marathon did this - but whatís the old saying? ďTwo things you never want to see how they make are laws and sausages.Ē

Money in politics is corrosive. These men and women will sell out their constituents for a few hundred grand and this is fairly direct reporting on that fact. We take it as just part of the way things are - but my generation is already sick of it.

Because corporate influence is how we end up with $20 trillion in debt with shitty schools, shitty infrastructure, shitty healthcare...and record profits and a record DOW

NSXman
Profile for NSXman
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-14-2018 11:36
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
HondaForever wrote:
NSXman wrote:
HondaForever wrote:
NSXman wrote:

And as someone else stated, how is it hidden that America's oil industry lobbies for their own benefit? I'd argue if the New York Time or the Houston Chronicle didn't know this already then they really aren't that good at their job.





Then why did they try to hide their lobbying efforts?

That doesn't mean they're eager to talk about it publicly. On August 2, as automakers, refiners and environmentalists all rushed out statements on the plan, the oil industry's top lobbying group, the American Petroleum Institute, kept quiet.

Asked about the organization's view, an API spokeswoman said only: "We are reviewing it."


https://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/ct-oil-industry-fuel-economy-standards-20180808-story.html




Because there is quite literally nothing they can say that will keep the masses with pitchforks at bay?


This is quite fascinating. First you say "how is it hidden?", then when I show you that they are in fact hiding their lobbying efforts, your response is effectively, that, yes, they ought to hide it otherwise they'll piss off the masses? I would hope that we can all agree that democracy works best when we have full transparency relative to our government's operations. But I guess those days are gone in this new era.

Fascinating, quite fascinating...



Yes, how is it hidden? It has been known the oil industry lobbies since the beginning of oil.

My comment about "the masses" is with regards to the oil lobby not having a comment on this one particular matter.

Two separate points.

Grace141
Profile for Grace141
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-14-2018 12:47
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Fitdad wrote:
Grace141 wrote:
Does that NYT article mention the CAFE standards being reversed are the Obama-era 2025 requirements of a 54mpg average? I don't believe in Fake News. I do believe there is inadequate journalism and it might have been nice for some transparency in a newspaper during a time when Ford and GM are ending the production of cars and shutting plants down in the US. The next Accord would be the one expected to meet that 2025 standard and I was guessing we'd see the 2.0T to discontinued and the boost turned down on the 1.5T.

The next step should be in reversing the footprint regs which allow larger vehicles to get substantially lower economy ratings so we Americans get off this path of driving ever larger cruise ships on our highways. I'm no expert but I don't see the overall net fleet average of the cars around me in traffic every day improving.



Iím glad we donít even read the articles before declaring them fake news.


I read the NYT article before posting my question above. And I didn't say it was fake news but rather poor journalism. Granted, my opinions are based on what I know but to suggest the American Petroleum Institute is the only group of self-serving individuals in all of this seems biased or at least naÔve to me.

CarPhreakD
Profile for CarPhreakD
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-14-2018 13:33
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
NSXman wrote:

Also, why did Honda and GM balk? Could it be that they had plans on cornering the electric market in California? I highly doubt they balked because they were "offended".



The OEMs are not happy because they want a unified emissions regulatory environment to work in. It costs way more money to make a vehicle comply with two sets of regs, or as in the case of the administration- a 'whimsical' set of regs that can change depending on mood. What OEMS want more than anything else apparently (including potential cost save from not having to invest in emissions reudction) is simply a consistent and agreed upon set of rules to work from.

HondaForever
Profile for HondaForever
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-14-2018 14:06
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarPhreakD wrote:
NSXman wrote:

Also, why did Honda and GM balk? Could it be that they had plans on cornering the electric market in California? I highly doubt they balked because they were "offended".



The OEMs are not happy because they want a unified emissions regulatory environment to work in. It costs way more money to make a vehicle comply with two sets of regs, or as in the case of the administration- a 'whimsical' set of regs that can change depending on mood. What OEMS want more than anything else apparently (including potential cost save from not having to invest in emissions reudction) is simply a consistent and agreed upon set of rules to work from.


CPD, can you comment some on the strength of California's position? I was under the impression that they had an exemption to create their own pollution standards, obtained during the original formation of the EPA (?) and that unless the law is changed, the Feds cannot simply say "sorry, you no longer have this right."

Any truth to this interpretation of the historical facts?

HondaForever
Profile for HondaForever
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-14-2018 14:39
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
HondaForever wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
NSXman wrote:

Also, why did Honda and GM balk? Could it be that they had plans on cornering the electric market in California? I highly doubt they balked because they were "offended".



The OEMs are not happy because they want a unified emissions regulatory environment to work in. It costs way more money to make a vehicle comply with two sets of regs, or as in the case of the administration- a 'whimsical' set of regs that can change depending on mood. What OEMS want more than anything else apparently (including potential cost save from not having to invest in emissions reudction) is simply a consistent and agreed upon set of rules to work from.


CPD, can you comment some on the strength of California's position? I was under the impression that they had an exemption to create their own pollution standards, obtained during the original formation of the EPA (?) and that unless the law is changed, the Feds cannot simply say "sorry, you no longer have this right."

Any truth to this interpretation of the historical facts?


Should've first done a Google search :-)

Where does California get this special authority?

The Clean Air Act empowers the EPA to regulate air pollution from motor vehicles. To promote uniformity, the law generally bars states from regulating car emissions.

But when the Clean Air Act was passed, California was already developing innovative laws and standards to address its unique air pollution problems. So Congress carved out an exemption. As long as Californiaís standards protect public health and welfare at least as strictly as federal law, and are necessary ďto meet compelling and extraordinary conditions,Ē the law REQUIRES the EPA to grant California a waiver so it can continue to apply its own regulations. California has received numerous waivers as it has worked to reduce vehicle emissions by enacting ever more stringent standards since the 1960s.

Other states canít set their own standards, but they can opt to follow Californiaís motor vehicle emission regulations. Currently, 12 states and the District of Columbia have adopted Californiaís standards.


http://theconversation.com/why-california-gets-to-write-its-own-auto-emissions-standards-5-questions-answered-94379


NSXman
Profile for NSXman
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-15-2018 17:31
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarPhreakD wrote:
NSXman wrote:

Also, why did Honda and GM balk? Could it be that they had plans on cornering the electric market in California? I highly doubt they balked because they were "offended".



The OEMs are not happy because they want a unified emissions regulatory environment to work in. It costs way more money to make a vehicle comply with two sets of regs, or as in the case of the administration- a 'whimsical' set of regs that can change depending on mood. What OEMS want more than anything else apparently (including potential cost save from not having to invest in emissions reudction) is simply a consistent and agreed upon set of rules to work from.



Maybe so, but I also believe they say a lot of PR things that they honestly don't care about or would be detrimental to their existence.

Just like a lot of ultra rich do the entire "my secretary pays more in taxes than I do" garbage because that narrative defects criticism off of them and onto someone else.

HondaForever
Profile for HondaForever
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-15-2018 19:19
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
NSXman wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
NSXman wrote:

Also, why did Honda and GM balk? Could it be that they had plans on cornering the electric market in California? I highly doubt they balked because they were "offended".



The OEMs are not happy because they want a unified emissions regulatory environment to work in. It costs way more money to make a vehicle comply with two sets of regs, or as in the case of the administration- a 'whimsical' set of regs that can change depending on mood. What OEMS want more than anything else apparently (including potential cost save from not having to invest in emissions reudction) is simply a consistent and agreed upon set of rules to work from.



Maybe so, but I also believe they say a lot of PR things that they honestly don't care about or would be detrimental to their existence.



Such as?

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-16-2018 01:52
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarPhreakD wrote:
NSXman wrote:

Also, why did Honda and GM balk? Could it be that they had plans on cornering the electric market in California? I highly doubt they balked because they were "offended".



The OEMs are not happy because they want a unified emissions regulatory environment to work in. It costs way more money to make a vehicle comply with two sets of regs, or as in the case of the administration- a 'whimsical' set of regs that can change depending on mood. What OEMS want more than anything else apparently (including potential cost save from not having to invest in emissions reudction) is simply a consistent and agreed upon set of rules to work from.



1) What is to stop the OEMs from exceeding the standard of the law? Is there a law that says they can't do better than the minimum?

That is one of the fundamental flaws that "big government" people usually miss or don't want to talk about, is that it sets a MINIMUM standard of performance. There is nothing stopping market demand (if it truly exists) or business practice from going beyond the set minimum standard.

This is where I think the left is worried. They are afraid that they artificially created "demand" for lower emissions because they, in fact, did. But now that there is potential for it to be rolled back, they are trying to spin a yarn about how evil it is for industries to lobby in their own best interest (even subversively in some cases), even though there really was not shortage of it in the case of green energy in the 2008-2016 timeframe.

2) The OEM's may not have been in this environment if the previous administration was so blinded by ideology that they weren't willing to seek a common ground from which to field their unified standard. It is pretty easy to fault Trump for everything, but Obama wasn't exactly playing it purely straight either when he crammed this shit down the consumers' throats (and subsequently the OEM's, who did a lot of balking then too). They ultimately signed on for it because they had no choice and managed to finally talk him into something that was technologically feasible on paper. When he started pushing BEV's and all this other crap, he didn't give a shit about all of the problems it might cause because it towed his agenda. But oh the irony of the other self serving crony doing it in the opposite direction now... How awful.

3) After 10 years of this stuff, it isn't hard for any rational, objective person to see that 90+% of the promised benefit is bullshit. Not only do I have to pay more for one of my eco-friendly, small displacement turbo engines, but in many cases, the real world benefit is negligible and for no performance increase. The new 2.0T is a good example. It is a good engine and I do really like it, but it doesn't soundly outperform the V6 it replaced in any one metric, and yet, it is more expensive and will have higher maintenance costs long term. It may also likely have a shorter effective lifespan. Don't forget that the V6 it can't really beat has been on the market for over 20 years now and was hitched to a transmission with 40% fewer gears.

4) I don't have a problem with the progress of technology, as long as the trajectory is natural and based on merit and some government pushed ideology that only works on paper, which is EXACTLY what the CAFE standards were.

5) They also were banking that they would be able to keep gas prices as high as possible which would have helped mask the reality of what they were trying to do.

NSXman
Profile for NSXman
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-16-2018 12:13
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
HondaForever wrote:
NSXman wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
NSXman wrote:

Also, why did Honda and GM balk? Could it be that they had plans on cornering the electric market in California? I highly doubt they balked because they were "offended".




The OEMs are not happy because they want a unified emissions regulatory environment to work in. It costs way more money to make a vehicle comply with two sets of regs, or as in the case of the administration- a 'whimsical' set of regs that can change depending on mood. What OEMS want more than anything else apparently (including potential cost save from not having to invest in emissions reudction) is simply a consistent and agreed upon set of rules to work from.



Maybe so, but I also believe they say a lot of PR things that they honestly don't care about or would be detrimental to their existence.



Such as?




The entire "even the lax standard goes too far for OEMs", as if they are huge environmentalists or something and this has impacted their tender corporate conscious.

They also talk a good game on US labor, not moving manufacturing to China, etc. All the while FCA intended to move production to China but told Mittens they weren't, and got away with it because they didn't "move" it there, they "started" a new car line there.

They know that stand to gain in the long term if the US and China negotiate better trade terms, but they take the EASY PR stance in nearly every controversial topic that is designed to get them the least blow back.

PR is PR, and unfortunately it is focus group tested nonsense much of the time.

CarPhreakD
Profile for CarPhreakD
Re: And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-17-2018 16:09
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Reading some of this gives me a headache.

I debated writing an essay on what I can decipher from the various rants (I hope you guys feel better now, getting all of those political thoughts and feelings off your chests), but I think the best summary I can give is that factually, an emissions rollback at this stage will not benefit either consumers or the OEMs.


 
Thread Page - [1]
Go to:
Contact TOV | Submit Your Article | Submit Your Link | Advertise | TOV Shop | Events | Our Sponsors | TOV Archives
Copyright © 2018 Velocitech Inc. All information contained herein remains the property of Velocitech Inc.
The Temple of VTEC is not affiliated with American Honda Motor Co., Inc. TOV Policies and Guidelines - Credits - Privacy Policy
29 mobile: 0