California And Federal Talks On National Fuel Economy Standard Run Out Of Gas17
The Trump administration announced last year that it would seek to freeze fuel economy and emissions standards at 2020 levels, effectively rolling back Obama administration-era regulations. One point of contention? California, which would no longer be able to set its own standards with the proposed changes.
Now, it appears negotiations between the state and federal government have run out of gas. Bloomberg reported Tuesday that sources familiar with the negotiations said the Trump administration never responded to a floated compromise package California negotiators floated last year. Discussions broke off around this past Christmas. Additionally, no further discussions are planned at this time.
The federal government’s proposal would cap fuel economy regulations at 2020 levels, around 37 mpg for a corporate average standard. Under current rules, fuel economy must rise to 47 mpg throughout the next decade. Automakers argued for the change and said the previous standards are out of touch with today’s market realities. When the Trump administration revealed its proposal, automakers quickly said it went too far.
However, General Motors, specifically, has said it fully backs the idea of one national fuel economy standard. Today, automakers must meet federal and California Air Resources Board standards. A handful of other states also follow California’s regulations, and the list is set to grow soon with the addition of Colorado’s adoption. The rules leave automakers with the headache of building cars to meet two sets of regulations and often leads to “compliance cars” to meet an electric-car quota.
The administration is said to be considering a proposal to implement more marginal fuel economy improvements after 2020, rather than outright freeze standards at next year’s levels.
- Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a 2023 Corvette Z06 Convertible. Details here.
what ann coulter said.
california should’ve sent the compromise in a bucket of kfc.
the auto companies can build all the vehicles to the higher calif. standards as nothing is preventing them from doing that.
Motorman beat me to it: they don’t *have* to face the “headache of building cars to meet two sets of regulations.” Manufacturers can certainly make all their vehicles meet the more stringent regulations. Don’t make it sound like it’s an extra burden from a production standpoint. It’s only more complicated if they decide it’s more profitable for them to make alternate versions to sell in states without the extra requirements.
great minds think alike !!
Problem is this is the United States, not a county of California. One state shouldn’t dictate what the other states do, no matter how many people live there.
Unless QAnon f’tards and their nonsensical propganda, ignorance and “isms” are your thing, I suggest any advertisers that may be considering dropping a penny in revenue at this website RUN not walk to another one and never look back. Lest you be associated with some of the stupidest comments and commenters on the net, like phoney baloney “Jim I” and “Rebecca” who can’t remember their screenames from fifteen minutes earlier. let alone save up the rubles to buy a bar of soap. (WE DON’T NEED YOUR IP ADDRESSES, YOUR STENCH GIVES YOU AWAY!) As the comments here won’t be moderated, unless it’s to preemptively shut the comments section down so as to not offend the new female staff member (who is doing a fine job, BTW)–because the webmaster knows just what a bunch of f’tards the community has become.
No, you’re just as bad as the Qanon troll.
Too far left and too far right are both too far from reality.
Riddle me this, Happy Pants, what have I ever said that isn’t true?
I never said what you said it was untrue. I’m implying that your suggestion is untenable, unrealistic, and unenforceable.
Advertisers will spend their money as they see fit, and GMA is a private news blog and can therefore exercise their own operational discretion as they see fit as well. With that privilege comes the ability to promote or censor as they see fit, and GMA does not need to bow or bend to any one person or organization if they don’t want to.
GMA doesn’t have to moderate comments if their staff doesn’t want to. They also don’t have to moderate comments that promote or demote comments that may be conflated or politically associated. Advertisers can also exercise their own discretion.
TL;DR: Mere mortals like you, the Qanon troll, and I, cannot make GMA comment section custom tailored to match your own personal political stripe.
Also, I’m unaware of any major GMA staff changes, so if you could inform me who she is, I’ll be that better informed.
The staff writer I was referring to is Michelle someone or other. I can’t remember her last name, nor most of other writers last names, but if I’m not mistaken I believe she came on a month or two ago.
My goal was not to scare off advertisers. But, in my mere mortal opinion, GMA can’t flourish as long as commenters who would celebrate its demise are allowed to spam the board with wildly inaccurate statements and offensive posts directed at women and minorities. And let’s not forget masquerading as others. Or constantly attacking the site’s writers. (Things I don’t recall ever doing myself, despite my “political stripe.”)
What’s I find personally upsetting is that many of my comments, including one I made yesterday referencing the black hole known as “awaiting moderation,” are apparently not fit for the site…
Outside of that, I don’t see how GMA or the community as a whole here benefits from the likes of you know who. Or should I say, what?
So yes, I am calling on GMA to start deleting spam posts and blocking those responsible for them before their behavior grows more out of hand. GMA is free to ignore my request(s) of course, just as you’re free to tell me I’m worse than those f’tards (ouch), but I fear at some point the stench these trolls are leaving may not wash off even the site’s reputation.
“So yes, I am calling on GMA to start deleting spam posts and blocking those responsible for them before their behavior grows more out of hand.”
Blunt censorship. Again, too far from reality.
Like I said, untenable, unrealistic, and unenforceable.
Censorship is a sword with a blade for a handle; it cuts both ways. What you might want censored of others for the benefit of the whole, someone might want censored of you for the benefit of the whole.
“just as you’re free to tell me I’m worse than those f’tards”
I never said you were worse than “those f’tards”. That’s an extrapolation on your part. I said you’re just as bad as the Qanon troll. You’re both equally too far from reality too be taken seriously.
It cuts both ways. Remember that.
What you’ve labeled “blunt censorship” is exactly the approach many sites take with ALL political discussion.
But that’s not what I’m advocating. Nor what you’ve quoted. What I referenced was “spam posts.” Perhaps you might call “comments” with only a link to a conspiracy website, or outright political propaganda completely unrelated to the story or topic at hand something other than spam, which is your prerogative. But it doesn’t change the fact that, day after day, the bulk of what these people post is completely unrelated to the topics at hand.
But let’s say you’re right, and that this moderating thing should not apply to posts such as those I just mentioned. I would think that at least the staff here would be immune to personal attacks… Are outlets with a zero tolerance policy towards such behavior taking things too far?
And if those sites with a zero tolerance policy towards such behavior are able to, like those sites banning political discussion of any kind, take it too far… how is it tenable, realistic, and enforceable for them, and not GMA?
I would ask if you know something about the ins and outs of the way this site is set up that you’re not sharing, but I’m still trying to figure out how simply calling out trollish behavior somehow makes me “too far to the left.” Without examples of where I’ve gone wrong in your eyes, and how your views differ, I can only assume that your views more closely align with those of the very topic of this discussion. If that’s the case, it makes you that much harder to be taken seriously.
You’re still backing yourself into a corner by making assumptions; that because I disagree with you that I must (MUST) be your polar political opposite.
It thinking like that that’ll get you into trouble.
I’m not defending your position, nor am I defending the trolls position.
Yes, it’s entirely possible to find both of your political positions untenable and indefensible if a site like GMA (and even myself) is to remain equable and even-handed. It means taking the bad with the good, and not cherry-picking to satisfy the minds of a few or to pad the egos of others.
Really, it’s that simple.
You’re free to paint me up however you like to make yourself happy, but if you’re doing it with rose-coloured glasses on, you’ll still be wrong when you reply to me.
You’re reading too much into my politics, which you know very little of. My problems with these posters–trolls as you yourself called them–has never lied with their politics. The trolls have the same political views as probably 70-90% of the posters here, yet I’ve never called for their posts to be censored. My beef lies with their conduct, plain and simple.
Your point about GMA being able to do as they see fit is clear.
Now….back to the original subject, fuel economy standards for a few, or, one for all?
I’m still trying to figure out what Trump has done good for the country? He is ruining the country, just ask any economist and the United States Government is a democracy, not an anarchy as someone in the White House want to run it that way. Does anyone know what vehicles Trump usually least before becoming President? What has he done for the US automakers and that includes BMW, Toyota, Honda, and Volkswagen that have plants in the USA. All he has done is increased the price if steel.
Then everyone complains and Trump is the big horn on this subject, why GM is closing plants. The people who voted for him are not buying the sedans, they are buying SUV’s and trucks. It takes about three years to plan and build a new product and the plant needs to be decided on very early in the process. These closing plants were not in that bad of a shape three years ago but Trump supporters continuenot buying sedans from Gm or Fords.