PDA

View Full Version : Donald Trump tells Detroit auto CEOs that environmental regulations are ‘out of control’




Anti Federalist
01-24-2017, 03:50 PM
Donald Trump tells Detroit auto CEOs that environmental regulations are ‘out of control’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2017/01/24/donald-trump-tells-detroit-auto-ceos-environmental-regulations-are-out-of-control/?utm_term=.d6c17e1d7bea

President Trump told leaders of the country’s largest automakers Tuesday that he will curtail “unnecessary” environmental regulations and make it easier to build plants in the U.S., changes that he expects will shore up the manufacturing jobs he repeatedly promised to voters on the campaign trail.

After weeks of taunting the automotive industry over Twitter, Trump made a point to meet with the CEOs of General Motors, Ford and Fiat Chrysler just days into his term. He has pressured the companies to build more vehicles in the U.S. and hire more Americans into manufacturing jobs.

“We have a very big push on to have auto plants and other plants, many other plants, you’re not being singled out … to have a lot of plants from a lot of different items built in the United States,” Trump told executives Tuesday. “It’s happening. It’s happening, bigly.”

Anti Federalist
01-24-2017, 03:52 PM
Couple of simple things that could be done right off the bat:

Rescind compliance mandates for Tier II and III emissions.

Rescind low sulfur diesel fuel requirements.

Drop the matching CARB restrictions for national compliance.

phill4paul
01-24-2017, 05:21 PM
Couple of simple things that could be done right off the bat:

Rescind compliance mandates for Tier II and III emissions.

Rescind low sulfur diesel fuel requirements.

Drop the matching CARB restrictions for national compliance.

All this. I really need to start a pro/con chart. Lol. Some of his things are really good and others not so much. I remain cautiously optimistic.

nobody's_hero
01-24-2017, 05:57 PM
All this. I really need to start a pro/con chart. Lol. Some of his things are really good and others not so much. I remain cautiously optimistic.

No kiddin'. Some things Trump couldn't be more wrong on, other things he does are improvements I thought would never happen. Gonna be a very love/hate relation over the next 4 years, but I'll take a victory on an issue when I can.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ7pEJ2r3oI

What we ought to do is lock Donald Trump in the oval office with Ron Paul until he gets it right on the rest of the issues, lol.

Anti Federalist
01-24-2017, 08:11 PM
Couple of simple things that could be done right off the bat:

Rescind compliance mandates for Tier II and III emissions.

Rescind low sulfur diesel fuel requirements.

Drop the matching CARB restrictions for national compliance.

Also:

Rescind light truck compliance mandates matching them to cars.

Rescind all compliance mandates for off road engines.

Doing this would reduce costs across the board by billions of dollars with no appreciable change in emission from Tier I standards.

The "low hanging fruit" has already been picked: since about 2000, emissions have been roughly 90 percent "clean".

The fatwas coming from EPA for Tier III compliance at the final end of the fatwa implementation in 2025 will not be able to be complied with given current technology.

The "cheating" that nearly bankrupted VW and led to insane amounts of waste, with perfectly good vehicles being taken off the road, was over three tenth of one percent.

You can buy a VW diesel Golf in Europe that easily gets 70-80 MPG for thousands less than a hybrid, that cannot match it's efficiency and has hundreds of pounds of toxic batteries carried around with it.

presence
01-24-2017, 08:19 PM
Some of his things are really good and others not so much. I remain cautiously optimistic.

I don't.

All he will do is adjust the height of the regulatory bar.

There should be no bar for uncle to adjust; no authority to place regulatory burdens upon the liberty of free men.

When the is a victim that victim should allege crime of theft or violence and that crime should be heard before peers in light of local circumstance.

Anything less; any statutory minimum or maximum no matter where in the spectrum it is set is an affront to freedom.

phill4paul
01-24-2017, 08:57 PM
I don't.

All he will do is adjust the height of the regulatory bar.

There should be no bar for uncle to adjust; no authority to place regulatory burdens upon the liberty of free men.

When the is a victim that victim should allege crime of theft or violence and that crime should be heard before peers in light of local circumstance.

Anything less; any statutory minimum or maximum no matter where in the spectrum it is set is an affront to freedom.

Well, no shit Sherlock. But, you takes what you can get. And at least it's a move in the right direction. Or at least a nod to it. It's not like anyone expects Trump to be Ron Paul. That's already been hashed out in the run up to the nomination and election.

presence
01-24-2017, 09:05 PM
Well, no $#@! Sherlock. But, you takes what you can get. And at least it's a move in the right direction. Or at least a nod to it. It's not like anyone expects Trump to be Ron Paul. That's already been hashed out in the run up to the nomination and election.

there is no right direction

there is either a bar or no bar

any bar is fucking someone on the shit end of the stick

Swordsmyth
01-26-2017, 07:29 PM
there is no right direction

there is either a bar or no bar

any bar is $#@!ing someone on the $#@! end of the stick

Less is closer to none than the same is. We got trump not Ron or Rand

the only other viable theory would have been to elect HRC and hope for a vomit reflex literal revolution. And I don't see that having a good outcome with the current state of national political education.

Anti Federalist
01-26-2017, 09:50 PM
there is no right direction

there is either a bar or no bar

any bar is fucking someone on the shit end of the stick

Yup that it is.

So I'll play the hand I'm dealt and see what we can do about reducing the number of people getting that shit end of the stick.

Anti Federalist
01-26-2017, 09:59 PM
Much Better Than: You’re Fired!

http://ericpetersautos.com/2017/01/26/much-better-youre-fired/

By eric - January 26, 2017

Trump has imposed a regulatory freeze and has threatened a hiring freeze – no new federal “workers” for now (and hopefully, some time to come).

No wonder the stock market is up.

America might just get back to work again.

Here’s another means toward that end that hopefully Trump will deploy: An executive order that henceforth, future regulations must pass a cost-benefit analysis and be subject to congressional approval before they could be imposed on the people who will bear the cost.

The EPA, for example, would have to demonstrate that whatever it proposes car buyers be saddled with in the form of new emissions equipment would result in a measurable benefit to real people – as opposed to moving decimals around “bins” and “tiers,” as as practice currently.

That, minimally, EPA bureaucrats would have to demonstrate – with facts, not conjecture – that failure to impose the proposed regulation would result in specific harms to actual people. As opposed to hypotheticals conjured by computer models or the mere say-so of EPA appartchiks.

Then Congress, in committee, could vote yea or nay.

Is this so outrageous… in a (ahem!) “democracy”?

Why shouldn’t the, er, people have a say?

Probably because it is a certainty that no regulation imposed (by fiat, without any accountability to the people of the country) by EPA over at least the past decade could pass muster.

It might be necessary to go back even farther, to the late 1980s.

That may well have been the last time EPA regulations – at least with respect to vehicle exhaust emissions – could have justified its fatwas, cost-benefit-wise.

Example: Three-way catalytic converters and oxygen sensors. You get a lot of bang for your buck. Double digit reductions in harmful stuff coming out of a car’s tailpipe. For a few hundred bucks per car. Arguably, worth it. This – along with the general adoption of basic electronic fuel injection systems in place of mechanical carburetors – is what cleaned up the air. Which has been clean – that is, safe to breathe, not opaqued by smog – for several decades.

Contra example: EPA insisting that further fractional reductions be achieved but which can only be achieved via very expensive -and very elaborate – direct injection and other such technology. Much spent, not much gained.

Worse, actually.

Because DI creates its own set of problems (crud build-up on engine internals). The engines so equipped tend to run dirtier, sooner – unless they are serviced. Which can be very expensive as it often requires partial disassembly of the engine to get at the crud. Which they often aren’t, because of the cost.

And Direct Injected engines may not last as long, either. See above in re crud and putting off expensive service, due to cost of service.

In which case, new engines will be required – maybe a new car to go around it, too. These do not spring forth from the Earth without “environmental” consequences. It takes heavy equipment, land rape, forges, assembly lines, smokestacks and all the rest to make them anew. How much do you suppose this produces in “emissions” vs. the fractional per car tailpipe reduction achieved by DI?

So, how about hearings?

If EPA bureaucrats think some new fatwa is in order – for instance, this business of categorizing the inert, non-reactive gas carbon dioxide an “emission” subject to regulation – why shouldn’t they be required to present their case to Congress? To prove that it is necessary else real harm will ensue? To the representatives of the people, who supposedly run the show but very obviously don’t?

Well?

Why not let the people – through their representatives – decide whether the proposed fatwa makes sense, after being presented with evidence. As opposed to being told they will obey – just because.
It’s not an unreasonable demand.

Trump could make it so. It is likely most of the public would support this – the remainder opposed being EPA apparatchiks incensed that their budgets might be threatened by an insistence that new regulations be justified on the merits as well as the economics.

It’s a crazy idea, I know.

But Trump is just the guy to try it on for size.