Trump Touts Decision To End California’s Ability To Set Its Own Emission Rules

Daily Caller News Foundation logo

From The Daily Caller

Chris White Tech Reporter

September 18, 2019 12:08 PM ET

President Donald Trump announced Wednesday his move to end California’s authority to craft emission regulations that are stricter than federal rules, a move that comes as the president continues to roll back Obama-era regulations.

Trump said removing a waiver will make vehicles safer and less expensive.

“The Trump Administration is revoking California’s Federal Waiver on emissions in order to produce far less expensive cars for the consumer, while at the same time making the cars substantially SAFER,” the president said on Twitter.

The Trump Administration is revoking California’s Federal Waiver on emissions in order to produce far less expensive cars for the consumer, while at the same time making the cars substantially SAFER. This will lead to more production because of this pricing and safety……

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 18, 2019

“This will lead to more production because of this pricing and safety … advantage, and also due to the fact that older, highly polluting cars, will be replaced by new, extremely environmentally friendly cars,” Trump wrote.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a Democrat who’s been a thorn in Trump’s hide, said the state will continue to fight such moves.

“While the White House clings to the past, automakers and American families embrace cleaner cars,” Becerra told reporters Tuesday, The New York Times reported. He noted that clean cars are “achievable, science-based, and a boon for hardworking American families and public health.”

Becerra has sued the administration more than 50 times since 2017. Much of the litigation is designed to hit Trump’s environmental rollbacks.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra speaks about President Trump's proposal to weaken national greenhouse gas emission and fuel efficiency regulations, at a media conference in Los Angeles, California, Aug. 2, 2018. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra speaks about President Trump’s proposal to weaken national greenhouse gas emission and fuel efficiency regulations, at a media conference in Los Angeles, Aug. 2, 2018. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson

Trump’s move comes after months of speculation. Neither the White House nor the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s requests for comment. (RELATED: California To Sue Trump For Nixing State’s Ability To Set Fuel Emission Standards)

The administration unveiled a draft plan in 2018 to roll back the federal fuel economy standards the Obama administration put in place. The draft included a plan to revoke a waiver given to California under the 1970 Clean Air Act, which allows it to set tougher state-level standards.

Former President Barack Obama raised the average fuel economy of automobiles to 54.5 mpg by 2025. California got permission from the Obama administration to issue its own, higher emissions standards.

The Trump administration, for its part, first proposed in 2018 freezing fuel economy standards at 37 mpg in 2020. The EPA and Department of Transportation estimated the freeze would save $500 billion in societal costs and prevent around 1,000 traffic fatalities a year.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joel Snider
September 18, 2019 2:10 pm

Okay – who would love to be a fly on the governor’s wall just to witness the hissy-fit?

Bryan A
Reply to  Joel Snider
September 18, 2019 7:35 pm

Not so sure the Federal Government has the right to overturn more stringent state rules and or regulations

10th Amendment Resolutions
In 2009–2010 thirty-eight states introduced resolutions to reaffirm the principles of sovereignty under the Constitution and the 10th Amendment; 14 states have passed the resolutions. These non-binding resolutions, often called “state sovereignty resolutions” do not carry the force of law. Instead, they are intended to be a statement to demand that the federal government halt its practices of assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution

Reply to  Bryan A
September 18, 2019 9:41 pm

The Constitution is clear and courts have upheld that states cannot impose more stringent restrictions on the rights of citizens than allowed by the Constitution. Federal law overrules state law where the Constitution addresses a topic or a right. California has operated on a WAIVER for all these years. It is time to rescind that waiver and come into compliance with the Constitution and federal law. California citizens should not be treated like second class citizens by third world politicians.

Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
September 19, 2019 3:04 am

That’s a very good line – California residents are treated like second class citizens by third world politicians. That’s what leftist politicians are or aspire to be – tyrants, like the socialist/communist/dictator bus driver of Venezuela.

Bryan A
Reply to  KilgoreHoover
September 19, 2019 6:25 am

Agreed…makes a good sound bite for a campaign poster.

Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
September 19, 2019 4:40 pm

” States cannot impose more stringent restrictions on the rights of citizens than allowed by the Constitution. ”
Californias right is in the federal EPA law
“(b) Waiver
(1) The Administrator shall, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, waive application of this section to any State which has adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966, if the State determines that the State standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards. No such waiver shall be granted if the Administrator finds that—
(A) the determination of the State is arbitrary and capricious,
(B) such State does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or
(C) such State standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 7521(a) of this title.

Thats means a state cant have lesser standards, which California doesnt

As for those who wish to drive into California, this doesnt stop them as it doesnt stop people in California buying old cars which arent compliant with any future standard unless its an annual exhaust compliance check
The higher emission rule is only for SELLING new cars in California

Reply to  Duker
September 20, 2019 10:49 am

Well, your point is a distinction without a difference. They were granted a waiver, without which, they would have had to follow the Federal standard. It may be moot if President Trump rescinds the waiver, which is LONG overdue. There are better ways to solve California’s problems without forcing their solutions on the rest of the country, where they don’t apply.

Reply to  Duker
September 20, 2019 8:00 pm

So it appears the waiver should not have been granted under either (A) or (B) and probably (C). And I see nothing to prevent the Administration from saying you (may have) needed a waiver when it was granted but you no longer need it.

Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
September 19, 2019 5:12 pm

The Federal EPA law already allows California to have a stricter standards , so its not a case of Federal and state law in conflict in the way you say.
Nor is the waiver an administrative only rule , its written into the EPA law-42 U.S. Code § 7543
It only applies to new vehicles

Reply to  Duker
September 20, 2019 10:52 am

Call it what you want, it is a waiver to a law, and the waiver can be rescinded….which it should be.

Reply to  Bryan A
September 18, 2019 9:47 pm

Regulation of Interstate Commerce in the Constitution being given to the Federal Gov. would seem to me to work against individual state mandates but I’m not an expert on the Constitution.

John Endicott
Reply to  Bryan A
September 19, 2019 4:56 am

Bryan A, if your interpretation was correct (it’s not), why has California needed a WAIVER from the feds all these years in order to have more stringent environmental regs? Hmmm? according to your interpretation they can do whatever they want, the feds be damned, so no WAIVER would be required, but in the real world, they’ve been operating under a WAIVER all this time.

Don Jindra
Reply to  Bryan A
September 19, 2019 5:04 am

If cities can ban straws, states can certainly set standards for the cars sold in their states. Issues like this show how hypocritical people are. For decades Republicans have been paying lip-service to states rights. They consistently claim government works best when it’s taken care of locally. Yet when some locality defies a pet project, they side with federal control. Trump is exposing something I’ve known for years. Republicans stand for even less than Democrats do.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Don Jindra
September 19, 2019 7:41 am

I advocate for state rights but not the political dictatorships that have evolve by the manufacturing of ignorance in our public school factories in these blue states.

Officious bureaucrats who think they are saving the planet by banning straws need supervision from the adults.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Don Jindra
September 19, 2019 8:00 am

Allowing California to set/establish its own Emission Rules is in effect, …. de facto declaring that California can set/establish the vehicle Emission Rules for all 50 states ….. simply because auto manufacturers can not afford to produce two (2) different versions of every type and model, …… one for California and one for the other 49 states. (Thus, I think, all current vehicle production is “California compliant”)

And the fact that it would surely be illegal to drive said “out-of-state” non-compliant vehicle into California.

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
September 19, 2019 5:18 pm

Only applies to the selling of new cars. Existing cars or those ‘driven’ from interstate are covered.
Car manufactures have multiple engines and various levels of ‘tune’ for different countries anyway. Having a California tune and say a Texas tune isnt a problem as its in the engine computer management software. Maybe a few high powered engines for ‘sports’ models arent sold in California but available elsewhere, say 4 and 6 cylinder Mustangs for CA but the extra HP V8 model only for states that have only the federal standard.

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
September 19, 2019 9:12 pm

Interestingly CA was sued twice for the same unconstitutional activity. In dust bowl era CA tried to prevent Okies fr entering CA. Supreme Court ruled a state can’t prevent US citizens from moving in. Some 60 years later CA charged $500 to intraUS immigrants for every out of state car that was brought in under the guise of pollution control. This was deemed illegal for the same reason and CA had to pay the money back. But sneakily CA only gave money back if you could prove payment and applied for the refund – instead of just refunding the cash.

David Brewer
Reply to  Don Jindra
September 19, 2019 8:09 am

Except that isn’t what’s happening here. Revoking the waiver is a matter of interstate commerce not State’s rights. If I can’t drive my truck into California because it doesn’t meet their emission standards that detriments my ability to “trade” with California. Hence interstate commerce and that IS the job of the Federal government. Sorry.

Don Jindra
Reply to  David Brewer
September 19, 2019 5:05 pm

David Brewer, yes that is what’s happening here. Republicans are rejecting states rights. They never believed their own rhetoric. The claim that it’s about interstate commerce is false. There is nothing to keep car companies from selling different cars to different states. Besides, Texas sure doesn’t have a problem throwing it weight around in the textbook industry.

Trump might delude himself into thinking he’s a dictator, but he isn’t. One way or another a state will get its way on issues like this. States have the right to tax. California will simply tax to extinction vehicles it doesn’t want.

Reply to  David Brewer
September 19, 2019 6:23 pm

David Brewer, that’s not how it works. Only cars sold and registered in CA are required to follow emissions rules for CA. Cars registered out of state are only required to follow their own states’ rules. People don’t go through emissions tests when crossing state line into CA. There is no interstate commerce issue

Reply to  Nope
September 20, 2019 11:00 am

Read what you wrote. So a car MANUFACTURED in MICHIGAN and SOLD in CALIFORNIA that must meet the California WAIVER is not an example of affecting INTERSTATE COMMERCE?

Don Jindra
Reply to  David Brewer
September 20, 2019 11:41 am

“So a car MANUFACTURED in MICHIGAN and SOLD in CALIFORNIA that must meet the California WAIVER is not an example of affecting INTERSTATE COMMERCE?”

No. It isn’t. A car manufactured in California is under the same restrictions. What you seem to be saying is this: Companies in Michigan get a free pass to ignore laws in other states. It doesn’t work that way for teacher, lawyers, doctors, hunting licenses, or anything else. Why do you suppose car manufacturers should get an exemption?

Reply to  Don Jindra
September 20, 2019 12:10 pm

No. It isn’t. A car manufactured in California is under the same restrictions. What you seem to be saying is this: Companies in Michigan get a free pass to ignore laws in other states. It doesn’t work that way for teacher, lawyers, doctors, hunting licenses, or anything else. Why do you suppose car manufacturers should get an exemption?

You keep digging your hole deeper. Cars manufactured in MICHIGAN do NOT have to meet ANY standards other than FEDERAL standards to be sold in all other 49 states, so forcing them to manufacture cars to the California standard to be sold in California is an undue burden to interstate commerce. That is pretty clear.

Are you further saying that California does not have to recognize diplomas issued to teachers, law school graduates, medical school graduates, etc., from colleges outside of California? Are they required to re-attend all courses at California universities and law and medical schools in order to apply for licenses in California? How about DRIVER’s LICENSES issued by other states? Last time I was there, they recognized MY license, and it was from another state.

Reply to  Don Jindra
September 19, 2019 9:04 am


Yeah, why not let California ban any color car except white! That way, we could reduce UHI and run the AC less and increase mileage and…..?

The California pandering by the previous administration is coming home roost. The state CAFE requirement and wish to save the planet and reduce their local pollution has consequences for the rest we folks that also want clean air, but do not have their problems . They are forcing ( dictating) auto manufacturers to make many vehicles that cost more than one that gets just a few mpg less. To get 1% more mileage does not mean 1% higher production cost or purchase price. It is like turning your thermostat a degree higher when you are already close to your system ‘s capability. So to avoid special cars for Californians, the rest of us must pay. The auto folks have thus far caved, and tried-to appease the whackos.

Hell, they should set up a plant in Sacramento to make wonderful, white electric cars and let the rest of us buy our blue or red Tacoma’s. If the Californians want to pay $100,000 for their vehicles, let freedom reign! And let the rest if us to our own devices and choices.

Gums sends….

Reply to  Gums
September 19, 2019 11:18 am

“ban any color car except white”

And that would increase the albedo of the planet and stop global warming.

You’ve cracked it!

Reply to  Don Jindra
September 19, 2019 9:30 am

The Constitution is silent on “straws,” so regulation of “straws” is retained by the states and the people. Interstate Commerce is specifically addressed in the Constitution, and authority to regulate it is under the authority of the Federal Government.

Don Jindra
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
September 19, 2019 5:14 pm

The Constitution is silent on cars. So regulation of cars is retained by states and the people.

Interstate commerce is not an issue here. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a particular product has to be sold. States have a history of ban products. You still can’t buy alcohol in some areas. Regardless, states do have a constitutional right to tax. If California wants to tax certain cars so heavily as to make them unmarketable, it’s free to do so. And that’s what will happen. Trump can’t win on this issue.

Reply to  Don Jindra
September 20, 2019 10:55 am

I’ll simply say you are wrong. The Constitution addresses interstate commerce whatever the vehicle used, so it does certainly affect interstate commerce; otherwise, no waiver would have been needed since the underlying FEDERAL law applies to ALL 50 STATES.

Don Jindra
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
September 20, 2019 12:01 pm

“no waiver would have been needed since the underlying FEDERAL law applies to ALL 50 STATES.”

Just because the feds gave a waiver, it doesn’t mean it was ever required. This will be decided in the courts where it should have been years ago.

Reply to  Don Jindra
September 20, 2019 12:23 pm

Just because the feds gave a waiver, it doesn’t mean it was ever required.

Really? Then why was it issued? Answer: to allow California to impose stricter standards than were allowed by the federal law. Otherwise, those stricter standards would have been illegal and would have been thrown out at the first law suit.

Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
September 20, 2019 8:32 pm

@Don Jindra September 19, 2019 at 5:14 pm

Stop it already. It has already been pointed out this IS interstate commerce. It would not be interstate commerce only if it involves a product that is manufactured in CA for sale only in CA to be bought only by people who reside in CA. All other situations are interstate commerce as defined by case law out of the Supreme Court (and also by Supreme Court cases, sometimes is even in the situation I described, but that’s a whole nuther argument), even if that’s not the way the Founding Fathers meant it. The Interstate Commerce Clause was written primarily to stop a state from levying tariffs on things made in other states and sold in their state, but also to forestall manufacturers who wished to sell in other states having to make (13 originally, now) 50 different versions. Give it a rest already.

Janice Moore
September 18, 2019 2:11 pm

Hooray for data-driven policy! 🙂



Gary Pearse
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 18, 2019 2:48 pm

Gee Janice. Hadn’t heard from you in a long time. Is it something I said? 🤐

Janice Moore
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 18, 2019 3:33 pm

Hi, Gary,

I miss hanging out here. Miss many people here…

The marked lukewarm atmosphere since about 2016 (along with the always-into-moderation comment delay and the inability to post images or videos) keeps me away.

No, it certainly wasn’t you, Mr. Pearse. As I told Scott W. Bennett the other day, it is, rather, those who influence WUWT and who benefit (whether from selling climate/weather information or selling temperature “data,” or “carbon storage” (batteries for vehicles or from some career or other benefit) from the perpetuation of misinformation about CO2. They have turned WUWT into a lukewarm swamp. They need the “controversy” to continue. Resoundingly refuting AGW/CAGW (if you prefer) would mean some of their benefits would be gone or significantly reduced.

A recent example of this was in the unfair treatment of Dr. Pat Frank’s paper re: propagation of error in climate simulation code. Afte his initial presentation of his paper on WUWT, at least two articles attempting to discredit his results were published with NO publication on WUWT (much less a timely opportunity to be heard) of his answers to his detractor’s assertions. A commenter did publish Dr. Frank’s response in his or her comment, but, that is hardly the same thing as WUWT giving Dr. Frank a fair hearing.

The commenters are doing a VALIANT job of getting data and facts about CO2, etc. out there. WUWT itself is, sadly, actively promoting AGW to a degree. And that is so disgusting to me that I only show up once in awhile.

Notice and reasonable (i.e., full and timely) opportunity to be heard. Those are the foundations of the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. WUWT doesn’t have to follow them, of course. Sad.

WUWT didn’t present both sides there. WUWT took a side (that of the AGW lukewarmists) and made sure that Dr. Frank’s did not get a fair hearing.

Thanks for “listening,” Gary. Won’t do any good (hasn’t so far, since I’ve made comments like the above for over 3 years, now…), but, it helps me to cope.

And, THANK YOU for taking the time to acknowledge me. Much appreciated.

Take care, back (and up) there,

Janice Who Has Not Forgotten Any of You…

P.S. Also, my living circumstances are still very hard and make it difficult to spend much time online. I made it through last winter, though 🙂 . Guess I’ll make it through another one 🙂

Joel Snider
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 18, 2019 3:59 pm

I, for one, always appreciated your contribution.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Joel Snider
September 18, 2019 5:54 pm

Thank you, Mr. Snider. 🙂

Reply to  Janice Moore
September 18, 2019 4:05 pm

And Janice comes back in a flurry, love it.

Janice Moore
Reply to  u.k.(us)
September 18, 2019 5:56 pm

Hi, James. Heh. 🙂

Reply to  Janice Moore
September 18, 2019 4:14 pm

Caesars don’t fear the reaper….

Reply to  u.k.(us)
September 18, 2019 6:43 pm

More Cowbell!!!!!🤣🤣🤣😃

Reply to  Janice Moore
September 18, 2019 10:07 pm

+100 Agree

Reply to  Janice Moore
September 19, 2019 4:36 am

Always a pleasure to hear from you, Janice Moore.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Alexander Feht
September 19, 2019 10:19 am

Thank you for saying so, Alexander. 🙂

I hope your musical endeavors are giving you much joy, these days.

Take care.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 19, 2019 11:51 am

Janice Moore,

I am a shadow of my past self but am struggling through the mists of my pain relief to regain some contact with here. Past experience tells me that such contact would be enhanced by your comments, hence I suspect many people would welcome your comments here.


Janice Moore
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
September 19, 2019 7:45 pm


How good, how very good, to hear from you.

I am so glad to know that you are still here, still on earth. You may not feel like picking up your sharp, skillfully wielded, sword and battling for truth as you have so mightily in years past, but just knowing our valiant team member is still with us is heartening.

I’m sorry you have the need for medication, but glad you are managing the pain.

I have been a bit less faithful in my praying for you of late (never “seeing” you, I thought perhaps that you were beyond the need of my prayers, pain free, finally Home), but now you will be prayed for as before (often).

Ah, Richard. Someday… someday we shall both be out of all this… It will be good to meet you 🙂 And (wink) you will finally get to shake Margaret Thatcher’s hand, too.

Thank you for the encouragement to show up here. It really is a wonderful bunch of caring, intelligent, well-informed, people who gather in this now-lukewarm swamp. Even a swamp is bearable with those you love…

My living situation makes going online difficult, but, I will try to stop by more often. I really have missed… so many…

Take care.

Your friend and ally,


Peter Morris
September 18, 2019 2:23 pm

Finally. It’s really not been fair that for thirty years now California has been flagrantly driving up prices for automobiles with unreasonable demands.

Their air was clean by the mid-80s. EFI saw dramatic increases in fuel economy and reliability.

This has been about California trying to dictate to the other 49 states what we can and can’t do, and I’m sick of it.

Dr Deanster
Reply to  Peter Morris
September 18, 2019 5:55 pm

Seems to me the answer was just ignore California. Build cars to federal standards. If that’s not good enough for ya …. then don’t let anyone buy cars in California. See how well that works out for em.

Reply to  Dr Deanster
September 18, 2019 9:51 pm

Dr Deanster,

I really can’t express how much I think your idea is great!

Dennis G Sandberg
September 18, 2019 2:27 pm

The 1970 Clean air and water act was a great thing. But there are technological limits. Equivalent transportation vehicles today get twice the mileage cars did in 1970, but that doesn’t mean cars in 2050 should be expected to get twice the mileage that 2020 cars do. Virtue signaling states, led by California, can do a lot of economic damage with their foolishness. California is such a large market for automobiles that they force manufacturers to meet their standard for all vehicles. Separate production runes aren’t economical.

“The standard California and the Obama Administration had agreed to requires cars, trucks and sport utility vehicles to average 36 miles per gallon by 2025. The Trump administration proposes to freeze the standards at the 2020 year model year, cutting about six miles per gallon from the original goal”.

Thank You Mr. President for your bold and sensible action.

Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
September 18, 2019 2:53 pm

You do realize that the regulations for cleaner auto exhaust caused the car exhaust emit co2 instead of carbon monoxide. This is the gas that will cause the end of mankind. What a joke!
I don’t buy the notion the clean air act was so great.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Paul
September 18, 2019 4:55 pm

Paul, places like Houston and LA disagree.

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
September 19, 2019 10:12 am

Let them take car of their problems

Reply to  Paul
September 18, 2019 5:44 pm

I was reminded how bad it used to be when we went to a restaurant on Woodward Av, Detroit while an old car rally roared up and down the road. No wind, summer night, choking fumes, runny nose, sore eyes. Reminder of the good old days. Whether you buy AGW or not, there was ample reason to boost economy, clean the air, extend rather than squander resources, make the Arabs wealthy with our treasure. These are reasonable, good engineering goals, self supporting.

Lee l
Reply to  Mark
September 19, 2019 12:17 am

Meanwhile…work is ongoing to make China rich with your treasure.
Question: where are most subsidized solar panels made?

Reply to  Mark
September 19, 2019 8:44 am

There is only so much that can be done in the engine itself for either direct emissions reduction and/or fuel efficiencies. We are well past the limits on both of those. At this point, the only way to drive further efficiency/emissions gains is to make cars smaller and lighter so that smaller engines can be used. The problem is that this necessarily makes cars less useful and less safe.

One (and only one) of the US auto manufacturers managed to get through the great recession without taking any government bailout money, that company is Ford. It should be telling that Ford is moving away from producing cars and concentrating on the truck market.

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  Paul
September 18, 2019 7:28 pm

My first exposure to LA was in 1972, when I helped a cousin of mine drive her car (an MGB-GT, IIRC) from Connecticut to Los Angeles. We arrived very late at night, though I remember passing one of the rest stops on the I-10 out in the Inland Empire. The next morning, I had a flight back home out of LAX. All I remember was not being able to see a thing, even though it was daylight. Visibility was maybe 1,000 feet, all due to smog.

In 1980, I moved to San Bernardino to start work at TRW Ballistic Missiles Division. When my plane landed at Ontario, CA, I was once again struck by the fact that I couldn’t see a thing. There were no jetways at Ontario back then, so we debarked by portable stairs. The terminal was perhaps 100 feet away. I couldn’t see it until I was halfway there.

Part of that was due to the fact that Sou Cal was engulfed in wildfires at the time. The Panorama Fire lit up all of the mountains north of San Berdoo during November, and was the biggest fire I think they’ve ever had. But smog was an endemic problem.

Then, at the end of 1983, a step change occurred. The air suddenly got cleaner. The planet began to heal. The sea levels…oh, shoot, I got carried away. The air did get cleaner.

Kaiser Steel in Fontana shut down in December of 1983. And the enormous coke ovens, which, despite valiant attempts by Kaiser, could never be sealed against emitting tons of sulfur-laden hydrocarbons into the air, were finally laid to rest.

That one event almost eliminated smog from Southern California. Auto emissions standards had a minor effect beyond that. When I finally fled Sou Cal in 2008, the air was pretty pristine, despite a five-fold population increase from when I had arrived.

JimH in CA
Reply to  Paul
September 19, 2019 9:33 am

I worked in the San Fernando Valley in the 70’s and the ‘brown-yellow’ smog was awful. I drove in from Thousand oaks and when coming over the grade into the valley, you could see the brown-yellow haze and smelled it as I descended into it. By the end of the work day, it felt like I has asthma, it hurt.

I was driving a 67 dodge and when I moved to CA it had to have an emissions check. The ‘unburned hydrocarbons was 600 ppm. My ’75 Dodge van was over 400 ppm. Both got 16-18 mpg.
My current ’08 Chevy tests at 3-4 HC, so is 200x cleaner than in the 70’s, and gets 30+ mpg.
The waiver was needed then, but by the 90’s the LA air was very clear, and is no longer needed.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
September 18, 2019 3:34 pm

“The 1970 Clean air and water act was a great thing.” Sure, but the EPA implementation of it was a pile of horse dung. I was in a job at the time that required spending about 3/4s of my time traveling. By 1972-73 you were lucky to get an Avis that would make it across the sidewalk and into the street, much less run half decent for a day or two. The idiots at EPA set the emissions regulations so that the only way Detroit could meet them was to burn twice as much gas per mile. Didn’t make a lot of sense to me… I was just a dumb old engineer from North Caroline. I think that was before catalytic converters started forest fires if you happened to parked in grassy areas… another great move.

Reply to  Joe Crawford
September 19, 2019 5:21 pm

The reverse is true…higher MPG are mandated and are included in the California standard.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Duker
September 20, 2019 9:43 am

Wow… Only took ’em about 45 years to get it straight :<)

Robert Terrell
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
September 18, 2019 6:38 pm

MUCH, if not MOST, of the gains in fuel economy have been achieved by making cars smaller, lighter and more dangerous! There is so much plastic in cars today, compared to 1970 and before! If you have the misfortune of crashing your car into another car or a sign post, there won’t be enough of it left to repair! THIS is the reason that cars are selling for over $20,000 compared to just a few years ago! If we make the cars any lighter and cheaper, then maybe we can get 50 MPG!? Some of those tiny cars we all laugh at today are like caskets; all they need is some handles on the sides! By following Obama’s rules they will soon be the ‘normal’ or ‘average’ automobile! It’s tie to end this insanity and I applaud President Trump for having the gumption to put an end to it!

Joel O'Bryan
September 18, 2019 2:31 pm

So what’s the Big Deal Mr Becerra?
So you won’t be able to dictate emissions control measures on new ICE vehicles.
Fossil fuel burning vehicles are evil according to your climate religion. And many Cal cities already are trying to shake-down sue petroleum companies for “climate damage” from their products sold there. Just ban selling the fuels then in your state if you think the product is going to end life on this planet as you claim..
California can still mandate the ICE vehicles no longer be sold there, and then force residents go to EVs by some date. See how that goes over with voters.

Larry Hamlin
September 18, 2019 2:36 pm

Great move by the Trump Administration. Exposes the pure politically driven “hate Trump” garbage being hyped by California’s out of touch with reality politicians. What a bunch of clowns.

Reply to  Larry Hamlin
September 18, 2019 3:59 pm

Out of touch with reality indeed.

While the White House clings to the past, automakers and American families embrace cleaner cars, …

That, of course, explains why 75% of the cars on the road are electric and the other 25% are hybrid.

John Dilks
Reply to  commieBob
September 18, 2019 5:18 pm

If that wasn’t sarcasm, it was a stupid statement. Around here, you would have to search far and wide to find an electric car. There are a few Prius Hybrids, I drive one of them. I didn’t get it to save the planet. I got it for the fuel economy. Most vehicles that I see are F150s, Silverados, SUVs and old Cadillacs.

Reply to  John Dilks
September 18, 2019 11:23 pm

CommieBob is pretty clear-headed, if you’ve read any of his previous comments. He was being very sarcastic.

Despite the weather being great for an electric car, there are still relatively few of them on the streets of LA. That is why Kalifornia takes your taxes and pays rich people to buy them after the Fed dollars ran out.

Robert Terrell
Reply to  commieBob
September 18, 2019 6:39 pm

MUCH, if not MOST, of the gains in fuel economy have been achieved by making cars smaller, lighter and more dangerous! There is so much plastic in cars today, compared to 1970 and before! If you have the misfortune of crashing your car into another car or a sign post, there won’t be enough of it left to repair! THIS is the reason that cars are selling for over $20,000 compared to just a few years ago! If we make the cars any lighter and cheaper, then maybe we can get 50 MPG!? Some of those tiny cars we all laugh at today are like caskets; all they need is some handles on the sides! By following Obama’s rules they will soon be the ‘normal’ or ‘average’ automobile! It’s tie to end this insanity and I applaud President Trump for having the gumption to put an end to it!

Robert Terrell
Reply to  commieBob
September 18, 2019 6:43 pm

You, sir, appear to be ‘out of touch with reality’. In my part of the world (the MidWest) we have nowhere NEAR 75% of the cars on the road running on electric! As for hybrids, perhaps 5-10% of the cars are hybrids. The vast majority are all gasoline powered and running very nicely, too, thank you.

Reply to  Robert Terrell
September 18, 2019 7:32 pm

Let me guess, your sarcasm meter is in the shop this week?

Reply to  MarkW
September 19, 2019 11:52 am


John Endicott
Reply to  Robert Terrell
September 19, 2019 5:03 am

Robert, I suggest you re-read commieBob’s comment with a mental /sarc tag around it, it’ll make much more sense to you (assuming, of course, that you are not totally sarcastically impaired).

Reply to  commieBob
September 18, 2019 6:56 pm

What a demagogic dolt is our AG (and just about every CA politician). There is nothing “unclean” about CO2. They use this “clean” moniker to scare the “sheeple” into thinking it’s real pollution as in the past. Sigh!

September 18, 2019 2:55 pm

Some of the ways car companies conform to the CAFE standards are ridiculous. I looked at new cars a while back that didn’t have spare tires in order to reduce weight to get better gas mileage. All that they came with was a can of tire seal.

Reply to  icisil
September 18, 2019 4:18 pm

That reminds me of the hotels that ask you not to have your towels laundered … to protect the environment.

My WAG is that the cans of tire sealant cost a quarter of the cost of the spare tire. So, it’s the same thing. Pretend you’re protecting the environment while actually just cutting costs.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  commieBob
September 18, 2019 4:41 pm

Going to a run-flat tire with sealant is to get the weight down for mileage. I’m not so sure the cost is lower. The auto companies have a delicate balancing act trying to keep weight down, crash-worthiness up and cost down.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
September 18, 2019 6:44 pm

Auto makers employ very clever people to design their cars. When I worked for Honda in Swindon, UK, in the 90’s, Honda released a new Civic that was IIRC 100kgs lighter than the previous model by using steel that was 0.1mm thinner (0.9mm rather than 1mm) on the structural body parts, but were just as strong in crash testing. These parts were just formed differently with the thinner steel but retained their strength. Interesting stuff.

Other stuff I don’t agree with such as space saver spares. I much prefer a full size spare. The number of people I see driving with a space saver fitted at full highway speeds here in Australia is ridiculous.

I like run flat tyres too, many don’t, but I can vouch for their worth. I had a tyre go while driving at 100mph in the UK once. Barely noticed any difference until I stopped.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Patrick MJD
September 18, 2019 11:00 pm

The Top Gear team did a comparison test several years back with space saver tyres! They were great, no question! The only drawback was, as was demonstrated, was where toput the defective tyre, didn’t fit in the boot/trunk, only space was on the back seat, a dirty dusty rubbery black thing messing up the back seats! Give me the old fashioned traditional spare tyre anytime!

Reply to  Patrick MJD
September 19, 2019 6:52 am

I leaned on the wing of my Jap spec Lexus while changing a tyre and left a handprint in the steel. That tought me a lesson.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
September 19, 2019 12:08 pm

Patrick MJD

From experience, using the manufacturer supplied foam sealant in a punctured tyre renders it a write off when having it repaired. The ‘chain’ tyre retailers simply use it as an excuse to sell a new tyre instead of repairing a punctured one.

‘Run flats’ are good, but fail the test of fuel consumption, noise and mileage.

In 40 years of motorway driving at 100mph in the UK I have yet to have a tyre fail. It seems you were unlucky.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  icisil
September 18, 2019 10:45 pm

I own one of those cares icisil. The other thing they do is make cars with engines that shut off every time the vehicle comes to a stop so you don’t waste gas idling at a red light. It just shows you that the car manufacturers are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to squeeze another half mile out of a gallon of gas. The problem here in California is that the politicians don’t realize you can’t legislate the laws of physics. Einstein’s most famous equation gave us the ablility to calculate exactly how much energy there is in a gallon of regular. If you want to move a certain weight, at a certain speed, for a certain distance, in an engine with a certain level of efficiency, you can calculate exactly how much gas that will take, and no laws handed down from the Governor’s office will change that.

Gunga Din
September 18, 2019 3:06 pm

At first, I was a bit leery of this. The the USEPA sets the standards and it’s up to the States’ to develop regs and methods to meet those regs.
Then I got to the part where California was granted a waiver by Obama to go way beyond those standards.
Not leery anymore.
I’m tired of buying something with that little “WARNING: The State of California has determined that the birth of this child will eventually result in death.”
Obama’s USEPA followed California’s lead.

Reply to  Gunga Din
September 18, 2019 4:08 pm

The trouble with environmental regulations is that there’s no well defined stopping point. Such regulations breed like rabbits. At some point each new regulation becomes a net cost to society.

Reply to  commieBob
September 18, 2019 7:35 pm

The inviolable law of diminishing returns.

old engineer
Reply to  Gunga Din
September 18, 2019 9:38 pm

There are several comments confusing fuel economy standards with emission standards. It was a while ago, and my memory isn’t what it used to be, but as I recall it was in the late ’70’s that the EPA gave California a waiver to set tighter emission standards than the Federal standards that applied to all states.

This actually worked out very well for a while. The Los Angeles area in particular, needed stricter standards. The waiver allowed California to ratchet down the standards sooner than the rest of the county, and gave the auto makers a place to try out new technology in the real world before having to use it for the whole country. Now the current Federal automotive emission standards are adequate to obtain clean air in all parts of the country, so a separate California standard is not needed.

While the fuel economy numbers are obtained from the EPA vehicle emission test, the fuel economy standards are set separately from the emission standards. And if I recall correctly, that while the EPA reports the fuel economy values, they don’t set the fuel economy standards.

Reply to  Gunga Din
September 19, 2019 5:08 pm

Waiver wasnt granted originally by Obama, it was Reagan . The California air quality standard existed before EPA, so the EPA legislation is written around Californias separate standard and specifies the Administrator shall grant a waiver

September 18, 2019 3:16 pm

Gee, this Donald Trump guy should run for president. Oh, he already did and is President! Never mind.

September 18, 2019 3:23 pm

Cars are inherently safe, ya just gotta avoid those immovable objects, even more so, those piles of kinetic energy coming the other way.
Just ditch it.

September 18, 2019 4:06 pm

Great start. Lets get rid of the Department of Education next. The Department of Energy after that. The Department of Homeland Security soon thereafter. A lot of the State Department can save us money if they went too. Maybe the UN would be happier in Brussels and that lot could become a moneymaker for some sharp developer not to mention a source of property tax revenue.

Reply to  dmurray
September 18, 2019 4:33 pm

I would rather send the U.N. to Mogadishu or Accra.

Rhoda R
Reply to  RayG
September 18, 2019 10:57 pm

I don’t care where it goes so long as it isn’t here.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  RayG
September 19, 2019 7:41 am

Send it to Ouagadougou, the capital of Burkina Faso. That was about as far as the State Department could send you if you screwed up anywhere else.

September 18, 2019 4:11 pm

I hope California is forced to defend the fake science claimed to support their position when they defend the frivolous law suit they will file whose goal is to preserve the ability to disadvantage their own residents for the purpose of virtue signaling.

Jack Roth
Reply to  co2isnotevil
September 22, 2019 5:11 am

They will go to the 9th Court, as usual, where no reality or facts are needed. However one of the many good things that would happen if Trump is Re-elected is that he will have an opportunity to appoint enough judges to the 9th to make it almost rational. Obama admin left the Trump admin an unusual number of judicial vacancies to fill, even on the 9th.

September 18, 2019 4:12 pm

Re. car standards, the design of a motor vehicle is as with most things a

So you want a greater mileage per gallon or litre. Make the car lighter, by
using thinner steel. But then when as sadly happens, a impact from another
vehicle occurs, your lighter car with you and yours in it fares far worse than a heavier vehicle.

So much of this goes back to the Oil Shock of the 1970 tees, plus now its the Greenies pushing as always for less of this or that to give them a warm inner glow, and to hell with everyone else.

You can of course drive a little slower, but unless the highway has a slow lane
built in, that can cause both annoyance and as a result of that, Road Rage.

As for a big State population wise , setting its own standards, that’s crazy, but
again its the Warm Inner Glow syndrome.


Jack Roth
Reply to  Michael
September 22, 2019 5:18 am

Driving slowly really doesn’t make much of a difference in terms Of potential damage. Once I was turning right into a parking lot at 2mph, maybe less. I was right behind an old Ford Ranger which was als turning ahead of me. Halfway through his turn however the Ranger driver slammed on the brakes suddenly because the driver thought a pedestrian was going to cross in front of him. I was only a second slower, and the corner of my new Ford Fusion hit the bumper of the old Ranger at less than walking speed. The entire corner of my Fusion was crushed. The metal bumper of the Ranger didn’t even have a little scratch. My damage included the lights, the front grille, the right quarter panel, it looked horrible. Damage to my car was thousands of dollars. No speed required

September 18, 2019 4:18 pm

“automakers and American families embrace cleaner cars,”

If that is true, why do you need regulations to force automakers to make them, and subsidies to entice consumers to buy them?

Jeremiah Puckett
Reply to  MarkW
September 18, 2019 4:27 pm

Umm, NO, Obama did NOT “raise the avg mpg of vehicles to 54.5 mpg by 2025.” He may have set a GOAL, but only 5 years and 3 months away, there’s no way that goal is being met without forcing people to give up their trucks for scooters at gun point. So let’s not credit King Hussain Obama for setting an unobtainable goal!!!

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Jeremiah Puckett
September 18, 2019 4:51 pm

On July 29, 2011 Obama officially announced the 54.5 mpg fleet avg for 2025. He did NOT set a GOAL. He mandated that the auto companies meet that average mileage for their fleet, or pay severe penalties. The 54.5 mpg fleet avg was law.

Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
September 18, 2019 5:56 pm

And then Trump got elected.

Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
September 18, 2019 6:05 pm

He can mandate that cars run on unicorn farts if he wants. He can’t make it actually happen.

It’s an absolutely insane demand which can only be met by fiddling the books.

Reply to  MarkG
September 18, 2019 7:36 pm

A year or two ago, the EPA tried to fine oil refiners for failing to use an additive that nobody made.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkG
September 19, 2019 5:21 am

A little more than a year or two, as this article from 2013 attests

A U.S. federal court on Friday struck down a 2012 target for refiner use of cellulosic biofuels, but upheld the government’s goal for use of other advanced fuels.
The court upheld API’s case regarding the cellulosic goal, finding the EPA did not make a “neutral” assessment of the amount of cellulosic biofuels that would be produced last year.

“We are glad the court has put a stop to EPA’s pattern of setting impossible mandates for a biofuel that does not even exist,” said API Group Downstream Director Bob Greco.

Jack Roth
Reply to  MarkG
September 22, 2019 5:26 am

I remember the head of Toyota USA, interviewed soon after Obama mandated the 55mph standard, and my recollection is that the parameters or the standard were also changed, so instead of being an average across the whole fleet, the standard had to be met by each individual vehicle. Until then manufacturers had been able to make a few super-high mileage models, even if they never sold, as a way to bring up the average for the whole fleet. For example Ford’s plugin electrical Focus, which now to my knowledge had no real sales. “We can possibly make a vehicle that will meet that standard” the Toyota executive said in the interview “but that vehicle will look nothing like today’s cars” – and he’s right. The only way something like that will ever be met is by producing some carbon-fiber clad, 3-wheeled vehicle that will weigh less than 1,000 lbs. death traps, of very limited use.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Jeremiah Puckett
September 18, 2019 4:57 pm

Exactly…a goal that essentially passed the buck to future administrations.

Jeremiah Puckett
September 18, 2019 4:23 pm

This is an interesting issue. I’m a small government guy, which USUALLY means power should be at the state level instead of the federal level. This issue is opposite, though. Leaving it at the state level means more crippling regulations for citizens of California and the rest of the country (cars aren’t made in California and for good reason.). If California had car manufacturing inside its border, then I’d leave it to them to bully the industry. But any car or factory outside California shouldn’t have to bow down to excessive regulation. Costs are spread throughout a companies products, and I know Californian regulations are affecting the price of the truck I bought in Colorado.

Reply to  Jeremiah Puckett
September 18, 2019 5:02 pm

When it comes to interstate commerce, states should not impose regulations that harm the producers or consumers in other states. In this case, economies of scale are lost by having to meet multiple standards, so the price for everyone increases. Alternatively, for one product to fit all, the cost for everyone increases to meet otherwise unnecessary standards. The smog problem gave them cover for stricter emissions standards for real pollution, but they over-stepped when they invoked climate change as the rationalization for more onerous regulations that will have no detectable effect on pollution or the climate under cover of the endangerment finding.

This could be a good way to challenge the endangerment finding without doing so directly, where California will surely invoke it to support their position in court.

Dennis G Sandberg
Reply to  co2isnotevil
September 18, 2019 7:31 pm

CO2isnotevil, well said, excellent thought about challenging the endangerment finding.

John Minich
Reply to  Jeremiah Puckett
September 18, 2019 8:15 pm

Mr. Puckett: This is old news, but it demonstrates the “weirdness(?)” of California regulations. There used to be an Avco Lycoming factory in the Los Angeles area that made and rebuilt piston engines for small air planes, singles and twins. California passed an emissions law that was so strict, that for engines being tested before shipping, the exhaust emissions had to be cleaner than the surrounding air which the engines took in before combustion. That forced the factory to close and Lycoming took its engine work to another state.

Rich Lambert
September 18, 2019 4:24 pm

California not only regulated automobiles but also most all internal combustion engines and fuel tanks. You can thank them for a $20 plastic two-gallon gas tank among many other things.

Reply to  Rich Lambert
September 18, 2019 6:09 pm

The regulators seem to think that all citizens are as dumb as they are. A lot are, so I guess appealing to the base is important …

Duke Henry
September 18, 2019 5:46 pm

Thank you Mr Trump!

September 18, 2019 5:56 pm

Seems this is what commerce clause is for. Last I heard some green group was lobbying to ban oil and gas trucks as a backdoor way to effectively make it so there would be no place to buy gas.

Larry Hamlin
September 18, 2019 6:01 pm

The L A Times had an article hyping the increased sales of EVs the first half of 2019.

Turns out the hyped EV sales represented just 5.5% of all vehicles sales during that period with of course hundreds of millions in EV rebates paid for by Californians.

The Trump Administration should just flush anything this state does regarding “fighting climate change” down the toilet and save Californians billions of dollars.

Steve S.
September 18, 2019 6:13 pm

Higher the fuel efficiency results in more environmental damage. This is because more MPG results in more cars on the road as more people can afford to pay for fuel. More cars means more roads and sundry other negative impacts on the environment due to the motor vehicle life cycle.

If somebody thinks this is wrong, I would gladly entertain an argument that more MPG is better for the environment. Frankly, I think people believe this because that’s what they say on TV and they never bother to think it through themselves.

September 18, 2019 7:18 pm

It is all about:
Did the tires hook, and did the wing put enough down pressure to keep the tires planted at 300 mph
at mid-track ??

Reply to  u.k.(us)
September 19, 2019 12:58 pm


Pedant alert!

Whilst your statement “and did the wing put enough down pressure to keep the tires planted….. isn’t entirely incorrect, it gives the impression there is downward force acting on the wing, which there is, and there isn’t, as the wing creates a low pressure area under itself allowing ambient air pressure to work more effectively.

So in fact, ambient air pressure is doing nothing, it’s the low pressure area which is, to all intents and purposes, sucking the wing down to increase load on the tyres. Not that there will be much effect below 50mph anyway, and at terminal velocity of 300mph the effect will be momentary.

Reply to  HotScot
September 19, 2019 5:21 pm

Alert noted 🙂
Quick search returns:
“12,000 pounds is the amount of downforce generated by the rear wing of a top fuel dragster at 325 mph.”

Now tell that to the oil pump, and the engine bearings that are being stressed to their limits.
On second thought, everything attached to the vehicle is being stressed to its limits.

J Mac
September 18, 2019 7:23 pm

Excellent! The idea that any one state could dictate the auto, truck, and semi tractor emissions standards to the rest of the USA is and always has been asinine. President Trump is returning California to the same humble status as all of the other 49 states. Or 57 states, if you’re the science illiterate Barackward Hussein Obama!

If California really wants vehicles built to higher emission requirements, let the California taxpayers pay the full burden of the development and manufacturing costs. And build them within the state of California as well! Live up to your own environmental diktats, California! Put up…. or shut up.

September 18, 2019 9:10 pm

Wife and I went on a cruise to Havana Cuba last October. I noticed that the air smelled like it did in the 60’s, that smell of gasoline in the air. I say let California impose any restriction it wants on its people. If you don’t like it move, I did.

Rhoda R
Reply to  PhotoPete
September 18, 2019 11:08 pm

The trouble with that approach, Photo Pete, is that it is not economical for any auto manufacturer to make two different versions of the same model – one for sale in California and the other for sale in the rest of the US. So the auto manufacturers built the much more expensive Ca standards and foisted these expensive cars off on the rest of us. In effect, the rest of the US was subsidizing the cost of the Ca standards. If Ca wants more rigid standards then they need to establish an auto manufacturery IN California to build cars for sale inside the state lines. And I’m not sure but even that wouldn’t violate the Commerce Clauses.

Rod Evans
September 18, 2019 11:37 pm

The difficulty with criticism of ever stricter EPA rules is obvious. It is why the left and socialists in general, have latched onto “the environment” and its issues (some imagined some real) as their preferred control lever. If you wish to have control of people you have to find a system to do that. They have chosen the environment/climate change.
No one can argue for dirtier air or more pollution, it is counter to human nature. Just like health and safety demands, it is next to impossible to sustain an argument against better safety.
The danger, as we have all witnessed with these things, is the zealous nature of the imposing authorities.
Traffic management here in the UK is the finest example of a system that has gone beyond practical benefit. It is now almost impossible to travel through a UK city at a speed above 10 MPH. The traffic controls applied here, on the basis of health and safety, supported by the desire to reduce pollution has created this bizarre spectacle of static traffic on our streets. That static traffic is putting increasing amounts of pollution (I’m not including CO2 in that definition of pollution) into the air. The net effect of this is to see an increasing demand for ever cleaner and ultimately electric vehicles on the street. Such vehicles are able to sit quietly going nowhere, without polluting the air. The next development is autonomous vehicles so you can work while stationary in the car.
These H&S and pollution controls are driving everyone mad, but no matter to the zealots. The ratchet effect of these “good for you” control mechanisms are never undone or repealed. I have never yet found a road or street where the speed limit has been increased. If anyone can find an authority where that has happened I would love to know where. Similarly I have never found a pollution specification that is set lower than the previous iteration. If anyone knows of one of those, let me know.
The, clean is good, dirty is bad meme, is hard to break for good reason. It’s nearly always true. Unfortunately to operate as a specie we have to come into contact with pollution. We have to build up essential internal resistance to negative environmental conditions, if we are to thrive and survive. If we don’t do that, people start to become oversensitive to their environment. They develop allergies/sensitivities through lack of exposure to the triggers at an early stage in life. These conditions then become more prevalent in society. Sound familiar?
The take away is, H&S and environmental controls are great, right up to the point when they aren’t.

Reply to  Rod Evans
September 19, 2019 1:46 pm

Rod Evans

Didn’t the London Borough of Barnett, or somewhere, start ripping up speed humps to alleviate the stop and go nature of them which increased emissions?

I also recall reading somewhere that some American cities were doing much the same to let traffic flow smoothly and freely. As a bonus they realised emissions fell.

These processes essentially sped up traffic, but as you note, the speed limits were never raised.

You’ll also note that Road Traffic fatalities are always quoted as a scary number, but never with any causes associated, like stupid schoolkids who think it’s really clever to mess with cars, passengers not wearing seat belts, cyclists with no awareness whatsoever, the elderly who shouldn’t be driving a car, young men driving cars far too powerful for their capabilities, a mother reversing over, and killing her own child in the school car park (yep, happened in Orpington, from memory), motorcyclists riding bikes much too powerful for them with no training beyond a 500cc commuter of 50 bhp (if you’re lucky) stepping onto a 170bhp superbike.

One of my oldest friends killed himself recently on a superbike and he had been riding them for 45 years. He should not be counted as a road traffic statistic as he wiped himself out, and had survived numerous attempts over the years.

It’s bizarre to think that in the UK, as a 17 year old, you are entitled to take driving lessons in a Ferrari, turn up at the test centre and take your test in it then, assuming you pass the test, you can take the ‘L’ plates off and drive home unaccompanied.

How utterly insane is that? Yet our governments try to tell us they understand the climate, attempt to influence it by pathetic interventions, but can’t stop people killing themselves, with a few simple methods such as driver/rider training.

Personally, I would mandate that every government official from the Prime Minister/President down enrols on, and passes, an advanced driver training program. Our road transport fuel use would drop dramatically, as would road traffic fatalities – because once they recognise the benefits, government officials would be damn quick to impose one of the few regulation on our lives I agree with.

We might also have our school teachers, learn basic first aid so they can teach it to our kids instead of worrying them about effing climate change.

Jack Roth
Reply to  HotScot
September 29, 2019 6:50 am

In the United States cyclists follow no rules of the road whatsoever. They run through red lights, weave in and out of traffic, make illegal turns, and never even slow down to look. Recently there has been this push to create “bycicle lanes” righ in the middle of regular roads. This has taken away from drivers the space available to drive, made it more dangerous to make turns and get in and out of buildings, but I have yet to see one cyclist use the lanes. Finally, the latest move by the various states is to create traffic circles at intersections, because that way they don’t have to use electricity for traffic lights. Of course the electricity they use to light up every inch of road does not count. However the traffic circles have added to the accidents. This is not like Europe where circles have been there for centuries. People don’t know circle etiquette, they stop when they should go and go when they should sop. They get on the circle without looking or try to beat the car that’s already in the circle instead of yielding. And circles have always been made too narrow, so that large trucks have to drive over the cement just to get around them, or if they are too big, find some other route to their destination that does not have them. And add to that how much lighter vehicles are now, and I think we have a heck of a combination for countless, pointless injuries and deaths.

September 18, 2019 11:48 pm

The automobile industry has fooled people by the lie that heavy cars save lives.

Although a heavier vehicle is a small benefit for the passengers in that car, it is outweighted by the more damage the heavy vehicle make on others.

Reply to  Jan kjetil Andersen
September 19, 2019 3:49 am

There’s something in that. The stats clearly show that accidents in cars are usually survivable (just remember not to hit a tree) which owes much to smart engineering and bigger, stronger vehicles. At least that is so in my country (UK). But what seems to have happened is that car drivers have latched on to this, adopted a false sense of security, and so pedestrian and cyclist/motorcyclist casualty rates have increased, bucking the previous trend (Mind you, though, the way most cyclists ride, I don’t really understand how any of them are still alive!)

Reply to  mothcatcher
September 19, 2019 1:55 pm


Who doesn’t feel invincible in a car?

I had an old MGBGT 30 years ago (it was even old at that time) and I felt no different in that than I did in my modern VW Golf.

Deaths in cars are, more usually, associated with people not wearing seat belts or, as you mentioned, colliding at speed with an immovable object.

Cyclists and pedestrians are, more often than not, victims of their own stupidity.

Jack Roth
Reply to  Jan kjetil Andersen
September 22, 2019 5:40 am

Well I can tell you from experience that a heavy car will save MY life. I have been rear-ended twice by cars hitting me whilst I was sitting at a light, in each case the other vehicle going at 30-35 mph. In one case it caused whiplash so bad I was almost paralyzed, in addition to traumatic brain injury I was able to thankfully eventually recover from. In the second case my small Ford Focus was hit from behind and dragged forward, even though my foot was firmly on the brake, a full 10 meters and hit the SUV in front of me with enough force to crush my focus like an accordion. I suffered a crushed knee, a broken lower spine, and a broken shoulder. The SUV I was crunched into had some scratches but no real damage. I will NEVER get into another small vehicle again. I now drive a Suburban and a Ram 1500. If they made bigger vehicles I could afford, I would be in them.

September 19, 2019 3:01 am

Two questions from a non-American
(1) How does this move square with the plans to curb EPA excesses and hand powers BACK to state control?
(2) How would the CAFE limits be applied by individual states wanting their own (tougher) limits? Would it be an average of the mpg of all the cars a company sells in California, and would Cali try to restrict sales by automakers who don’t tow the California line at a national/international level? The consequences would be very different. California is the most populous state and has a helluvalot of power in the market.

September 19, 2019 5:52 am

Elimination of the California waiver is actually a rather simple, common-sense proposition. It helps if you remember the history of EPA regulation and the California waiver.

When the EPA was given the task of enacting regulations to clean up the air, they recognized that California had special problems due to its geography. Prevailing winds pushed the dirty air created by businesses and vehicles up against the mountains where it stayed, creating a brown smog ring that hung over the South Coast on most days. California was allowed to set more stringent emissions regulations in order to reduce the amount of smog in the air. Since the primary component of smog is sulfur dioxide, these special Calaifornia regulations concentrated on reducing SO2 emissions.

The EPA Tier IV requirements for mobile sources – both on and off road – have virtually eliminated sulfur from gasoline (30 ppm max) and diesel fuel (15 ppm max). As a result vehicles are no longer large contributors of SO2 and the resulting smog. Therefore, there is no longer a need for a California waiver relating to mobile vehicles.

However, California’s Air Resources Board (CARB) and its politicians have vastly expanded the authority they were given, passing regulations on things totally unrelated to poor air quality in the South Coast region. They have used this power to bully the Federal government and private businesses into increased fuel economy standards, the phase-out of incandescent lightbulbs, mandates for low-flush toilets, and dozens of other issues. Hopefully, this is just the beginning of the Trump administration’s rollbacks of nonsense regulations led by the California zealots.

September 19, 2019 6:43 am

I read or heard on the Mark Levin show that a study was done that CAFE standards have made much more deaths and injuries to people than guns every year in this country, because of the almost elimination of steel in the cars of today in order to make them much lighter to increase average gas mileage. I couldn’t locate the study, but if I find it I will post it on here on WUWT.
And I’m not sure who did the study…

September 19, 2019 7:27 am

California does have an environmental problem with local pollution, but they want the rest of the US to pay to correct and prevent it. If I’m not mistaken, part of the smog/ozone issue with places like San Francisco and LA is that the weather patterns trap the exhaust and it just keeps on building.

Now, Cali wants cleaner air, I want them to have clean air, but their weather patterns don’t promote fresh air in, so they mandate to the car companies that all of the cars sold in Cali MUST conform to certain standards. To recoup the expenses and to not loose the Cali market, the car companies comply. But that makes me pay for items that are not needed for my state.

What I suggest is that the owner/buyer of the vehicle pay that expense. What the car companies should do is make the vehicles to the federal standard. If someone wants to buy that vehicle in Cali, they must pay to have whatever upgrade is needed to achieve that regulation. If they buy it outside Cali, again, when they bring it into Cali, it must be upgraded.

Likewise, if I move into Cali and I own a 2016 vehicle, that vehicle should be modified to accommodate the 2016 standards in Cali, at MY expense. Cali can mandate items like that, if you want to register a vehicle in Cali, it must meet Cali standards for that year. OR MAYBE, they could add an ‘Exhaust Tax’ to your non-conforming car, that way they can plant trees to offset the emissions. Almost like Indulgences of yesteryear (and these current years with Liberals and AGW)…

John Q Public
September 19, 2019 4:12 pm

I wonder if this will effectively overturn California’s unilateral implementation of EPA GHG regulations on trailers (manufactured in California)? EPA was blocked at the federal level by a federal court because the original legislation only specified the truck (tractor) and did not specify the trailer. California unilaterally applied this to trailers manufactured in California, and I do not know if this required any type of waiver.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights