Toyota, GM, Ford etc start an anti-CARB campaign

Toyota is in it for the money like everyone else. Maybe they are banking on the fact that without federal mandates the others just "won't" and then Honda will be their only US competitor in the efficiency market...

 

i'm sure they would rather develop at their own profitable pace rather than a government bureaucracy's. as i recall, the phev was not something they originally wanted to do.

 

They meaning Toyota? Or they meaning everyone. Presuming we're talking Toyotas here ... neither EV nor PHEV was on the top of Toyota's 'favorite' list when it comes to profitability. Now, with both EV and PHEV, they're (Toyota) kinda caught w/ their pants down around their ankles, with Volt / GM surprisingly leapfrogging Toyota ... at least as far as the PHEV goes ... and Nissan leapfrogging Toyota w/ the Leaf. No matter how good/bad you think the Volt or Leaf(s) are, they're doing better in sales than anyone else's offering. That's kinda creepy.

 

CARB's rule's are always much tougher than the EPA rules, but even if they were not, it still has to double the cost to comply with two different sets of rules.

I feel sure the manufactures would like a single set of rules to comply with.

 

right, toyota, because the question was 'why are they involved'. just because they decided to buil a 'car for the next century', doesn't mean they are altruistic or every move they make is going to be a winner. of course, that goes for everyone as well. for some reason, toyota does not believe the battery technology is not there yet. who knows, they might still be right.

 

Yes you are right. But ONLY if it's the LOWER standard, would manufacturers want one. Manufacturers would LOVE 2 standards if they could opt for a cheaper build method. Anyway ... the Fed Supreme Court ruled that individual states DO have autonomy when it comes to setting pollution/auto standards (just like states having power to set higher citizen due process protection standards than what the Feds offer up). The auto industry can't undo the Courts ruling w/out a Fed constitutional amendment.

 

Many cars (Prius included) are built to the higher standard even though sold in a lower standard state, there is a lot of overhead to having two standards.

 

Let's just get the facts out. CARB wanted to, and got the epa to give it permission to set CAFE standards with the excuse of clean air. I see no reason to believe that CARB will get cleaner air in LA by reducing CO2, the letter and spirit of clean air act. It was a pure power play to control these things. CARB wanted 3 standards EPA, NTHSA, and CARB to all have power to get bribes to set standards. This did change according to the original article.

One standard. Why pay for 3 times the government? The current plan is one standard.

There should be only one set of CAFE standards for the country. Do you honestly trust CARB science when they have people with fake phds drastically over stating emissions for diesel, and only 2 members thinking this was a bad thing. Congress should remove the power from CARB in case it changes its mind after 2016. I would be in favor of moving cafe from nthsa to epa, but don't think we need more than one agency setting these standards.

This is false. The clean air act gave california special rights that other states do not. States can chose to follow california or federal standards. If you don't belive me look up that court case and show it to the group. Congress can and should take away the power from california as they have abused it.

This is true, especially if you can not predict what states your cars will be sold in. But you will notice that carb has made rules like huge warranties on hv and phev batteries. These are not passed onto other states. It also may have had impacts to slow the transfer of these technologies and yes more pollution and gas usage.

 

Uh... Have you seen LA recently compared with photos of before? There are more people, and you can actually see the buildings now. I would say that gives a pretty good and tangible method of proving your statement false.

 

nice, so you think that it was CARB and not the clean air act? Do you also believe that my purchase of elephant insurance is the reason an elephant has not run through my home?

LA always is one of the top cities for unhealthy pollution. Some regulations early on helped reduce it and influence federal laws. CARB in the last decade, what have they done to clean up the real polution. They killed the electric car.

http://www.environmentalleader.com/...l-rule-suspension-in-californias-climategate/

The chairwoman hid the fact that her diesel research was led by a guy that lied about his phd, so an anti-diesel vote could be taken. Then when others found that the figures of pollution were over inflated by 340%, she claimed that it was because of the bad economy. No science needed at carb you see, it does not matter that the overstatement was huge if the economy tripled.

Now she is upset that car companies what a single cafe standard and not have her appointed research set these things. Well tell me, do you think if she changes her mind and sets higher ghg standards, the air is LA will be any safer to breath. It may if she can help kill the economy enough so people can't afford to drive. Otherwise it is very unlikely.

Do you think congress should allow these people to change their mind, because they are mad at the autogroup, and set the standards for emissions for the country? I do not!

 

The letter was about ghg not ev. That was a different fight where carb went and got rid of most of the ev regulations. I don't think CARB should regulate cafe standards, and they have temporarily agreed to one national standard, after the letter. Toyota produces a lot more trucks than the other japanese automakers likely a target of carb if they did not agree to not set a separate standard.

I think the electrification act makes it a good idea to build electric vehicles absent any carb standards. I think the $7500 incentive will work much better than the carb mandate.

 

I don't know about the elephants, but here's a picture of the Flathead valley Montana. Over the past 10 years, the valley has grown "haze" and it continues to get worse.

Montana is under the clean air act ... not CARB. Both LA & the Flathead are in "basins" ... where usually you have less air movement ... especially during inversions. Yet the entire state of Montana has less people than all of San Diego county. Just something I've noticed. Then again, who knows ... it may relate to elephant insurance too.

 

EVnow, your critiism was about a letter having to do with CARB wanting to create there own GHG regulations. This is pure politics and and evil.

IMHO CARB started something good mandating ZEVs then gutted the laws. I really don't have much good I could say about them. I do agree that it will get toyota to build EVs. But I think the tax break and Nissan would have done that anyway.

I do think it did help mandate the time table, but really I doubt the CARB regulations did much good. I really could care less if Nissan or GM build the cars instead of Toyota. If toyota is smart they will build the cars with or without the mandate.

 

Hill,
If you look at the unheathy air pollutant levels in LA, the flat head valley does not even register. I do agree that Montana has a shamefull environmental record. It has the largest EPA superfund site. But really the air regulations are not significantly different than carb. I find your post really naive and annoying. Which CARB law would reduce the real pollution in Montana caused by strip mining?

 

How about sticking to the point ... if that's not too naive and annoying ... and let me answer which CARB law would reduce the pollutants from cars. To start, smog check regulations are governed by the CARB, as well as the bureau of automotive repair. In downtown Kalispell (center of the Flathead Valley MT), a full 50% of the vehicles you get stuck behind will make your eyes water and/or burn ... the stench of their unburned fuel waft through your car. Close the vents, quick! That kind of status quo in Montana is in part, due to lax Fed "clean air" regs. If CARB reg's (among other things) were enforced in Montana, they would require drivers to get their polluting cars in order. If you want to talk dirty mines, dirty water, etc (and the lax fed rules that allow it), feel free to start another thread. Sure CARB is corrupt, and often a puppet of legislators & big business. But that's due to lazy/indifferent uninformed voters that could force changes for the better.

 

Yes, CARB has worked, but that work to clean the air is largly the work of the standards on everything other then CO2. CO2 does not pollute the air in the same way, it causes climate change.

I think we need CO2 regulation but only one government organization should do it. I would rather that be CARB then nobody but it really should be the EPA.