VWVortex.com - And you thought it was over... CARB, Automakers & The Trump Administration
Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    VWVortex


    The Car Lounge
    Page 1 of 10 12345 ... LastLast
    Results 1 to 25 of 237

    Thread: And you thought it was over... CARB, Automakers & The Trump Administration

    1. Senior Member Sporin's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 17th, 1999
      Location
      Vermont, USA
      Posts
      34,046
      Vehicles
      '94 Miata - '16 RAV4 - '10 Prius
      06-29-2020 04:05 PM #1
      Remember this? https://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...ighlight=Trump

      Ford, VW, Honda and BMW will stay neutral on challenges to Trump emissions rule
      General Motors, Fiat Chrysler and Toyota have sided with the Trump administration
      Reuters
      Jun 27th 2020 at 1:15PM

      WASHINGTON — Four major automakers will not take a position on legal challenges to the Trump administration's decision to dramatically weaken Obama-era fuel economy standards but want to weigh in on any court fix, according to a document seen by Reuters.

      The Trump administration in March finalized rollback of U.S. vehicle emissions standards to require 1.5% annual increases in efficiency through 2026. That is far weaker than the 5% annual increases in the discarded rules adopted under President Barack Obama.

      Ford, Volkswagen, Honda and BMW struck a voluntary agreement with California in July 2019 on vehicle emissions rules. On Monday, the four automakers plan to ask a U.S. Appeals Court in Washington for permission to be heard in the court challenge "to ensure that any remedy imposed by this court is both appropriate and achievable," according to a draft of the filing.

      Last month, a group of 23 U.S. states led by California, as well as the District of Columbia and some major cities, challenged the Trump vehicle rule.

      Volkswagen said on Friday its "preference continues to be one set of national standards that’s achieved through an agreement between the federal government and California."

      Other major automakers like General Motors, Fiat Chrysler and Toyota have sided with the Trump administration on the rollback. Those companies also sided with the Trump administration in a separate lawsuit over whether the federal government can strip California of the right to set zero emission vehicle requirements.

      California Air Resources Board chair Mary Nichols told Reuters on Wednesday the board hopes to finalize the voluntary agreements in the "next few weeks" as memorandums of understanding with the individual automakers.


      https://www.autoblog.com/2020/06/27/...6&guccounter=1

    2. Remove Advertisements

      Advertisements
       

    3. How do I resize a picture? Cabin Pics's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 19th, 2008
      Location
      In The Woods
      Posts
      15,870
      Vehicles
      2004 E46, 2019 Q7
      06-29-2020 04:48 PM #2
      Eh.

      He's going to do everything he can to kill not only the country, but the entire planet.

      This is right in line with that philosophy.
      Instagram - efrie004

      Quote Originally Posted by Sold Over Sticker View Post
      You take that fake rich sled back to the toothless masses and rub their stupid meth faces in your success. Do it for me.

    4. 06-29-2020 05:01 PM #3
      Quote Originally Posted by Cabin Pics View Post
      Eh.

      He's going to do everything he can to kill not only the country, but the entire planet.

      This is right in line with that philosophy.
      Yup we need the basement guy and to defund the police to save America We need to ban gas powered vehicles because we all want to hang around while recharging and drink mocha lattes

    5. Planters (fasciitis) peanuts. Dang dogg Sold Over Sticker's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 28th, 2009
      Posts
      18,180
      Vehicles
      LS3 Malibu, Mid Engined Camry
      06-29-2020 06:51 PM #4
      States rights, limited federal government, and mah freedoms.
      Driving While Awesome Podcast. Give it a listen. Assetto Corsa Discord Link. Join us for some sim racing fun.
      Quote Originally Posted by Phillie Phanatic
      SoS - please shoot a message when Brendan & His Retarded Sycophants has another gig. I’ll be there, front row.

    6. Member vwpiloto's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 26th, 2006
      Location
      Orange County, CA
      Posts
      12,032
      Vehicles
      1987 944 S, 2003 S2000, 2011 E90 M3, 2013 Mazda 3, 2014 4Runner Trail
      06-29-2020 06:57 PM #5
      Could we just go with no President? Can't be worse than it is.

      Whatever the deal ends up, we need 1 solution for the country. Cars are expensive as is, let alone forcing the automakers to have to deal with multiple powertrain certifications.

    7. Geriatric Member Air and water do mix's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 5th, 2004
      Location
      Southern Indiana
      Posts
      43,191
      Vehicles
      '66 Beetle (X2) '08 Fit
      06-29-2020 07:01 PM #6
      Quote Originally Posted by vwpiloto View Post
      Could we just go with no President? Can't be worse than it is.

      Whatever the deal ends up, we need 1 solution for the country. Cars are expensive as is, let alone forcing the automakers to have to deal with multiple powertrain certifications.
      My bet is that it won’t be sorted until all cars are electric, then and only then a decision will come down from on high.
      Quote Originally Posted by Boyz in da Park
      Proletariat, Bourgeoise - Everybody smellin' my potpourri...

    8. Senior Member bzcat's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 26th, 2001
      Location
      Los Angeles
      Posts
      24,577
      06-29-2020 07:14 PM #7
      Quote Originally Posted by vwpiloto View Post
      Could we just go with no President? Can't be worse than it is.

      Whatever the deal ends up, we need 1 solution for the country. Cars are expensive as is, let alone forcing the automakers to have to deal with multiple powertrain certifications.
      We had 1 standard for the country until the current Administration decided to nullify everything.

    9. Member Shmi's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 25th, 2009
      Location
      Why is it so hot here, AZ.
      Posts
      8,709
      Vehicles
      2012 A6 3.0T, 2013 BMW 128i
      06-29-2020 07:17 PM #8
      Quote Originally Posted by vwpiloto View Post
      Could we just go with no President? Can't be worse than it is.


      How is 1 guy supposed to pay attention to everything going on in the world anyway? Regardless of party. Might have been a good idea back when information was slow to get around and the world was still a big place.
      ಠ_ಠ

    10. 06-29-2020 07:53 PM #9
      Quote Originally Posted by vwpiloto View Post
      Whatever the deal ends up, we need 1 solution for the country. Cars are expensive as is, let alone forcing the automakers to have to deal with multiple powertrain certifications.
      Its almost as if we need a federal standard... which we have. The problem is not the other 49 states and the federal government, its that California needs to just be lopped off like a cancerous limb. Just put a big label on it, "WARNING: This state contains politics known as the State of California to cause cancer." Make PR an official state, and then we won't have to redo our flag. Voila.

    11. Planters (fasciitis) peanuts. Dang dogg Sold Over Sticker's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 28th, 2009
      Posts
      18,180
      Vehicles
      LS3 Malibu, Mid Engined Camry
      06-29-2020 08:09 PM #10
      Quote Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
      Its almost as if we need a federal standard... which we have. The problem is not the other 49 states and the federal government, its that California needs to just be lopped off like a cancerous limb. Just put a big label on it, "WARNING: This state contains politics known as the State of California to cause cancer." Make PR an official state, and then we won't have to redo our flag. Voila.
      You think a net positive solution to our country is to remove the highest producing state, and replace them with a territory with an awful debt load that runs a budget deficit? I can think it's either:

      A: Anything to own the libtards.
      B: You still leave cookies out for Santa Claus.
      C: You're just mad tech companies are moving their employees out of California to your state, thus the state is changing and you don't like it.
      D: All of the above.
      Driving While Awesome Podcast. Give it a listen. Assetto Corsa Discord Link. Join us for some sim racing fun.
      Quote Originally Posted by Phillie Phanatic
      SoS - please shoot a message when Brendan & His Retarded Sycophants has another gig. I’ll be there, front row.

    12. Senior Member Sporin's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 17th, 1999
      Location
      Vermont, USA
      Posts
      34,046
      Vehicles
      '94 Miata - '16 RAV4 - '10 Prius
      06-29-2020 09:06 PM #11
      I’m all for 1 standard, but lets use the more stringent one. It’s the very least we can do for the environment.

      I live in a CARB state, it is not a big deal.

    13. Member vwpiloto's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 26th, 2006
      Location
      Orange County, CA
      Posts
      12,032
      Vehicles
      1987 944 S, 2003 S2000, 2011 E90 M3, 2013 Mazda 3, 2014 4Runner Trail
      06-29-2020 09:11 PM #12
      Quote Originally Posted by bzcat View Post
      We had 1 standard for the country until the current Administration decided to nullify everything.
      I'm well aware, hence why I strongly believe in the 1 standard for the country.

    14. 06-29-2020 09:18 PM #13
      California only has a high GDP because its overpopulated, not because it has a crazy high per capita GDP (especially once you count the "undocumented"), its growth has lagged behind US average, refugees and businesses are abandoning the state as cities are littered with homeless and open drug use, and they wield a toxic influence on neighboring good states and so its appropriate to implement a containment strategy just as we did with the USSR. I don't believe in redistribution of wealth, so PR's that are already citizens and getting benefits anyway becoming a state simply means they would contribute to the pool and have proper representation!

      In any case, if you want your car to be more expensive to own and operate with reduced performance, you CAN still do that. No one is telling you that you can't buy a Honda Clarity, they are just telling you that you can't force me to buy one too through regulations or punitive financial attacks.

      Besides, the narrative is nonsense because pollution has declined under the Trump compared to Obama administration, not increased. And no, harmless odorless carbon-dioxide is not pollution, evidenced by the fact that unlike actual pollution I could inhale a balloon of it just be lightheaded for a second with no toxic effect and biomass has never been higher in the world's history than when CO2 levels were approximately five times higher than they are today around 250 million years ago when bigass dinosaurs were happily stomping about before a meteor wrecked the planet and screwed up the atmosphere causing an ice age which BTW we're still in the Quaternary ice age.

      Any true automotive enthusiast should be very happy about this, as it means less expensive higher performance vehicles will be available, all else equal.

    15. 06-29-2020 09:30 PM #14
      I realize that was way too long to read, so to summarize...

      MAGA Green Future, fueling trees w/ CO2:


      Cali Pale Future, trees suffocating:


      Its science.

    16. Planters (fasciitis) peanuts. Dang dogg Sold Over Sticker's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 28th, 2009
      Posts
      18,180
      Vehicles
      LS3 Malibu, Mid Engined Camry
      06-29-2020 09:57 PM #15
      Quote Originally Posted by Sporin View Post
      I’m all for 1 standard, but lets use the more stringent one. It’s the very least we can do for the environment.

      I live in a CARB state, it is not a big deal.
      Yup. Run Euro 6 on everything. Easy peasy.

      Quote Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
      California only has a high GDP because its overpopulated, not because it has a crazy high per capita GDP (especially once you count the "undocumented")
      California is high in the nation for per capita GDP. Throw undocumented workers in there if you will, but in the US 50-75% of undocumented immigrants have ITIN's and pay taxes, thus we have data on what they're paid. Does your state not have a foundation of undocumented workers? I'm sure that it does.

      For a mix of tech and Ag, this state does well. To assert anything else is being willfully ignorant.

      Quote Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
      its growth has lagged behind US average
      No it hasn't.

      Quote Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
      refugees and businesses are abandoning the state as cities are littered with homeless and open drug use, and they wield a toxic influence on neighboring good states and so its appropriate to implement a containment strategy just as we did with the USSR. I don't believe in redistribution of wealth, so PR's that are already citizens and getting benefits anyway becoming a state simply means they would contribute to the pool and have proper representation!
      Wow. This is a lot of unpack. Sure, California has a homeless problem. But you feel like the US needs a containment strategy for one of our states, similar to what we had to a nuclear adversary?

      Man. If selling BS was king, you'd improve your states GDP by double digits, assuming people actually bought what you're selling.

      I do approve of Puerto Rico becoming recognized as a state by the way, and our nation needs to treat them better. If Mississippi can vote to change their flag, so can our nation.

      Quote Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
      In any case, if you want your car to be more expensive to own and operate with reduced performance, you CAN still do that. No one is telling you that you can't buy a Honda Clarity, they are just telling you that you can't force me to buy one too through regulations or punitive financial attacks.
      Stop clutching your pearls. That's never what CARB has been about. This is just pure nonsense.

      Quote Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
      Besides, the narrative is nonsense because pollution has declined under the Trump compared to Obama administration, not increased. And no, harmless odorless carbon-dioxide is not pollution, evidenced by the fact that unlike actual pollution I could inhale a balloon of it just be lightheaded for a second with no toxic effect and biomass has never been higher in the world's history than when CO2 levels were approximately five times higher than they are today around 250 million years ago when bigass dinosaurs were happily stomping about before a meteor wrecked the planet and screwed up the atmosphere causing an ice age which BTW we're still in the Quaternary ice age.

      Any true automotive enthusiast should be very happy about this, as it means less expensive higher performance vehicles will be available, all else equal.
      Pollution has not decreased under Trump. I'll save you the quick Googling. Fine particulate matter is up 5%.

      Carbon dioxide isn't an issue because you can breathe into a balloon a few times? Is the earth not a sphere because you can spray water on a basket ball and it all drops off the bottom, and our oceans don't drain off the bottom by Antartica? That's some lovely pseudo science you just mumbled out.

      Like I said above, adhering to one standard is better for OEM's. Agree with you there, even though it doesn't quite equate to cheaper faster cars like you contest it will.
      Driving While Awesome Podcast. Give it a listen. Assetto Corsa Discord Link. Join us for some sim racing fun.
      Quote Originally Posted by Phillie Phanatic
      SoS - please shoot a message when Brendan & His Retarded Sycophants has another gig. I’ll be there, front row.

    17. Member IJM's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 30th, 2001
      Location
      District of Columbia
      Posts
      6,007
      Vehicles
      '01 GTI VR6, '98 XJ Cherokee 4.0, '04 Mazda 3
      06-29-2020 10:02 PM #16
      Quote Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
      California only has a high GDP because its overpopulated, not because it has a crazy high per capita GDP (especially once you count the "undocumented"), its growth has lagged behind US average, refugees and businesses are abandoning the state as cities are littered with homeless and open drug use, and they wield a toxic influence on neighboring good states and so its appropriate to implement a containment strategy just as we did with the USSR.
      To be fair, California is 11th most densely populated of the 50 states, right behind Ohio.

    18. 06-29-2020 10:35 PM #17
      Quote Originally Posted by Sold Over Sticker View Post
      For a mix of tech and Ag, this state does well. To assert anything else is being willfully ignorant.
      The point was that liberals tout Cali's high GDP, ignoring that its per capita GDP is lower than other states. You just have too many people crammed into deserts (LA) and what not. And economic growth is below national average.
      Quote Originally Posted by Sold Over Sticker View Post
      But you feel like the US needs a containment strategy for one of our states, similar to what we had to a nuclear adversary?
      Containment strategy had nothing to do with nukes, lots of countries have nukes, it was because they were ideological foes. We wanted to spread our ideology and they wanted to spread theirs, and they were opposing views. That's what the proxy wars were about. An eagle cannot fly if its right and left wings don't have a unified goal, so two homogeneous but separate countries that just trade with one another like the US and China would be preferable IMO.
      Quote Originally Posted by Sold Over Sticker View Post
      Fake news as usual. Major pollutants are ozone, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, plastics, and other chemicals leaching into ground water and oceans and they have unilaterally decreased. Fine particulate matter is lower under the Trump administration than Obama per the EPA: https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/parti...er-pm25-trends and your own source says that the bad air quality days had to do with wild-fires, which is a problem in California created by Democrats that opposed repeated Republican efforts to reduce fire fuel loads.
      Quote Originally Posted by Sold Over Sticker View Post
      Carbon dioxide isn't an issue because you can breathe into a balloon a few times?
      Its not a toxin, as evidenced by the fact its perfectly harmless to breath in, just as you are doing now, and even when CO2 levels were five times higher than they are today giant dinosaurs had no problem getting enough oxygen to be active and plant life on land and in the oceans thrived. CO2 is what makes the world green.
      Quote Originally Posted by Sold Over Sticker View Post
      Like I said above, adhering to one standard is better for OEM's. Agree with you there, even though it doesn't quite equate to cheaper faster cars like you contest it will.
      I wasn't talking about standard unification, I was talking about different standards. The more rapidly restrictive you make the standards, as Obama was pushing, the more expensive and lower performance the vehicles become. This isn't rocket science, and I'm not sure how you can refute that with a straight face. We've already been through this once before in the 1980s which lead to a decade of craptastic cars thanks to government restrictions that came too soon and too fast.
      Last edited by Ducman69; 06-29-2020 at 10:37 PM.

    19. How do I resize a picture? Cabin Pics's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 19th, 2008
      Location
      In The Woods
      Posts
      15,870
      Vehicles
      2004 E46, 2019 Q7
      06-29-2020 11:08 PM #18
      Quote Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
      The point was that liberals tout Cali's high GDP, ignoring that its per capita GDP is lower than other states. You just have too many people crammed into deserts (LA) and what not. And economic growth is below national average.

      Containment strategy had nothing to do with nukes, lots of countries have nukes, it was because they were ideological foes. We wanted to spread our ideology and they wanted to spread theirs, and they were opposing views. That's what the proxy wars were about. An eagle cannot fly if its right and left wings don't have a unified goal, so two homogeneous but separate countries that just trade with one another like the US and China would be preferable IMO.

      Fake news as usual. Major pollutants are ozone, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, plastics, and other chemicals leaching into ground water and oceans and they have unilaterally decreased. Fine particulate matter is lower under the Trump administration than Obama per the EPA: https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/parti...er-pm25-trends and your own source says that the bad air quality days had to do with wild-fires, which is a problem in California created by Democrats that opposed repeated Republican efforts to reduce fire fuel loads.

      Its not a toxin, as evidenced by the fact its perfectly harmless to breath in, just as you are doing now, and even when CO2 levels were five times higher than they are today giant dinosaurs had no problem getting enough oxygen to be active and plant life on land and in the oceans thrived. CO2 is what makes the world green.

      I wasn't talking about standard unification, I was talking about different standards. The more rapidly restrictive you make the standards, as Obama was pushing, the more expensive and lower performance the vehicles become. This isn't rocket science, and I'm not sure how you can refute that with a straight face. We've already been through this once before in the 1980s which lead to a decade of craptastic cars thanks to government restrictions that came too soon and too fast.
      I smell tom-f*ckery awry.
      Instagram - efrie004

      Quote Originally Posted by Sold Over Sticker View Post
      You take that fake rich sled back to the toothless masses and rub their stupid meth faces in your success. Do it for me.

    20. Junior Member JIA.B's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 26th, 2006
      Posts
      23
      Vehicles
      2015 Bentley Continental GT V8
      06-29-2020 11:16 PM #19
      Not to mention 55% of California's GDP is concentrated in LA and SF, generated from the top 10% earners in the entertainment and tech industry.

      They had to mention "children of color" breathing in pollution during the recent zero emissions truck by 2045 mandate, LOL.

    21. Planters (fasciitis) peanuts. Dang dogg Sold Over Sticker's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 28th, 2009
      Posts
      18,180
      Vehicles
      LS3 Malibu, Mid Engined Camry
      06-29-2020 11:32 PM #20
      Quote Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
      The point was that liberals tout Cali's high GDP, ignoring that its per capita GDP is lower than other states. You just have too many people crammed into deserts (LA) and what not. And economic growth is below national average.
      You don't need to be liberal to understand a high GDP. California is a productive state. Try and marginalize if it you will with a counter point of a lower than other state per capita GDP, but that lands with a thud. It's not low, so stop pretending that this point matters any. In the links I provided, California wasn't the best in the nation, but it was in the single digits with at least 42 states behind it.

      Your link shows that California had 20 quarters of growth, tied for the winning streak of gains, but then it slowed in mid 2019 to below average. In the link I shared, it closed 2019 ahead of national GDP growth, unlike your link of a mid year snap shot.

      So I'll just say it. What is your point? That California sucks because our fantastic growth slowed down to a number that still out paced the national average? It's funny man. I get you have an axe to grind with California, but to try and discount what the state does for our nation makes you look foolish and myopic.

      Quote Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
      Containment strategy had nothing to do with nukes, lots of countries have nukes, it was because they were ideological foes. We wanted to spread our ideology and they wanted to spread theirs, and they were opposing views. That's what the proxy wars were about. An eagle cannot fly if its right and left wings don't have a unified goal, so two homogeneous but separate countries that just trade with one another like the US and China would be preferable IMO.
      That's my point. You think that the states are ideological foes, and should be treated the same way that we treated a nuclear adversary. That's hysterical man. Just because you dislike a state, it doesn't mean that they are an ideological foe that needs to be separated from the union.

      If you want to send California packing over ideology, then what you're really saying is that this country cannot function with a difference between Liberals and Conservatives. That's patently false. We've existed with a two party system for generations. Yet, if you think that we can't, then the blue states can all leave, and the red states would probably quickly fail, as these silly high tax libtard states pay a ton to fund red states. McConnell tried that a few months ago with his "blue state bailout" nonsense, and it was a hysterical statement. Why? He was telling someone with a budget surplus to shut up, all while his own state takes more than it gives.

      Funny how liberals get called snowflakes but you want a state to leave because the states don't see eye to eye?

      Quote Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
      Fake news as usual. Major pollutants are ozone, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, plastics, and other chemicals leaching into ground water and oceans and they have unilaterally decreased. Fine particulate matter is lower under the Trump administration than Obama per the EPA: https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/parti...er-pm25-trends and your own source says that the bad air quality days had to do with wild-fires, which is a problem in California created by Democrats that opposed repeated Republican efforts to reduce fire fuel loads.
      Nice selective reading. That article said a portion of it could be attributed to wildfires. Don't just ignore the other factors. Also, who owns 60% of the forests in California? The Federal Government. Who ran all branches of our Government again in 2016? Nice deflection. Point at those dumb liberals mismanaging their forests, while the state owns 2%, and the Government owns the most of it.

      To be fair, laws did change after the fires, for the better, but to twist that into a neener neener Democrats don't get it argument I guess is just sadly in line with why you think liberals and conservatives can't work across the aisle.

      I'll fake news you back. The EPA has been gutted, and their data is dubious. People who have been fired have banded together stating that the rise is currently significant, and what the EPA is doing is not enough. This administration has a deep history of people explaining the madness they saw first hand, and that my friend isn't fake news. Those are concerned Americans who all want the best for this place. They should be listened to. Don't buy into the "YOU'RE FIRED" reality TV nonsense.

      Quote Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
      Its not a toxin, as evidenced by the fact its perfectly harmless to breath in, just as you are doing now, and even when CO2 levels were five times higher than they are today giant dinosaurs had no problem getting enough oxygen to be active and plant life on land and in the oceans thrived. CO2 is what makes the world green.
      We are not dinosaurs. That's a false equivalency.



      Five times our current level, and humans as they stand are having a rough go, unless we can evolve at a rate we've never seen a human do so.

      Quote Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
      I wasn't talking about standard unification, I was talking about different standards. The more rapidly restrictive you make the standards, as Obama was pushing, the more expensive and lower performance the vehicles become. This isn't rocket science, and I'm not sure how you can refute that with a straight face. We've already been through this once before in the 1980s which lead to a decade of craptastic cars thanks to government restrictions that came too soon and too fast.
      I've contested in numerous threads to adapt to Euro 6, and make it that way across the board. Easier and cheaper for the OEM, and cars that adhere to Euro 6 are not the smog pump choked cars from the 70's. Again, false equivalency. Sins of the past are not the issues of today. Stop pretending. It just screams to me "conservatives good, liberals bad!" but you also think that California should leave the nation because of ideological issues, so I don't really think you want to have a good faith discussion.

      Based on this, I think the answer is D, all of the above.
      Last edited by Sold Over Sticker; 06-30-2020 at 12:16 AM.
      Driving While Awesome Podcast. Give it a listen. Assetto Corsa Discord Link. Join us for some sim racing fun.
      Quote Originally Posted by Phillie Phanatic
      SoS - please shoot a message when Brendan & His Retarded Sycophants has another gig. I’ll be there, front row.

    22. 06-30-2020 12:18 AM #21
      Quote Originally Posted by Sold Over Sticker View Post
      You don't need to be liberal to understand a high GDP. So I'll just say it. What is your point?
      Would you rather live in India with a 2.7 trillion or Switzerland with 700 billion GDP? Point was, California is just populous, not vitally fruitful and the rest of the country would run just fine with California relegated to an independent trade partner, like Canada.
      Quote Originally Posted by Sold Over Sticker View Post
      You think that the states are ideological foes, and should be treated the same...
      The same as an ideological foe, yeah. You're only making it confusing by twisting words. If a husband and wife are ideological enemies and spend so much of their time fighting and undermining one another, they would be happier and more productive separated.
      Quote Originally Posted by Sold Over Sticker View Post
      Nice selective reading. That article said a portion of it could be attributed to wildfires.
      The EPA showed that fine particulates are lower under Trump than Obama, the exact opposite of what you said, and that it was only the number of bad air days in California that increased, and that increase per the EPA was, and I quote "largely associated with wildfires”. California implemented laws blocking Republicans from cutting down trees to create fire breaks in favor of California legislature's plan to simply create rolling blackouts from time to time (so impressive for a 1st world country) which proved ineffective.
      Quote Originally Posted by Sold Over Sticker View Post
      We are not dinosaurs. That's a false equivalency. Five times our current level, and humans as they stand are having a rough go, unless we can evolve at a rate we've never seen a human do so.
      Ugh, anything can be toxic in a ridiculously high enough dose, including oxygen and water. No rational person would say that water is a toxin just because its possible to die from insane levels of consumption. We couldn't even achieve 5 times current levels if we want to, we'd need massive constant volcanic activity to do that. Since the start of the industrial revolution, in all that time, we've only managed to increase CO2 from 300ppm to 400ppm. Up to 1000ppm CO2 is considered normal fresh air quality range. You will start to have headaches at 5000ppm, which is approaching 13x higher than today, and toxicity at 40000ppm which is 100x higher. 5x higher than today would be only 2000ppm which we would associate with feeling "stuffy" like a house that hasn't been aired out in a long time, but people would adapt to that just like people that live at higher altitude... but again totally moot, because in our entire history we've only been able to increase CO2 levels by 100ppm.

      Its senseless fear mongering that's promoted because there's a lot of money in alarmism, just ask Gore.
      Quote Originally Posted by Sold Over Sticker View Post
      I've contested in numerous threads to adapt to Euro 6, and make it that way across the board. Easier and cheaper for the OEM, and cars that adhere to Euro 6 are not the smog pump choked cars from the 70's.
      Euro 6 is fantastically more restrictive than 70s and 80s regulations, the point is about how FAST you put in restrictions. Trump still has escalating restrictions, all he did was slow the pace down because when you go to fast you get the automotive disaster. If you can't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it.

      And as a German, why would you EVER want to implement laws that we have overseas? Here in Texas I can afford to have three cars, two of them with 5.7 liter V8s approaching 400hp and fueling them is cheap. Back in Germany, I'd be lucky if I could afford just my Fiat. Why do you think that Europeans have such tiny engines in their vehicles? Because they hate performance? Of course not, its because regulations are so tight that they've made it so only the upper-middle class+ can afford anything more powerful than a hamster wheel under the hood.

      For example, we consider a Jeep Renegade to be painfully slow with 180hp as its base engine, but in Europe the base engine is 94hp, damn close to half the power of what 'Muricans consider the bare minimum. That's the kind of future that you're advocating for.

    23. How do I resize a picture? Cabin Pics's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 19th, 2008
      Location
      In The Woods
      Posts
      15,870
      Vehicles
      2004 E46, 2019 Q7
      06-30-2020 12:29 AM #22
      Quote Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
      And as a German, why would you EVER want to implement laws that we have overseas? Here in Texas I can afford to have three cars, two of them with 5.7 liter V8s approaching 400hp and fueling them is cheap. Back in Germany, I'd be lucky if I could afford just my Fiat. Why do you think that Europeans have such tiny engines in their vehicles? Because they hate performance? Of course not, its because regulations are so tight that they've made it so only the upper-middle class+ can afford anything more powerful than a hamster wheel under the hood.

      For example, we consider a Jeep Renegade to be painfully slow with 180hp as its base engine, but in Europe the base engine is 94hp, damn close to half the power of what 'Muricans consider the bare minimum. That's the kind of future that you're advocating for.
      Sounds like your issue with the Euro 6 restrictions isn't that the cars won't exist anymore, but rather you wouldn't be able to afford the cars if those restrictions were in place.

      I don't see how that's an issue for anyone but yourself.

      I'd also like to know where you get your news and sources. You complain about SoS providing facts that are incorrect, but then provide facts that are even further away, but with no source or context.

      If you're going to go blow for blow with intellectual people online you should really prepare a bit more. This is like watching a six year old try and debate with an educated adult.
      Instagram - efrie004

      Quote Originally Posted by Sold Over Sticker View Post
      You take that fake rich sled back to the toothless masses and rub their stupid meth faces in your success. Do it for me.

    24. 06-30-2020 12:35 AM #23
      Quote Originally Posted by Cabin Pics View Post
      Sounds like your issue with the Euro 6 restrictions isn't that the cars won't exist anymore, but rather you wouldn't be able to afford the cars if those restrictions were in place.
      That's exactly what I said several posts back. The higher restrictions will make vehicles lower performance and higher cost, all else equal.
      Quote Originally Posted by Cabin Pics View Post
      I don't see how that's an issue for anyone but yourself.
      And every other person in America that is in my tax bracket or lower... if you're making $150K+, great, I'm sure you'll have a lot of fun cruising around in your Cybertruck on less congested roads after forcing out all the "plebs" into public transportation. For the upper-middle+ class, its a good deal, for the average Joe its going to negatively impact their quality of life for the sake of the boy who keeps crying wolf.

    25. How do I resize a picture? Cabin Pics's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 19th, 2008
      Location
      In The Woods
      Posts
      15,870
      Vehicles
      2004 E46, 2019 Q7
      06-30-2020 12:49 AM #24
      Quote Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
      That's exactly what I said several posts back. The higher restrictions will make vehicles lower performance and higher cost, all else equal.

      And every other person in America that is in my tax bracket or lower... if you're making $150K+, great, I'm sure you'll have a lot of fun cruising around in your Cybertruck on less congested roads after forcing out all the "plebs" into public transportation. For the upper-middle+ class, its a good deal, for the average Joe its going to negatively impact their quality of life for the sake of the boy who keeps crying wolf.
      Wait, so you’re saying that V8 trucks and high performance cars just wouldn’t exist anymore? That’s laughable, they’ll still exist. You’ll just pay more for them.
      Instagram - efrie004

      Quote Originally Posted by Sold Over Sticker View Post
      You take that fake rich sled back to the toothless masses and rub their stupid meth faces in your success. Do it for me.

    26. Planters (fasciitis) peanuts. Dang dogg Sold Over Sticker's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 28th, 2009
      Posts
      18,180
      Vehicles
      LS3 Malibu, Mid Engined Camry
      06-30-2020 01:04 AM #25
      Quote Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
      Would you rather live in India with a 2.7 trillion or Switzerland with 700 billion GDP? Point was, California is just populous, not vitally fruitful and the rest of the country would run just fine with California relegated to an independent trade partner, like Canada.
      This is the conjecture that you think is important. Everything else is you ham fisting your point. You don't like California, but your data points here don't undermine what the state does. Coming from a liberal, this point is funny. Fiscal conservatism is real, and asserting that a state that adds more than it takes to tune of billions of dollars should take its money and leave the union while our federal government continues to run with a deficit is hysterical. Where do you think money comes from? States that produce.

      Quote Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
      The same as an ideological foe, yeah. You're only making it confusing by twisting words. If a husband and wife are ideological enemies and spend so much of their time fighting and undermining one another, they would be happier and more productive separated.
      Again with a false equivalency. States are not a married couple, and this country has proven in the past that even if states leave and we go to war, we'll rejoin and make it work. I'm not making it confusing. Just because you don't like a liberal state, it doesn't mean the easy solution is to boot them out. We're not toddlers and this isn't a sandbox, and our country isn't as simple as a married man hating his wife, even if she is a Karen.

      Quote Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
      The EPA showed that fine particulates are lower under Trump than Obama, the exact opposite of what you said, and that it was only the number of bad air days in California that increased, and that increase per the EPA was, and I quote "largely associated with wildfires”. California implemented laws blocking Republicans from cutting down trees to create fire breaks in favor of California legislature's plan to simply create rolling blackouts from time to time (so impressive for a 1st world country) which proved ineffective.
      EPA's claims are dubious. I just went over that. So fake news right back at ya. Since you want to selectively read what I posted again, I'll post it, again.

      The researchers explore three possibilities. The first is an increase in wildfires. That may be a contributor, but at most it’s a part of the picture. If you drop the main wildfire season from the data, you get the same general pattern: big decreases in fine particulate matter from 2008 to 2016 and significant increases from 2017 to 2018.
      I will need more information on California blocking Republicans from creating fire breaks. That's not ringing a bell with me, but happy to be educated on something. But it's mildly moot. California burning adds to but doesn't own worse air quality.

      Quote Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
      Ugh, anything can be toxic in a ridiculously high enough dose, including oxygen and water. No rational person would say that water is a toxin just because its possible to die from insane levels of consumption. We couldn't even achieve 5 times current levels if we want to, we'd need massive constant volcanic activity to do that. Since the start of the industrial revolution, in all that time, we've only managed to increase CO2 from 300ppm to 400ppm. Up to 1000ppm CO2 is considered normal fresh air quality range. You will start to have headaches at 5000ppm, which is approaching 13x higher than today, and toxicity at 40000ppm which is 100x higher. 5x higher than today would be only 2000ppm which we would associate with feeling "stuffy" like a house that hasn't been aired out in a long time, but people would adapt to that just like people that live at higher altitude... but again totally moot, because in our entire history we've only been able to increase CO2 levels by 100ppm.

      Its senseless fear mongering that's promoted because there's a lot of money in alarmism, just ask Gore.
      I was having fun with you since you said we'd be fine walking around like the dinosaurs did when C02 was 5x what it is today. 2,000 ppm onward is where the human body has physiological responses to the mixture of the air, so like I said, a rough go. Thinking we'll never get there is again myopic.

      Hockey stick growth on charts should be alarming, especially where there is a massive lag time between change requested and change granted. CO2 is rapidly increasing. Thinking this chart can't get to the points we're discussing without direct intervention by the players on the globe is a head in the sand moment.



      Quote Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
      Euro 6 is fantastically more restrictive than 70s and 80s regulations, the point is about how FAST you put in restrictions. Trump still has escalating restrictions, all he did was slow the pace down because when you go to fast you get the automotive disaster. If you can't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it.

      And as a German, why would you EVER want to implement laws that we have overseas? Here in Texas I can afford to have three cars, two of them with 5.7 liter V8s approaching 400hp and fueling them is cheap. Back in Germany, I'd be lucky if I could afford just my Fiat. Why do you think that Europeans have such tiny engines in their vehicles? Because they hate performance? Of course not, its because regulations are so tight that they've made it so only the upper-middle class+ can afford anything more powerful than a hamster wheel under the hood.

      For example, we consider a Jeep Renegade to be painfully slow with 180hp as its base engine, but in Europe the base engine is 94hp, damn close to half the power of what 'Muricans consider the bare minimum. That's the kind of future that you're advocating for.
      Ok, now you're conflating taxation and emission standards. They are 100% not the same. Europe taxes on engine size, hence the small revving engines. In the US we don't, hence paint can cylinders. That has 0 to do with emission standards.

      And why would you ever want to implement laws that others have overseas? Your words:

      Quote Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post

      Any true automotive enthusiast should be very happy about this, as it means less expensive higher performance vehicles will be available, all else equal.
      Because a single standard reduces costs to the OEM, so less expensive cars. The more permutations of cars, the more expensive they are. Make one standard, make it cheaper.

      Ready for the fun part? WHO CARES ABOUT CALIFORNIA. I get that you don't like the libtards, and we can circle the drain until the sun comes up in a tit for tat. But when it comes to one standard, globally, you won't have massive changes in regulations (so stop being scared about Obummer or the 80's), you'll have cars that the OEM can produce world wide that reduces costs. Both of my US spec cars are offered as Euro 6 compliant cars, and one is not expensive here, or in Europe.

      So if the goal is cheap speed, who the EFF cares about California. Go global, and get what you want.
      Driving While Awesome Podcast. Give it a listen. Assetto Corsa Discord Link. Join us for some sim racing fun.
      Quote Originally Posted by Phillie Phanatic
      SoS - please shoot a message when Brendan & His Retarded Sycophants has another gig. I’ll be there, front row.

    Page 1 of 10 12345 ... LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •  
    vwvortex.com is an independent Volkswagen enthusiast website owned and operated by VerticalScope Inc. Content on vwvortex.com is generated by its users. vwvortex.com is not in any way affiliated with Volkswagen AG.