Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, September 18, 2019

The Trump administration plans this week to revoke California's long-standing right to set stricter air pollution standards for cars and light trucks, the latest step in a broad campaign to undermine Obama-era policies aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change, two senior administration officials said.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

no doubt every ethically challenged, inverted morals, devoid of character, "States Rights" "conservative" know-it-all will chime in on this federal government overreach into a states right to govern.

Just kidding
We all know they are just whiney little boys and not real men
There is some AOC for them to quiver on about!

#1 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-09-18 11:06 AM | Reply

So much for the right winged argument about States rights.

#2 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-19 12:07 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

So much for the right winged argument about States rights.

#2 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

That's a fair criticism that rings hollow because you abhor any notion of states rights.

#3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-19 12:18 AM | Reply

As goatman would sstt himself over ,when did she ever say that

#4 | Posted by bruceaz at 2019-09-19 12:28 AM | Reply

While I enjoy CA doing this to a point, I am not upset with Trump doing this.....

CA has some good stuff going, but its a little out of hand.

A better solution is give me more of a rebate on a Tesla.... so the poor can help me get to work on the cheap.

#5 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-19 12:32 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

I believe in federalism, even if California's policies to fight global warming in one state are moronic and make living here more expensive than necessary.

#6 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-19 06:07 AM | Reply

"A better solution is give me more of a rebate on a Tesla.... so the poor can help me get to work on the cheap."

Poor Andrea, can't afford to drive to work so we need every car on the road to burn more fuel so that she can afford to drive there. This is just such a blatant political stunt done to please the a******s in 4 x 4 trucks, unnecessarily burning 10 times the necessary fuel for transportation just because it will piss off the libs. That's all these people are about, they don't actually care about anything except pissing of the libs. But when global warming actually does make their corner of paradise uninhabitable they won't claim any responsibility at all.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-19 06:11 AM | Reply

#7 | Posted by danni

Confess your climate sins. You're not willing to give up your comfortable lifestyle any more than anyone else.

drudge.com

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-19 06:19 AM | Reply

Trump is a sick man.

#9 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-09-19 06:28 AM | Reply

"Confess your climate sins. You're not willing to give up your comfortable lifestyle any more than anyone else."

Simply not true. I drive a very fuel efficient small car and watch a******s pass me every morning in 4 x 4 pickup trucks on their way to their offices. My son told me how some of them "punish" the rest of us by pouring out smoke unnecessarily by forcing extra fuel into the engine just to make more smoke which they have their exhaust directed to allow them to put it in other folk's faces. You're such a bitter old man that you can't even accept the fact that some of us actually have values, that we actually do care about the generations who will succeed us. Everything we do should be based on how it will affect those succeeding generations.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-19 06:51 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

The auto industry doesn't want them repealed. So why is it being done?

So much for the right winged argument about States rights.

#2 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-19 12:07 AM | Reply

They only pretend to care about it when a state is using their power to discriminate against LGTBQ people.

#11 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-09-19 06:58 AM | Reply

That's a fair criticism that rings hollow because you abhor any notion of states rights.

#3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-19 12:18 AM | Reply

This is the response of a man who knows the original poster is entirely right.

#12 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-19 07:52 AM | Reply

_____________________________________________

EPA Plans to Revoke California's Right to Set Air Pollution Rules

That's interesting.

1. To revoke something (e.g., "the right") it had to be granted before. When did EPA grant this particular "right" to California?

2. What if the car companies "voluntarily" decide ("collude") to keep the agreed upon rules because they know that less than 2 years from now new EPA chief will throw out Trump's rules and whatever lawsuits it will generate.

3. California can simply refuse to allow certain cars to be sold in the state unless car maker offsets them with lower emission cars (fleet sales) and no amount of federal pressure will do anything to beat that. Of course, Trump could put tariffs and sanctions on California (JK), but they could also put tariffs and sanctions on his businesses (NK).
_____________________________________________

All in all, nice "tough guy" show from "The Apprentice President" Trump to his cult followers.

Not to say that California is doing something reasonable or "saving the environment" by denying the choice of its residents to buy any car they want, if they have money to pay for one of the most expensive gas bills in country due to taxes and regulations.

#13 | Posted by CutiePie at 2019-09-19 07:57 AM | Reply

We have cleaner air all over the country because of the California standards. How is it beneficial to anyone to undo those standards? Well, unless you're an oil company?

#14 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-19 08:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Not to say that California is doing something reasonable or "saving the environment" by denying the choice of its residents to buy any car they want, if they have money to pay for one of the most expensive gas bills in country due to taxes and regulations."

When I was in high school, many years ago, the air in Southern California was like smoking a pack of cigarettes every day. They had to do something and they did and from what I've read the air is much cleaner today. They weren't "saving the environment" they were saving the lungs of all the people who live in California. That it also benefited the rest of the country is just a bonus. That anyone could actually find fault with what they did just sort of proves they didn't live in Southern California in the 60's. In other words, it just proves they don't know what the hell they are talking about.

#15 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-19 08:16 AM | Reply

That's a fair criticism that rings hollow because you abhor any notion of states rights.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-09-19 12:18 AM | REPLY

I'm not the one who runs around here squawking about States Rights. Thast would be you and your ilk. OWN IT Coward.

#16 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-19 08:32 AM | Reply

I'm not the one who runs around here squawking about States Rights. Thast would be you and your ilk. OWN IT Coward.

#16 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

I know. That was my point. You oppose states rights so to invoke it on this thread is rank hypocrisy, coward.

I fully support California's state right to set their own emissions standards. You see, it's because I have consistent standards whereas you have situational standards.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-19 08:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Funny how liberals want states rights only when it benefits them.

Can we now have states rights on abortion?

#18 | Posted by boaz at 2019-09-19 08:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Funny how liberals want states rights only when it benefits them....

#18 | POSTED BY BOAZ

I know, right.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-19 09:54 AM | Reply

Confess your climate sins. You're not willing to give up your comfortable lifestyle any more than anyone else.
drudge.com

#8 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Ahh... here is the expected Tu Quoque.

One of the FAVORITE logical fallacies of conservatives.

#20 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-19 10:18 AM | Reply

Every deplorable --------- who voted for the bloated------------ deserves aggressive lung cancer.

#21 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2019-09-19 10:53 AM | Reply

Jeff, I don't ideologically believe in states rights, but I DO believe our government should allow California to set its own standards. ALLOWING states to set their own standards is not in conflict with my belief that a state's rights are submissive to national rights.

Conservatives (and I am assuming you are part of that group) DO believe in states rights (or at least claim to). So, my understanding is that they believe that states should ALWAYS have the right to set their own emissions standards.

Our beliefs should intersect on this issue. My reading of the situation is that there should be OVERWHELMING bipartisan support for California being able to set their own standards because most people either (A) supporting the government allowing states to set more stringent emissions requirements (most liberals) or (B) believing in "states rights" so that all states should be able to set their emissions standards regardless (most conservatives).

I am confused why I am not seeing any evidence that (supposed) conservatives are part of this "coalition".

Could it be that conservatives don't actually believe in "states rights", they only believe in them when it is convenient to accomplishing one of their other goals?

Sorta reminds me of the whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" thing. Which Republicans scream until they froth at the mouth when it convenient. But when that border patrol agent was killed by a "gunwalked" gun, suddenly it was not the person's fault who shot him, it was the fault of the GUN, and because the Obama administration allowed the gunwalking then it was Obama's fault.

#22 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-19 11:00 AM | Reply

#22 | Posted by gtbritishskull

An article I read this morning suggested CA can get around the EPA by banning sales of cars that don't meet CA emission standards.

It's baffling how right wing idiots from L.A. on DR are fine with smog returning to the levels it was in the 70's. All because .. Trump. They'd be fine with a nuclear attack on the West Coast if Trump was cool with it

#23 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-19 11:10 AM | Reply

This is a tricky situation. On the one hand the reason Cali was granted a waiver in the first place was because of smog. On the other hand, the reason for 1 federal standard is so that the carmakers aren't trying to comply with 50 different standards - the complexity and costs to manufacturing if that was the case would be astounding. During the Obama administration, new 'rules' (notice no accompanying legislation for new CAFE standards) were put in place to match what California had - California was setting emissions standards for the entire country. No state should have that kind of power. Fortunately, the Trump administration rescinded the Obama rules.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-19 11:15 AM | Reply

#24 | Posted by JeffJ

I lived in the L.A. area for many years. The smog was horrible. People with asthma and other lung conditions had a horrible time. Luckily, I lived at the beach where the offshore winds made it somewhat less of an issue, but in town and the SF valley it looked like Beijing on summer days. CA emission standards lowered the smog level considerably.

American automakers aren't suffering for CAFE standards. GM made $8 billion last year ...

#25 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-19 11:22 AM | Reply

I believe in federalism, even if California's policies to fight global warming in one state are moronic and make living here more expensive than necessary.

#6 | Posted by nullifidian

It's always cheaper to pollute than not pollute. In the short run. Morons like you cant see beyond the short run.

#26 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-19 11:25 AM | Reply

California was setting emissions standards for the entire country. No state should have that kind of power. Fortunately, the Trump administration rescinded the Obama rules.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ

Tell it to the senate, where a couple empty states can control the lives of the most populous states.

Or tell it to Iowa, who get whatever they want from politicians because they vote first.

#27 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-19 11:26 AM | Reply

Jeff, I don't ideologically believe in states rights, but I DO believe our government should allow California to set its own standards. ALLOWING states to set their own standards is not in conflict with my belief that a state's rights are submissive to national rights.

Ignoring all the fluff, logically, yes it is in conflict.

supporting the government allowing states to set more stringent emissions requirements

Its gone beyond what is needed.

Imagine being a scientist or bureaucrat in California CARB, you need a reason to justify your existence, well "make up" more "pollution". All the original efforts by CA have been noble and right.

Right up until it FORCED MTBE on the populous ... then it went to crap and did more damage than polluted cars have ever done.

CA disallows Diesels from Europe which is outrageous, those are so much "cleaner" than cars 10 years older still on the road.

Just like with EVERYTHING, at somepoint you have reached a theoretical point where more restrictions isn't going to help given the amount of effort. Known as diminishing returns. Focus on Electric infrastructure, focus on change, not more regulations.

As a conservative I believe in a clean environment. I also believe there are better things the state should focus on with better returns.

#28 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-19 11:35 AM | Reply

I believe in federalism, even if California's policies to fight global warming in one state are moronic and make living here more expensive than necessary.

#6 | Posted by nullifidian

California's always been a more expensive place to live in than other parts of the country. I really liked living in L.A. The only reason I left was because my house was at the beach and commuting all over L.A. every day as a studio musician - OC to the west valley - began to take hours a day due to traffic congestion. My friends in the music biz laughed at me for moving to Nashville. Now they all live here. I do miss a lot about L.A.

If you hate it so much why don't you move to Texas or something? I've never seen anyone whine so much about where they live and continue to live there. You must be on a state program you don't want to give up.

#29 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-19 11:36 AM | Reply

It's a battle with sides, so no one is going to win. On one side, the same people complaining about this (Liberals) argue that states shouldn't be able to set the laws either because they will make worse laws, so are being hypocritical...they only agree that states can set these rules when those states use rules they agree with. On the other side, you have people whining about states' rights (Cons) but then do hypocritical things like this.

Either way, neither side is doing anything constructive but hating on the other side, which is the only non-hypocritical thing either side is doing.

#30 | Posted by humtake at 2019-09-19 11:36 AM | Reply

I lived in the L.A. area for many years. The smog was horrible. People with asthma and other lung conditions had a horrible time. Luckily, I lived at the beach where the offshore winds made it somewhat less of an issue, but in town and the SF valley it looked like Beijing on summer days. CA emission standards lowered the smog level considerably.

This is true.

American automakers aren't suffering for CAFE standards. GM made $8 billion last year ...

Thats all? Apple makes that much in quarter and its products are more destructive long term "pollution".

#31 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-19 11:41 AM | Reply

The only reason the federal government should address something like this is if the state policy impacted other states. For instance, pollution created in Ohio often blows into Maine and articially makes Maine's air quality appear poor. It's not Maine's fault...they're just downwind. If Ohio decided to allow an increase in pollutants, Maine would have to appeal to the federal government for redress.

For this? The feds should stay out of it. Let Cali do Cali. By that same token, let Cali solve their own homeless problem.

#32 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-09-19 11:41 AM | Reply

Either way, neither side is doing anything constructive but hating on the other side, which is the only non-hypocritical thing either side is doing.
#30 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

I don't see any hate, people appear to be giving thoughtful comments.

#33 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-19 11:42 AM | Reply

Umm

I think "liberals" are simply pointing out the rank hypocrisy of the supposed "right" on their ever changing "convictions"

Of course the -------- here on the DR have to make it into something else, because to do otherwise is admitting their dishonesty

#34 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-09-19 11:43 AM | Reply

I fully support California's state right to set their own emissions standards

And yet you don't come here to criticize the Trump administration's decision at odds with your purported beliefs; you come to argue with another poster about whether they are consistent. Priorities.

#35 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-19 11:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

For this? The feds should stay out of it. Let Cali do Cali. By that same token, let Cali solve their own homeless problem.

The impact is that CA is a an enormous market/driver of NEW automobile sales, this raises the cost for the person in Maine.

But CA won't be for long, hopefully though the Electric car takes off.

Remember CA was going to ban certain paints on cars as well?

Its using their market share as leverage to keep CARB bureaucrats in business. Its beyond helpful at this point and IMO merely a talking point "what you want more pollution"?

There are plenty of product SiliconValley makes that are worse than automobile pollution at this point.

#36 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-19 11:46 AM | Reply

American automakers aren't suffering for CAFE standards. GM made $8 billion last year ...

Thats all? Apple makes that much in quarter and its products are more destructive long term "pollution".

Posted by AndreaMackris

No pun intended, but your analogy is Apples to oranges.

Most automakers have reported record profits in recent years. CAFE standards haven't hurt them one iota. And increased mileage standards have helped every consumer in America.

#37 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-19 11:54 AM | Reply

I fully support California's state right to set their own emissions standards. You see, it's because I have consistent standards whereas you have situational standards.

#17 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

During the Obama administration, new 'rules' (notice no accompanying legislation for new CAFE standards) were put in place to match what California had - California was setting emissions standards for the entire country. No state should have that kind of power.

#24 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I think you are conflating Trump rescinding Obama's emission standards and Trump also taking away the waiver that allowed California to set THEIR OWN emission standards.

So, are you going to say that you are in full opposition to what the actual subject of this thread is (Trump revoking CA's waiver which allows them to set their own emissions standards)?

#38 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-19 12:04 PM | Reply

Ignoring all the fluff, logically, yes it is in conflict.

#28 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

I don't believe in "states rights" as an overarching philosophy. But that does not mean I believe that states should not have ANY rights to regulate activity within their state. This is actually a good example of my beliefs. I believe that the federal government should have the ability to set MINIMUM standards (no one can go below them) but we should allow states to set HIGHER standards if they choose.

On the other hand, the reason for 1 federal standard is so that the carmakers aren't trying to comply with 50 different standards - the complexity and costs to manufacturing if that was the case would be astounding.

#24 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

This is an EXCELLENT argument AGAINST states rights in general. And I definitely it is a legitimate debate to have between people who apparently DO NOT BELIEVE IN "states rights". Does the extra cost and complexity that goes along with have different rules and standards to conform to outweigh the benefit from allowing the state to regulate the issue (so that it can be more tailored to the individuals in that state)? I say yes, but someone could make a good argument for "no".

But, a "states rights" person would argue that it doesn't matter what the costs and benefits are... the constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate emissions within the state so California should be able to regulate the emissions however they want. Especially since it does not impinge on any other state's rights since any vehicle which crossed state lines out of California would meet or exceed the emissions standards within the state it was crossing to (unless there are states that have set, or want to set, MAXIMUM emissions standards that I don't know about).

#39 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-19 12:21 PM | Reply

Trump Thinks San Francisco Homelessness Is Polluting the Ocean, Threatens EPA Action

slate.com

Trump evidently doesn't know that undoing clean water regulation - which he's ordered - means more polluted water eventually ends up in the ocean, doing far more harm than SF's homeless ever could.

What an unthinking moron.

#40 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-19 02:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There are plenty of product SiliconValley makes that are worse than automobile pollution at this point.

#36 | Posted by AndreaMackris

No you just hate smart people.

WHat does silicon valley make that has the potential to kill billions of people?

#41 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-19 02:42 PM | Reply

"WHat does silicon valley make that has the potential to kill billions of people?

#41 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY "

Well, first of all, you are moving the goal posts for miles. No one spoke of anything having the potential to kill billions of people.

But if had been honest and asked "What does Silicon Valley make that pollutes the planet, the answer would be, well, silicon for one.

"The Environmental Cost of Computer Chips"

corpwatch.org

#42 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-19 03:06 PM | Reply

Electronic devices are a complex mixture of several hundred materials. A mobile phone, for example, contains 500 to 1,000 components. Many of these contain toxic heavy metals such as lead, mercury, cadmium and beryllium, as well as hazardous chemicals, such as brominated flame retardants. Polluting PVC plastic is also frequently used.

These dangerous substances cause serious pollution and put workers at risk when the products are manufactured or thrown out. Of particular concern is the exposure of children and pregnant women to lead and mercury. These metals are highly toxic and can harm children and developing fetuses even at low levels of exposure

#43 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-09-19 03:16 PM | Reply

Well, first of all, you are moving the goal posts for miles. No one spoke of anything having the potential to kill billions of people.

#42 | Posted by goatman

Wrong as always

www.forbes.com
Climate Change Could Kill Off Clouds And Return Us To A 'Hothouse Earth'

#44 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-19 03:18 PM | Reply

--Climate Change Could Kill Off Cloud

"Could" being the key word in every gloom and doom article for the last 50 years.

#45 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-19 03:22 PM | Reply

"Wrong as always
www.forbes.com
Climate Change Could Kill Off Clouds And Return Us To A 'Hothouse Earth'

#44 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY "

Actually, I was right. No one, up until your latest post mentioned anything killing billions as you claimed. Your moving of the goalposts does not make me wrong.

Now address my link on silicon valley pollution that you asked about and I provided data for.

#46 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-19 03:27 PM | Reply

"Could" being the key word in every gloom and doom article for the last 50 years.

#45 | Posted by nullifidian

The gloom and doom articles have proved far more accurate than the polluter-funded fake articles that you trust instead. You know - the ones that used to say it wasn't happening, then said it wasn't manmade, then said it's too expensive to address, and now say it might be a good thing.

#47 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-19 03:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Actually, I was right. No one, up until your latest post mentioned anything killing billions as you claimed. Your moving of the goalposts does not make me wrong

#46 | Posted by goatman

How many people can survive on a world without farms moron?

#48 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-19 03:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--The gloom and doom articles have proved far more accurate

BS. 50 years of failed, hysterical predictions starting with Paul Ehrlich in 1968 and the first Earth Day in 1970. I actually attended Earth Day events and thought just like you. The End is Near! You should be on a street corner shouting about the End Times.

#49 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-19 03:45 PM | Reply

"How many people can survive on a world without farms moron?

#48 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY "

Ask you question as an adult, not a child, would and I'll be glad to answer.

The stunted emotional mindset of name callers

www.psychologytoday.com

#50 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-19 03:45 PM | Reply

"Ask you question as an adult, not a child"

Mmm, that's good name calling!

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-19 03:55 PM | Reply

"Mmm, that's good name calling!

#51 | POSTED BY SNOOFY"

Nothing wrong with calling the manner of questioning childish, especially when it is.

Before you launch yourself into predictible full blown snoofygames (tm) mode, diagram the sentence as you used to in HS English and it will be clear I did not call anyone any names.

I took your bait, but I spit it back out. Now begone, troll!

#52 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-19 04:00 PM | Reply

BS. 50 years of failed, hysterical predictions starting with Paul Ehrlich in 1968 and the first Earth Day in 1970. I actually attended Earth Day events and thought just like you. The End is Near! You should be on a street corner shouting about the End Times.

#49 | Posted by nullifidian

The end is approaching. Those guys were only off by the timeline. WHich is infinitely more accurate than the side which said nothing is happening is all just a chinese hoax.

#53 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-19 04:07 PM | Reply

"Nothing wrong with calling the manner of questioning childish, especially when it is."

Not so sure about that:
www.psychologytoday.com

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-19 04:07 PM | Reply

"Not so sure about that:"

Of course you're not. But you would be if you diagrammed my sentence

You'll have to continue this episode of snoofygames without me.

Bye noe troll!

#55 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-19 04:10 PM | Reply

No state should have that kind of power. Fortunately, the Trump administration rescinded the Obama rules.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ .

Trump Is Angry That Automakers Don't Want His Anti-Climate Change Policy

President Donald Trump raged against the auto industry Wednesday, as car manufacturers continue to balk at his administration's planned rollback of Obama-era fuel emission standards. The Trump administration has long planned to stop Obama's policy, but California, which receives a waiver to enact its own fuel policies, responded by enacting tougher emission standards of its own. Now, automakers are caught in the middle between the two competing standards"but more are taking California's side, including four of the world's largest automakers. And, predictably, Trump isn't thrilled.

#56 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-19 04:56 PM | Reply

MORE from the article:

Similarly, while Trump may hail the rollback as a cost-cutting measure for consumers, a Consumer Reports analysis found that the regulations will instead actually cost consumers $3,300 more per vehicle each year by increasing fuel costs. And though Trump insisted Wednesday that his standards would have "very little impact on the environment," studies found the rollback could be Trump's "most consequential climate-policy rollback yet." The rollback could release anywhere from an extra 321 million to 1.25 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through 2035, and the added pollution from Trump's regulation in 2035 alone would eclipse the total annual emissions made by smaller countries like Austria, Bangladesh, or Greece.

Instead of these bogus claims about cost and safety, Trump's decision to push the fuel rollback instead appears to be driven by the oil industry, which has mounted a massive Koch-backed campaign supporting lower emission standards.

Yay! Right, JEFF?

#57 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-19 05:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Trump Is Angry That Automakers Don't Want His Anti-Climate Change Policy"

There may be hope for Capitalism yet!
Funny, how Capitalism has to oppose the state, to do the right thing...

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-19 05:04 PM | Reply

--a Consumer Reports analysis found that the regulations will instead actually cost consumers $3,300 more per vehicle each year by increasing fuel costs

That's BS. Don't buy a new car. Problem solved.

#59 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-19 05:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#58 | Posted by snoofy

Seems some right wingers are eager to pay that additional $3300 a year in increased fuel costs, breathe fouled air, and leave the Earth worse off for their kids and grandkids so oil companies can earn more profit, which more likely than not has as much with Trump undoing anything Obama did as it does pressure he's getting from oil companies.

Speaking of higher fuel costs: if America is pumping enough oil to be self sufficient, why did the price per gallon jump .60 at my local gas station in when someone bombed SA's oil refinery? Shouldn't self sufficiency mean we aren't subject to events on the other side of the world? Ya, I know, world markets and all that ...

#60 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-19 05:27 PM | Reply

Seems some right wingers are eager to pay that additional $3300 a year in increased fuel costs, breathe fouled air, and leave the Earth worse off for their kids and grandkids so oil companies can earn more profit, which more likely than not has as much with Trump undoing anything Obama did as it does pressure he's getting from oil companies.

#60 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Of course they are. Repubs would rather poison their own kids than admit liberals were right about something. Even though time always proves liberals right about almost everything and conservatives wrong about almost everything.

#61 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-19 06:02 PM | Reply

#61 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

You don't care about poisoning people or the planet just as long as it's not in California.

#poser

#62 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-09-19 06:22 PM | Reply

You don't care about poisoning people or the planet just as long as it's not in California.

#poser

#62 | Posted by SheepleSchism

Horrible people like you have to tell themselves that everyone else is just as horrible as them.

Haven't seen any progressive posts from you lately. When did you decide to give up the charade?

#63 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-19 07:50 PM | Reply

"Horrible people like you have to tell themselves that everyone else is just as horrible as them.
#63 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY "

Emotionally insecure people and those with low self esteem call other people horrible or otherwise denigrate them to make themselves feel better about themselves. It's a well known pschological fact. It's no wonder it's your primary response to anything.

activerain.com

#64 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-19 08:11 PM | Reply

Ca needs to make it known now that when Trump is gone, those rules are coming back and that non conforming vehicles will be heavily penalized or banned from Ca roads and highways.

#65 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2019-09-20 04:57 AM | Reply

Funny how liberals want states rights only when it benefits them....
#18 | POSTED BY BOAZ
I know, right.
#19 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

It's funny.

Democrats favor overruling state's rights when it comes to individual rights being taken away or issues that endanger the rest of the country, i.e. guns, environment, gay marriage, etc.

Republicans favor overruling state's rights when it fits their agenda.

#66 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-09-20 12:16 PM | Reply

I'm so old I remember when Republicans were FOR "state's rights".

#67 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-09-20 10:16 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort