Home | About | Donate

EPA Rolls Back Fuel Efficiency Standards at the Request of Automakers


#1

EPA Rolls Back Fuel Efficiency Standards at the Request of Automakers

Dave Cooke

In what comes as a surprise to absolutely no one following the current administration, today EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a redetermination of the appropriateness of the EPA’s vehicle regulations through 2025 and found that they should be made less stringent. In doing so, he is overturning thousands of pages of hard evidence, and the consequences


#2

We need to make our voices heard. Tell the auto makers, if you build to the rolled back standards, we will not buy you’re vehicles, and only buy from the manufactures who refuse to do so.


#3

Terrible sellouts like me warned folks stuff like this would be the result of voting third party in swing states in 2016. Oh well. We taught the neoliberals a lesson while upholding the awesome sanctity of our pro-environmental vote!


#4

You told us so KC.

I voted Green in Maryland. No swing state there.
Solid NeoLiberal support.

Some people never learn.


#5

California buys 10-12% of all new vehicles. Oregon and Washington follow California’s lead on this. That’s 1/6 of the total but all of the West Coast.
Bring a vehicle from another state into these 3 states that doesn’t pass our specs and pay a $10k fee for registering it or no legal plates, tags, titling, etc.
Don’t like that, don’t move here.
End of story.


#6

So, what’s your message to the people that didn’t vote? Lowest turnout in 20 years for a presidential election. How about the huge number of people (much larger than the group you always focus on) that voted for Obama, then voted for Trump? How about the group (much larger than the group you always focus on) of registered Democrats that supported Trump? What about the data showing that supporters of Sanders voted for Clinton more than Clinton supporters did Obama in 2008? Or the data showing that a large percentage of Jill Stein supporters wouldn’t have voted if Stein didn’t run? In other words, you never had their vote. It’s illogical to continuously make the argument you’re making, and if the Democrats do to a progressive candidate what they did to Sanders in 2016, the left shouldn’t support the Democratic candidate. If the Democrats do that, it is on them, and them alone. No one owes your party their vote, you party owes voters something, and it refuses to change at the national level. Same corruption, same rotten policies and dated strategies, same leadership.

Do you think your party learned a lesson from 2016? Did you? I mean, you did nominate someone so bad that she lost to Trump, and she’s still more unpopular than Trump is, which is mind blowing. I see no evidence you’ve reflected on that one bit. Your party certainly hasn’t, at least at the national level. Same corrupt cesspool.


#7

Clinton got more votes than Obama. What’s your silly point? Trump barely won and it came down to a small portion of voters in a few states.

And if you folks aren’t adult enough to see a lot of people are going to be adversely affected by your ongoing holier-than-thou sanctimony, okay. Call it a win by your side. You’ve punished everyone, keep enjoying it.


#8

I’m not sure how old you are KC, but to put “your” faith in a political party that values “their” campaign donations from “their” corporate donors, more than they value you as a human, is totally naive.

Grow up and stop blaming those who had little to nothing to do with your saviors loss.

She, individually, was the greatest reason for her own loss.


#9

HRC wasn’t my savior, hardly. But I knew the difference between stacking the judiciary with outright corporate goons and an executive branch run by hacks versus technocratic moderates at worst. One was going to deliver anti-progressivism and graft, one would deliver a 5 member lean-Left Supreme Court majority and reasonable judicial appointments, which last a lifetime.


#10

Still fighting the good fight, I see. More power to you, even though we don’t agree on the solution.

What’s really, really funny is that so many here at CD think that we need a savior, which is an inherently conservative position. It’s the view of subjects toward their king.

Clinton wasn’t a savior, obviously. (And oi, fools, quote me saying she was.)

Trump…well…nah, that’s obvious.

Will it be Communism? Anarcho-Syndicalism? Leninism? Trotskyism? Maoism?

HA! The workers who will decide that probably haven’t even been born yet.

In the meantime, the “left” on CD fight against…ummm…well…ummmm…looks like they fight against anything that would keep them from fading even faster than they already will.

They should get out more. The world is bigger than they seem to think. It’s not a terrible world at all, really. It’s just that terrible things happen in it. They could stop some of them from happening, but they won’t, because they want them to happen. “Terrible things” is what they rely upon to smugly convince themselves that their nihilism was right all along.

It doesn’t have to be this way, but too many people, especially those who proclaim so self-righteously that IT’S NOT TRUE, want it this way. That way, they can ALWAYS be right. Egoism, it’s the defeat of goodness every single time.


#11

I am done with the fight, but can’t help poking when I see happening exactly what I and others predicted would happen, happening. It’s like some progressives had to see things getting rolled back—especially the sellout Obama initiatives—to realize we had them in the first place. Oh well.