EV Cheating Scandal [LOCKED DUE TO POLITICS]

[Mirak]

illegal as in created and funded by congress. sure thing buddy. i see article I constitutional bodies delegating executive function isn't really your thing but it isn't illegal.

Getting off topic here, but that's a significant oversimplification. Congress has abdicated large swaths of its constitutional authority to the executive branch's bureaucracy (or the bureaucracy has usurped it - pick your interpretation), but this is going to be reined in right quick with the impending death of Chevron Deference.

Granted, I've acknowledged that the Supreme Court, albeit with a significantly different makeup, previously blessed the EPA's expansion of the Clean Air Act to regulate the stuff we all exhale with every breath and that is necessary to sustain all life on earth, and that ain't gonna be revisited anytime soon.

Point of this thread is that I was genuinely curious about that recent WSJ piece. It still sounds pretty screwy to me. But it also sounds like the EV multiplier was "hidden in plain sight" for years - it's just very few people were paying attention?

Sponsored

 

[ctenidae]

What I don’t understand is a company like Tesla that builds cars using zero gas, and never plans on building gas cars,
Somehow gets paid credits by other manufacturers so they can continue to pollute.

That would be like the government letting my neighbor pay be $100 since I don’t do cocaine, and then the government allowing them to do cocaine. This would cut down on drug use how exactly?

One important difference is that the total # of cars being bought is a (sort of) constant- the mix of ICE vs EV vs H2V vs whatever else doesn't matter - there are still the same number of total cars. The policy goal is to increase the % of EVs in the mix, but EVs are more expensive to make than EVs. The carbon credits transfer some of the "cheapness" of ICE cars to EVs. The policy doesn't care what companies are involved - the market sorts that out. If Ford used Mach e credits to offset Explorer sales, to them it's the same as if they bought Tesla's credits to offset Explorers, just the accounting stays on their books rather than being a cash item. Tesla gets rewarded for making an expensive EV and ICE manufacturers get punished for making cheap ICEVs.

Your coke example works similarly, if there is a limit to the number of lines available. Say you and your neighbor both have access to the same number of lines but you're more of a meth guy and don't need or want your lines. Your neighbor could buy your lines, paying you for your coke credits that you don't need. If you can control the # of lines available you can increase the cost of coke, thereby reducing its total useage. You get $100 to support your meth habit, which is beneficial to society because you spent an hour scrubbing the flag on your mailbox and you've beautified the neighborhood. Without the line credit system you're scrapping pennies for meth, your coke allotment is wasted, and your mailbox is still dirty. With the line credits, it's a win-win!

 

[kltye]

EPA = Environmental Protection Agency

Why not (instead of eliminating) make it better?

For the life of me, I don't know how people come to the conclusions that doing away with something that protects the Environment is something that should be disbanded? The EPA through all of their faults have helped save thousands of lives through guarding against the polluting of lakes, land etc.

Now don't get me wrong, there are issues and troubles with everything but to do away with it because someone thinks that it is "bad" is not seeing the big picture.

It reminds of when Reagan said that you shouldn't trust the organization that he was the head of. That maybe was the stupidest thing that ever came out of a politicians mouth. Maybe that is why many gov't. programs are not doing well? The people that we put in charge wanted it to fail and now we are wondering why they should exist. Hmmmmmm

EPA = Environmental Protection Agency

Why not (instead of eliminating) make it better?

For the life of me, I don't know how people come to the conclusions that doing away with something that protects the Environment is something that should be disbanded? The EPA through all of their faults have helped save thousands of lives through guarding against the polluting of lakes, land etc.

Now don't get me wrong, there are issues and troubles with everything but to do away with it because someone thinks that it is "bad" is not seeing the big picture.

It reminds of when Reagan said that you shouldn't trust the organization that he was the head of. That maybe was the stupidest thing that ever came out of a politicians mouth. Maybe that is why many gov't. programs are not doing well? The people that we put in charge wanted it to fail and now we are wondering why they should exist. Hmmmmmm

It's because there are always people who think that the best way to exist in society is "everyone for themselves". Those people are usually... well, a certain type of people. Don't feed the trolls

 

[DennisD]

Because it is illegal and it abuses its power. It needs to go. The EPA is probably the number one Federal agency responsible for driving up inflation.

Then fix it.

People in general don't like rules or laws. Those that think we can do away with such rules because they don't like them make everyone suffer due to their lack of judgement of the rules/laws applied.

Thankfully there are usually more "adults in the room" and most rules/laws stay in place.

Now instead of complaining I would suggest using your energy to make it better.

Win-Win.

 

[kodiakng]

Getting off topic here, but that's a significant oversimplification. Congress has abdicated large swaths of its constitutional authority to the executive branch's bureaucracy (or the bureaucracy has usurped it - pick your interpretation), but this is going to be reined in right quick with the impending death of Chevron Deference.

Granted, I've acknowledged that the Supreme Court, albeit with a significantly different makeup, previously blessed the EPA's expansion of the Clean Air Act to regulate the stuff we all exhale with every breath and that is necessary to sustain all life on earth, and that ain't gonna be revisited anytime soon.

as long as you're continuing to digress the topic far off target...

LOL congress can reign in any portion of the executive delegation they want at any time - i'm sure you've heard of the Congressional Review Act. executive functions are delegated and reviewed by congress.

yes, recent SCOTUS stacking was well played to reverse decades of precedent. stalemating congress is working well too. well done.

Point of this thread is that I was genuinely curious about that recent WSJ piece. It still sounds pretty screwy to me. But it also sounds like the EV multiplier was "hidden in plain sight" for years - it's just very few people were paying attention?

"hidden in plain sight" - LOL. LMAO even.

 

[ArthurDOB]

The EPA needs to be defunded and eliminated. I am tired of them wasting my money.

Oh, dear. This is as far as I read on this thread.

 

[devmach-e]

Oh, dear. This is as far as I read on this thread.

Oh come on, we've got much further to go before it becomes a complete train wreck...

 

[Cm12]

WSJ seems to have some sort of bias against EV’s within that article. It says a Model Y gets the equivalent of 65 MPG and says that’s about the same as a hybrid. That’s very misleading at best, and outright deceitful at worst.

Yes, a Prius can get in the mid-50’s. Most 5 passenger SUV hybrids are still in the mid 30’s combined and the best I saw was the Rav 4 with 41/38. There wasn’t any need for WSJ to even comment on this false comparison, yet they did so and it made it through the editorial process.

 

[Scooby24]

99.999% of the public, including me, wants clean air and clean water. That doesn't mean we need an illegal Federal agency to achieve it. In fact, clean air and water can be enforced by state governments just as easily, and if a certain state government decides to regulate CO2 (that is not a pollutant), and unnecessarily drive up the cost of everything, you can move from that state to one that cares about its economy and its citizens.

Competition between states is a good thing. One monolithic and oppressive central government is a bad thing.

It's a good thing dirty air and water respects state boundaries!

 

[azerik]

It's a good thing dirty air and water respects state boundaries!

And countries too I guess.

 

[Mirak]

as long as you're continuing to digress the topic far off target...

LOL congress can reign in any portion of the executive delegation they want at any time - i'm sure you've heard of the Congressional Review Act. executive functions are delegated and reviewed by congress.

yes, recent SCOTUS stacking was well played to reverse decades of precedent. stalemating congress is working well too. well done.



"hidden in plain sight" - LOL. LMAO even.

You can have the last word, friend. We don't need another thread shut down due to petty political sniping. Good day to you.

 

[Mach1E]

The reasoning behind it is that the government wants SOMEONE to build an EV instead of an ICE so there is less pollution. They don' really care who builds it. This is, effectively, Ford and others outsourcing EV production to Tesla, and they are paying Tesla to do it.

Except that Tesla was going to build EVs either way.

The whole point of incentives is to CHANGE behavior. Paying people to act the same (even if you like how they act) is a waste of an incentive.

 

[Mach1E]

First, I want to get in on this $100 for not using cocaine thing. I like it! I'm hoping it is $100/month.

I'm curious tho, haven't many of us already possibly(?) participated in an incentive for buying an EV that we might have bought even without it? Maybe just a few of us are like "Tesla" in the example, we were going to get an EV with or without that incentive. I'm pretty sure I was.

Yup.

And when the government foolishly gives out free money, I’ll take it.

But I’ll still admit it’s foolish of them to do so.

I thought it was foolish for my bank to refinance my mortgage at 2.1% as well. But I gladly signed the papers.

 

[mkhuffman]

illegal as in created and funded by congress. sure thing buddy. i see article I constitutional bodies delegating executive function isn't really your thing but it isn't illegal.

Illegal as it is not authorized by the Constitution, which defines what the Federal Government is allowed to do. All branches of government allowing it to happen does not change the fact that there is no EPA clause in the Constitution. Buddy.

The problem there is that pollution doesn't stop at state borders.

The Interstate Commerce Clause would then allow the Federal Government to help resolve disputes between the states. Assuming there are disputes, which I doubt. Everyone wants clean water and clean air.

 

[mkhuffman]

Then fix it.

People in general don't like rules or laws. Those that think we can do away with such rules because they don't like them make everyone suffer due to their lack of judgement of the rules/laws applied.

Thankfully there are usually more "adults in the room" and most rules/laws stay in place.

Now instead of complaining I would suggest using your energy to make it better.

Win-Win.

I will continue to vote for people willing to reduce the overreach of the Federal Government. Even if I could become the chief executive, getting rid of the EPA isn't within my power. So there is not much for me to do except express my opinion about it.

Sponsored