EV Cheating Scandal [LOCKED DUE TO POLITICS]

[Mach1E]

Agree but the problem as is you would get no doubt is poor implementation you can't use a one size fits all approach as local geography is a factor in air quality so there needs to be exemptions and at that point you are back to exemptions being used it to dance around the rules again.

The Air in LA is certainly better than it was 20 years ago, but if you eliminated all cars from LA the air still is not going to be the best. There is a reason the Chumash native americans called it the valley of the smokes.

The coastal regions are a little clearer as the onshore flow will push some of the pollution further inland but in general people in LA have a tendency to forget they are living in a basin sitting on top an oil field, with little wind and moisture surrounded by vegetation that has a tendency to combust. So with nothing to really clear it out the air pollution it will continually build up over year until the winter rains arrive to clean the air at which point the cycle starts again.

Sure, but it’s still a better cause than manmade global warming where the news constantly pushes false narratives only encouraging more pushback.

Every hurricane, flood, heat, cold, fire (fill in the blank normal weather phenomenon) is somehow attached to manmade warming with zero evidence to prove causal effect.

Smoggy in Beijing? We know why……and how to prevent it.

Even if you don’t live in Los Angeles the biggest climate deniers in the middle of the woods can wrap their heads around “stinky car smoke is bad.”

Sponsored

 

[mkhuffman]

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

I seriously doubt any of our state residents want dirty air or dirty water. Just because it is done by the EPA does not mean nobody else cares.

 

[Mach1E]

But smog has been reduced so much since the 70s that I doubt it even registers on the radar of most people.

It doesn’t have to be a big bad “sky is falling” thing to register.

Just a simple “we need to keep our air and water clean so let’s pass these laws” and you get no pushback.

“The world is going to end if it’s 1 degree warmer in 100 years and we can prevent that by spending billions and doing things you don’t like……” lots of pushback.

I get that the people in charge think that “fear and anger” are the best ways to motivate action. But that isn’t true if it’s meant to divide people and we need everyone on board.

The amount of people who think that we can do something about the weather are about equal to the amount of people who think those people are crazy.


Amount of people who want clean air and water? Rounds to 100%

 

[Mirak]

Seriously doods, let's get back on topic. I can hear the Admin cracking his knuckles. I'd love to learn more about this whole multiplier thing, how/why it is now coming to light, what the downstream effects will be. I highly doubt the government is just gonna decide "welp, time to stop incentivizing EVs," but I'm very curious what this bodes for Tesla and traditional manufacturers like Ford.

 

[Mach1E]

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!

Only works if you believe those carbon credits were passed on to the consumer and affected consumer behavior.

I’m not convinced.

 

[mkhuffman]

Seriously doods, let's get back on topic. I can hear the Admin cracking his knuckles. I'd love to learn more about this whole multiplier thing, how/why it is now coming to light, what the downstream effects will be. I highly doubt the government is just gonna decide "welp, time to stop incentivizing EVs," but I'm very curious what this bodes for Tesla and traditional manufacturers like Ford.

Yeah, sorry to possibly lock your thread with my EPA complaints. I need a glass of wine.

 

[DennisD]

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.

And it is quite telling that you would suggest that.

You are advocating for something that would most likely do you more harm both financially and physically by doing away with it instead of fixing it.

Let us say a High School Senior advocated to get rid of the administration in their building because they didn't like them and not replace them with any authority figure. Basically all chaos would insue.

That is what you sound like now.

 

[Mach1E]

And it is quite telling that you would suggest that.

You are advocating for something that would most likely do you more harm both financially and physically by doing away with it instead of fixing it.

Let us say a High School Senior advocated to get rid of the administration in their building because they didn't like them and not replace them with any authority figure. Basically all chaos would insue.

That is what you sound like now.

There aren’t other systems of government in place to make laws??

That said, I don’t think we need the government for as many things as you do.

 

[superdave80]

Except that Tesla was going to build EVs either way.

Not without those credits, they wouldn't, because they would have gone bankrupt.

 

[mkhuffman]

And it is quite telling that you would suggest that.

You are advocating for something that would most likely do you more harm both financially and physically by doing away with it instead of fixing it.

Let us say a High School Senior advocated to get rid of the administration in their building because they didn't like them and not replace them with any authority figure. Basically all chaos would insue.

That is what you sound like now.

It is not an appropriate analogy. I am advocating for reducing the power of the Federal Government, not eliminating all environmental protections.

A better analogy would be to eliminate a massive public school where all students in Virginia are required to attend, and replacing it with local schools that are closer to the community and more responsive to local voters. The EPA does not give a crap about what I think, but my local state agency might. At least they are more likely to care.

 

[superdave80]

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

Yeah, nobody has even started calling each other Nazis, or worse... Tesla Fanboys!

 

[Fremont Kid]

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.

I encourage you to think 360 degrees. Any pollution created by a company, i.e. the private sector, which they do not clean up, is then cleaned up by the public or hurts the public. Businesses internalize profits and externalize costs as much as they can get a way with.

Thinking 360 degrees, the issue is not paying to clean up pollution. The issue is WHO PAYS WHEN. Either companies include pollution prevention in their costs, then pass these costs on to consumers, which is very capitalistic, because we can then decide whether the product is worth the cost. OR we as the public through taxes pay to clean up, which is very socialistic, and places the costs on those who did not create the pollution. Thinking 360 degrees, the entire capitalistic framework of polluting is really a reliance on socialism.

You can dislike the EPA, but it exists for valid reasons. Companies have come to expect the government, through many agencies, to establish standards which the companies can then use to regulate themselves - if they will. Therefore EPA standards such as 6.67 carbon offsets are helpful and expected.

 

[Mach1E]

Not without those credits, they wouldn't, because they would have gone bankrupt.

Maybe? We will never know.

But I can say for certain they don’t need those credits anymore today.

If the justification for them getting them in the past is “need based,” then I say we use the same argument to stop giving them the credits because they aren’t needed anymore.

I can get on board with the idea that they “served a purpose” in the past as long as we change them when we don’t need them anymore.

 

[Scooby24]

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.

I seriously doubt any of our state residents want dirty air or dirty water. Just because it is done by the EPA does not mean nobody else cares.

Nixon established the EPA for the very reason I mentioned. We're supposed to understand our history to avoid repeating the same mistakes.

https://time.com/4696104/environmental-protection-agency-1970-history/

I can appreciate the ideology of anything not in the constitution is illegal, but if that was practiced, we would not be able to address critical issues because congress is broken and ineffective.

That's not a realistic worldview.

“Our national government today is not structured to make a coordinated attack on the pollutants which debase the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land that grows our food. Indeed, the present governmental structure for dealing with environmental pollution often defies effective and concerted action,” he said. “Despite its complexity, for pollution control purposes the environment must be perceived as a single, interrelated system. Present assignments of departmental responsibilities do not reflect this interrelatedness.” -Nixon

 

[mkhuffman]

I encourage you to think 360 degrees. Any pollution created by a company, i.e. the private sector, which they do not clean up, is then cleaned up by the public or hurts the public. Businesses internalize profits and externalize costs as much as they can get a way with.

Thinking 360 degrees, the issue is not paying to clean up pollution. The issue is WHO PAYS WHEN. Either companies include pollution prevention in their costs, then pass these costs on to consumers, which is very capitalistic, because we can then decide whether the product is worth the cost. OR we as the public through taxes pay to clean up, which is very socialistic, and places the costs on those who did not create the pollution. Thinking 360 degrees, the entire capitalistic framework of polluting is really a reliance on socialism.

You can dislike the EPA, but it exists for valid reasons. Companies have come to expect the government, through many agencies, to establish standards which the companies can then use to regulate themselves - if they will. Therefore EPA standards such as 6.67 carbon offsets are helpful and expected.

I do think some environmental regulations are needed, for some of the reasons you mentioned. People who create pollution are not necessarily impacted by that pollution, and may not have any natural consequences from creating it.

My point is simple: until we modify the Constitution to give the Federal Government the power to create the EPA, it is illegal. Therefore it needs to go. Not only that, the EPA has far exceeded regulating clean air and clean water. Long ago they accomplished that.

Now they are regulating things that are not pollution, and creating serious economic disruptions, driving up the cost of everything. Including driving up the cost of the electricity we use to charge our MMEs.

Per the Constitution, the states are responsible for environmental regulations. Look at California, who already exceeds what the EPA regulates in many respects. The EPA is unnecessary, expensive, and illegal. It needs to go. The state governments can and will pick up the responsibility from them.

Sponsored