Obtaining a new first-time passport for the sake of upcoming voting is the problem.
The passport requirement hurts married women who’ve changed their names. Women are more likely to vote democratic (56%). It took me 7 months to get a passport due to name hassles (and hours of time off work).
Also, please see this post from the thread dedicated to the proposal.
All the GOP needs to do is close passport offices in blue areas. Mission accomplished.
So, check me if I’m wrong, but don’t lots of other countries have standards for engine emissions? If any US manufacturer actually went through with rolling back their engine emissions to the 2012 standards, wouldn’t that make them virtually unsellable outside the US?
Or will they increase their costs by setting up separate US and non-US engine lines?
Or, most likely, will they just ignore this, and keep building the cars they’re currently building?
On the other hand, if other countries move to EV much faster, leaving us with the majority of the ICE market, then those other markets standards wouldn’t matter.
(I actually think we should be doing the complete opposite of this. Neither eliminating emission standards nor moving arbitrarily to EV only. We should have strict and quickly growing missions standards, without any loopholes, but also without mandating an EV. Moving one person from an unneeded huge monster truck to a new Prius saves as much gas as moving at least 2 people from a Prius to electric. Possibly 4 if the truck is an old but still huge model that doesn’t even get 20 mpg and the Prius is a plug in hybrid.)
Emission levels are calculated on the average per vehicle sold. So, GM offsets Cadillac Escelades with Chevy Equinox EV. Lowering the emissions standards has two benefits to the business in the US:
they don’t have to subsidize the EV costs to help reach the overall milage goals
IF THE STANDARDS ARE RETROSPECTIVELY ROLLED BACK, they don’t have to pay penalties on years where they missed the goal
I think that second one is the one they’re really looking forward to.
Yes, but neither of those points helps them with selling cars outside the US. That was what I was asking. These changes, if the manufacturers actually take advantage of them, will turn the US car market into its own little ghetto. Cars made in other countries, meeting those other countries’ guidelines, would still be legal to sell in the US*, but US-made cars won’t be legal anywhere else.
*Until Trump throws a fit, and passes a law requiring cars to emit more CO2, of course.
The deputy prime minister of the Czech Republic said what Mr. Potato Head is doing ‘was simply a “reaction” to “some policies that really went too far” for “regular people.”’ When Clinton asked for examples, he said, ‘the “woke revolution” and cancel culture.’ Both are things the Reich cannot define.
Note : this is directed to the the deputy prime minister of the Czech Republic, not you @Johnny_L.A
Uhummm. “Woke” is accepting who others are. What they are. They are not you. Woke means that if your boat is sinking, stop drilling holes in it you fools.
“Cancel Culture” is calling assholes and idiots assholes and idiots.
My point is that this change does not effect the manufacturing policies, only the financials of what happens inside the US. What happens in Canada or Europe or wherever doesn’t change. GM isn’t going to make individual models less fuel efficient, they’re going to sell more of the less-efficient models.
In a withering opinion Monday, Judge Cynthia Rufe invoked George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984,” saying the administration had attacked the concept of truth itself as it sought to erase details of America’s legacy of slavery.
