• khepri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    How much worse could our fuel economy standards be than they already are? Does Hummer want to make something that gets 5 MPG instead of 7 lol? Not that it matters very much at all, manufacturers already don’t meet existing standards and just pay the fine each year, which is a drop in the bucket to them. So “rolling back” these standards is basically just telling Chrysler “hey, you know how you have to bribe us with about 200m a year to do whatever you want with fuel economy? Yeah let’s just forget that fee going forward.” The fines for violating our standards is just a tiny cost of doing business for them, nothing more. As they say, if the penalty for breaking some rule is a fine, then it’s only a rule for poor people.

    • pez@piefed.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Not that it matters very much at all, manufacturers already don’t meet existing standards and just pay the fine each year

      Fear not. They have already removed the fines.

      https://headlight.news/2025/07/17

      This change is just to make it harder to unfuck things if they fail at some of their goals and there’s another election.

  • Yerbouti@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Trump will soon decide we are back to 1984 so he can rape kids and say the n word while on coke and people will go, “oh that’s Donald, he’s a great a guy”.

  • Almacca@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    It’s like they have to make the worst possible decision for every single thing.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Is it though? Sure they’ll have a couple great quarters, but the US isn’t the world car market. If they can look beyond a couple quarters, they’re just becoming uncompetitive everywhere else and eventually the hammer will drop in the us as well

        • Zink@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Is it though? Sure they’ll have a couple great quarters

          STOP TALKING! WE ARE FUCKING SOLD!

        • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          13 hours ago

          No one’s looking at long term right now because they have already made the bad long term decisions years ago. So it’s either shed the massive debt with a spinoff or say fuck it and hustle for quarterly gains till the wheels fall off.

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      23 hours ago

      “But you see, those cars will have terrible mile per gallon, which means a savvy inventor can come and create a more fuel efficient car, then everybody will buy that!”

  • DaCrazyJamez@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    65
    ·
    1 day ago

    This is fairly misleading - the change just allows for market forces to drive production more than regulafions. Its already heading toward EVs, this just means that artificial imposition of quotas dont need to make prices higher for consumers.

    Im no fan of the Trump administration, but I actually agree with this move.

    • IamSparticles@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 hours ago

      The only reason the market is heading toward EVs is because fuel efficiency regulations and incentives have pushed auto makers to start phasing out their ICE product lines in favor of EVs. The demand was clearly there, but nobody wanted to invest the R&D into providing a product. Market forces aren’t enough to drive change when it’s easier and more profitable for them to just keep the status quo.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Can you really not think of anything not included in quarterly profit-taking? Long term thinking? Externalities? Tragedy of the Commons?

      This is government failing its duties yet again. Higher Short term profits for a few, at the expense of a livable climate, violence related to petrostates, higher costs for consumers, increased injuries and deaths, increased funding needs for military, infrastructure, etc …… including long term viability of the industry

    • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Market regulations prevent abuses. Without them, it’s always a race to the bottom. The free market won’t save you, it just mindlessly pursues profits (it literally can’t do otherwise).

    • Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      23 hours ago

      make prices higher for consumers

      Per the article:

      The agency last year said the rule for passenger cars and trucks would reduce gasoline consumption by 64 billion gallons and cut emissions by 659 million metric tons, reducing fuel costs with net benefits estimated at $35.2 billion for drivers.

    • LongMember69@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Regulation guides market behavior.

      If the market was already behaving in the desired way, then removing the regulation does nothing.

      If removing the regulation allows “market forces to drive production”, then the market was not behaving in the desired way and that’s probably why the regulation existed in the first place.

      Fuel efficiency standards create a floor that would not be there otherwise.

      • jacksilver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        17 hours ago

        While I’m generally pro regulation, that’s not true. You can absolutely over regulate an industry or put out regulations that are bad.

        For example NIMBY regulations that prevent multi-family units from being constructed or in NJ breweries can’t sell food (due to weird alcohol laws/regulations).

      • FishFace@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        32
        ·
        edit-2
        24 hours ago

        Then you haven’t been looking very hard. The airline industry in the US is a good example. Your internet search terms could be “deregulation case study” and would also find negative cases

        EDIT: you can downvote, but can you type three words into a search engine and click on one link that doesn’t align with your current opinions? IMPOSSIBLE CHALLENGE!!