you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -53 points 11 months ago (14 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 11 months 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 45 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    I have never once seen or heard of market deregulation resulting in an improvement in the health of that market.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    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).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -25 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    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!!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 11 months 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 11 months 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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 11 months 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.

  • source
  • parent