The bigger problem is allowing access to the US market to nations that do not have plastics recycling mandated. Most of the plastics in the ocean come from Asia, and the biggest polluter there is China.
I agree. These should have been part of the Kyoto accords too because the alternative requires a substantial increase in sustainable forestry. And yes. China is by far and away the biggest polluter in the world. It is a major cause of ozone and other pollutants in the US.
The US CO2 output has been falling for decades. CO2 output peaked under George W. Bush in 2007, and has been on a downward slide since. We're at like 1991 levels, and with increased uptake of solar, that trend will continue.
And this is boom times. So Trump decides to take steps to slow our progress rather than increase it and damage the Kyoto accords by taking the second largest polluter in the world out of them. Hardly the conservative position.
Hence, no need for intrusive government regulations. However, during the Clinton administration, CAFE standards were lifted and manufacturers gave us SUV culture.
Yes. But then Clinton was a very conservative president. He was a believer in realpolitik and attempted to interdict the move of conservative democrats (mostly his own Dixiecrats) to Reagan's brand of conservative.
Of course Reagan was not a NEOCON by a long shot. In many ways he was left (by today's standards of liberal/conservative) of Clinton. Tease out the move to universal health care (also supported by Nixon) and you have a hawkish conservative, free market Capitalist in Clinton. Much like his wife.
Efficiency is always a good thing, so naturally manufacturers aren't going to deliberately manufacture inefficient cars. One of the nice things about advanced CAD systems is that super-cars--which are inefficient--tend to have in excess of 500bhp these days, and that horsepower increase has made it to smaller more efficient engines.
Well they do manufacture inefficient cars. Or more correctly, they market inefficient classes of cars. My own small SUV develops over 400 horses and will whisk me to Home Depot faster than just about anything else. And while it is typically Porshe clean it is still more polluting than my other car, a Prius. (No what you have read is not true. Even factoring in the manufacturing process the Prius is far less polluting than non hybrids.)
But it is the popularity of larger and generally more inefficient cars is caused as much by marketing (which is creating consumer demand or maintaining it) the manufacturers are culpable in slowing our progress not responsible for it. Indeed if they were interested in reducing pollution they would be building smaller, more efficient/less polluting cars and spending their marketing dollars promoting them.
But I like my fast SUV and am prepared to pay extra for it if we should decide to go to a pollution tax. (An idea I would support wholeheartedly.
Hence, no need for intrusive government regulations.
I tend to agree with this with one caveat. I might agree that the feds ought to get out of this business and leave it to states. But then this is the paradox that haunts conservatives to this day. Conservatives believe in smaller government (I do too. For example if I were president I would abolish the Department of Education outright.) But they also believe in states rights. So absent national CAFE standards, California, Oregon, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, et all would be free to set the standards wherever they like. As they are generally thought of as more environmentally savvy than, say, Texas and Florida, they could drive the manufacturers to produce cleaner cars or lose the $120 billion in car sales in California alone. (Just as an example.)
And this is why shallow doesn't work BJ. As you well know the manufacturers want CAFE standards and pretty much do not care what they are. All they want is a level playing field. As long as they are reasonably attainable and do not make new cars over-the-top expensive they are fine with them. The real power behind this is the Automobile dealers who fear standards that could significantly contract after market sales. All Trump is doing is a tactic similar to his Wealth Relief Act. This reduction in standards is just his "Trucks for Crackers" play.
Long answer eh?