View Single Post
Old 01-07-2021, 06:19 PM   #402
Irace86.2.0
Senior Member
 
Irace86.2.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 7,884
Thanks: 5,668
Thanked 5,810 Times in 3,300 Posts
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomm View Post
I'm speaking on the power of government, specifically the federal side. Is it actually within the power of the federal (not state) government to regulate commerce to this extent? Its a mostly subjective question which is why I say, time will tell but I believe the issues would arise with the commerce clause and police powers if it were to be rolled out on the federal level.
I'll agree with Dadhawk's statements and add a few things. Tax laws and product regulations are not my forte, but it seems like states have imposed their own taxes and bans of chemicals, products, etc for a long time. Obviously Trump revoked California's waiver to set its own emission standards, and that issue is being challenged in court, but California could probably resort to other methods to get rid of ICEs. One method could be taxing them so high that no one would buy them. That strategy worked with cigarettes (and California isn't even the worse state for tobacco taxes), and it could work with ICEs, as an extension of the Federal Gas-Guzzler tax. Automakers seem to be interested in moving forward.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/17/c...pollution.html

Defying Trump, 5 Automakers Lock In a Deal on Greenhouse Gas Pollution

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/28/us-c...e-causes-.html

California taxes proving hazardous to cigarette sales
__________________
My Build | K24 Turbo Swap | *K24T BRZ SOLD*
Irace86.2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Irace86.2.0 For This Useful Post:
Dadhawk (01-07-2021)