Hacker News Reader

> So, I am harmed by CA's standards and have no recourse - I can't vote in CA state elections because I don't live in CA.

You aren't harmed by California's standards by any stretch of the imagination:

You can't show any actual harm by not being able to purchase specific diesel engines.

> Meanwhile, up to 29% of SF Bay Area smog is from China (I found different quoted numbers ranging from 20 to 29%)... which has nothing to do with cars being driven by Americans.

Sure, let's sign a bill telling the smog it can't go to LA anymore. That should do the trick. Do you understand the purpose of the regulations are to give Bay-area residents breathable, healthy air, and these regulations are the ones California can actually enact?

But hey, it's a conservative mantra to only think of the individual, so you fit the mold pretty well. Poor guy, can't buy a BMW 320d, and the damn Bay-area residents should get sick and breath horrible air so he can.

My point is that people in the other 49 states are harmed by CA's action and have no representation to fix it due to CA's veto power over diesels.

If a 320d is MORE efficient than a Prius, even though it doesn't have batteries, wouldn't you want it to be sold in the USA?

EDIT to add: it seems that the latest gen of the 320d is sold in the USA, as the 328d. The previous generation was not, which is what my comments were based on.

> My point is that people in the other 49 states are harmed

I know that's your point. But your point is without merit. You aren't being harmed because you aren't showing harm. California isn't vetoing diesels. They are regulating their environment and businesses are responding by not producing vehicles that meet the smog requirements.

You keep talking about efficiency, it's not about that. It's about pollution. You aren't being harmed, even had you been more informed about the 328d.

> The BMW 320d, which is sold all over EU etc. and has better performance and better fuel economy than the Toyota Prius? CA won't allow its sale because of their regulations.

The BMW 320d that is sold in Europe is exactly the same car as the 328d that IS sold in the US, including in CA. I know, because I have one.

California is much bigger than just the SF Bay Area. And I don't understand the relevance of the effect of the Chinese smog.

The smog from China is not under the control of CA...

> The smog from China is not under the control of CA...

Right, which is why it's not relevant.

Not impressed with your response... it is entirely relevant if the claim about the regulation is that it will reduce smog, but the smog isn't even coming from cars in CA to begin with.

Try thinking a bit harder.

Even by your statistics, 71% of the smog is local and thus can be reduced. The 29% that cannot is irrelevant.

Thinking a bit harder is good advice, you should try it some time.

Your cited article says ~20 percent of the smog might come from China. That still leaves 80% that presumably comes from California or nearby states. Why do you think California should be less concerned about emission standards if it is true that they are getting Asian pollution on top of what is produced in-state?

If you were living in California in the 60s and 70s when they had a huge home-grown smog problem, you might be more appreciative of their efforts today. California did what they had to do to get out of a crappy situation, that Trump wants to undo that “to make America stink again” is sad.