Do republicans really want to destroy the environment at any cost? Do they really want dirty air and rivers that are on fire due to chemical pollution? I don't get it. Where's the rational thinking? There's not even an obvious motivation of greed here - the automobile industry doesn't want the emission regulations to be turned back (cf. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/climate/automakers-califo...).
I don't say this because I like the current status quo, just because I recognize the reality of the situation.
I wish young people (in the US, the country of my citizenship) would actually vote in significant numbers, but all the data says they just don't (yet).
Younger liberals and conservatives are fairly solid on this category of issues. This isn't a case where people are going to grow up and lean Republican. People are going to remember who wasn't there for them when climate whiplash destroys their home.
I agree, if climate change goes unchecked there will be ample opportunity for "I told you so"s but I'd rather check climate change - and it's important enough to do that I'm willing to give up gloating rights and say "Hey look, we all came together and solved this issue."
For better or for worse (for worse, IMO) there was a big shift sometime around the late 80s early 90s where politicians in the US by and large stopped caring about "legacy". As long as they get elected in the next cycle, its all good (for them).
Then, the US will argue that the trade deficit is "unfair", while the real reason that markets will not buy US goods is that the products are anachronistic, sub-standard junk.
Ford and Chevy (and Honda, Toyota, VW, etc) already divide their product lines between USDM and global markets. There is some overlap, but the USDM does receive a lot of unique vehicles.
Any effects on the environment aren't even part of the calculus.
Pettiness is the point.
If Federal emissions standards are to matter, California needs to lose its special status.