Hacker News Reader

Comment by cowmoo728 | Hacker News Reader

I don't agree with his sentiment, but some people find it unfair that California basically requires every car sold in the US to come with a $1000 part to control pollution. The argument is that California regulations shouldn't set the price of cars in Mississippi.

View on HN

I am quite literally astonished to learn today that there is any first world country where catalytic converters are not required equipment.

Cats are required everywhere, but in CA they need to contain much more precious metals to meet the state standards than they would for just the national requirements. Most automakers choose to standardize on CA emissions standards nationally.

> The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is stricter on their regulations. CARB requires more precious metals and rigorous testing which is why they cost more than EPA catalytic converters.

https://autoquarterly.com/best-catalytic-converters/#Federal...

Not only are they required but CA requires $pecific ones with their CARB seal of approval. I had an older car from outside CA that never needed to comply with CA’s rules. When I moved to CA I tried to do the right thing by installing a working cat and tuning my car so it did not pollute. Got it to blow clean as a whistle but the state still failed me because it wasn’t one of their expensive approved devices. Ended up having to sell it out of state because CA labeled my car as “tampered.” You cant win with these guys.

Aren't catalytic converters installed to meet federal emission standards? They might not be explicitly mandated, but in practice you can't meet the standards without one. In which case it's just a factually false statement.

California standards are harder to meet than federal.

OK, but can you meet federal standards without a catalytic converter?

You need a catalytic converter that meets a special requirement in CA. There are in fact cars with catalytic converters sold in other states that will not pass smog test in CA without upgrading the catalytic converter. They’re not all the same.

That really proves how oftrn "unfair" is narcissistically defined as "bad for me with no regard to the larger system even in its effect on them".

The reverse of say California not being able to define limitations because they have too many people that would agree it becomes a logistical standard would be a bizzare illogic and pretty hypocritical.

Yeah and if it weren't for those pesky Californians and their regulations we would be free to use leaded gasoline like true blue-blooded Americans.

Indeed, because toxic gases generated in one place can by no mechanism pollute another. And if while standing under this tree in the rain I get wet, I will simply move to another tree and be blissfully dry.

I can’t believe people are stupid enough to think california regulations set the price of cars in other states, because they literally don’t.

They do, because of market size effects and standardization.

Automakers, textbook writers, etc cater to the largest state they serve (or the lowest common of several large markets), then distribute the same version to multiple locations.

In the case of cars, which have to adhere to California regulations to be sold in California, that can drive up the price in other markets due to expensive parts required for compliance and auto-manufacturers standardizing.

It’s also more constructive to explain why people are wrong (eg, why you think car regulations one place can’t impact the price in others) than just call them stupid.

California isn’t doing anything to anyone else. The sellers are making choices, and the market is doing what it does and allocating resources accordingly.

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause disagrees with you.

How does it disagree? How do California’s state laws prevent a product from selling in other states?

The way interstate commerce clause is used is to give federal government ability to intervene, not another state government.

The biggest markets set the price for the smallest

Tough luck? Sounds like people complaining about big government requiring them to have catalytic converters want big government to regulate markets so they don’t have to have catalytic converters.

Quite impressive cognitive dissonance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com