In the arguments against government environmental regulations, it always seems like proponents either forget or negate why they exist in the first place. Do you really think it's all just about control? I find it often ironic as we Americans live in one of the most liberal (as in regarding government control and oversight) countries. Just about every other country on Earth has stricter regulations, taxes, and rules than the US on many things. For example, in Japan, people get taxed depending on the kind of vehicle they get. This is why tiny kei-cars (yellow plate) cars exist in Japan as they are in the cheapest classification for taxes and fees, but are regulated in every way from size, weight, displacement, and power. While some Americans cry about the automotive trade deficit between Japan and the US, they likely aren't aware these 660cc max vehicles amount to about
30% of total vehicle sales in Japan. Does the US, or anybody else for the matter, make 660cc micro cars for sale? No. But guess what Suzuki is a specialist in over there? It's part of why they left the US and Canada to focus on these and other small global cars.
In comparison, it was only in the last decade or so that American brands even bothered making RHD models for sale in Japan. Hence, the lack of success among many foreign car sales in Japan is not protectionism or favoritism for Japanese brands but more that the Japanese brands specialized in making vehicles around Japan's unique regulations. Until recently, Japan gave a tax break for hybrids, trying to reduce emissions in Japan. Japanese consumers then bought up hybrids in record numbers. Guess which country invented mass market hybrids and has more hybrid models than anywhere?
Japan's huge appetite for Apple and Samsung smartphones over domestic brands is also proof the Japanese consumer market isn't protectionist and just more interested in consuming products that actually suit their needs.
Also in Japan, you can't even throw away trash there legally without buying the proper kind of trash bags sanctioned by the prefecture. Furthermore, you have to separate your trash even among recyclables like cardboard, plastics, and Styrofoam. Why? It's because Japan is a nation with very limited land space hence, there isn't much room for dumping in land fills. Recycling or incineration is how much of the trash is disposed there. However, the process requires citizens to comply with the regulations set forth for this system to work. In essence, there is a
social responsibility among all citizens to properly address matters that would otherwise create problems for the society and nation as a whole. People are always in wonder and amazement when the Japanese line-up and buy supplies in an orderly fashion after one of their many natural disasters as if they got something special about them in their country like pride, patriotism, or homogeneity. Having lived there and experienced a devastating earthquake there myself, I'll tell you what it is:
social responsibility; the idea that you and your conduct is responsible for more than yourself and is essential in the proper functioning of society as a whole. It doesn't take a break there when disasters hit.
So this goes into our discussion about California and their regulations: Why does California have strict emissions? Hmm.. ever heard of
smog? Smog regulations from decades ago have significantly cut down on air pollution and it was so effective,
it's among the best examples anywhere of a legislative impact on the environment. Keep in mind it's not only about environmental protection, but also one's health. You claim you don't like the precedence CA's regulations have on the rest of the nation but did you ever stop to think why there is that effect? Maybe because they were actually extremely effective?
Here's a National Geographic article on it:
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/new ... vironment/
Could it possibly be a social responsibility to conform to these regulations so we are better off in the state we live in? CA has some of the best evidence of how effective these policies were. If CA's politics and regulations have a trickle-down effect, fight for your state's rights but consider that CA should have its own state's rights to best address its unique issues. As the flagship of America's economy, it sure deserves it.
Also consider that CA is by far the most populated state and some of our counties alone have more people than small states in the United States. Population density affects everything from pollution to resource supply. Hence, one can't expect the realities of life to be the same from rural Pennsylvania to Southern California. They are nothing alike. I've realized this in our many discussions about auto technology and our different driving environments. I recall reading a complaint by you regarding the automated braking on your Mazda when it detected an Amish buggy. Try to find an Amish buggy in Los Angeles. Meanwhile can you relate to this: It took me two and a half hours to drive about 80 miles through most of Los Angeles county with an on-the-way drop-off at LAX. The traffic on the freeway was the sort in which one would really want automated braking and adaptive cruise control.
While we talk about differences, I should also comment on something you remarked on: prices. Yes, Californians generally pay more. However, it's because of inflation more than anything. While our prices may be higher, so are CA salaries. Houses cost more because they are also more valuable in equity. Hence, the average salary in a rural PA town will be less than downtown LA, NYC, Miami, San Francisco, etc. It's not at all unique to the state of California and applies to really any place where people desire to live and work.
Regarding the faults of direction injection, I find it amusing that you want to blame politicians for what is really just shitty engineering by automakers. While automakers may cry that regulations have made their jobs so much more difficult, it's actually been a boon to the consumer; people like you and me. We have cleaner-running cars that are more efficient than ever. Saves us money in the wallet and keeps our lungs cleaner. While DI has its issues, it looks like automakers with better reputations for engineering have devised ways to address problems given they've done much more R&D. However, again, it's my position that these technologies are desperate attempts to delay the inevitable shift to electrified powertrains. DI, small displacement turbos, 7+ speed autos, etc. are all rather incremental steps in reducing fuel consumption. After all, even today's small vehicles with these newer technologies barely get the fuel efficiency of a Toyota Prius from two decades ago. There is no better way to save fuel than to not actually burn it in the first place.
Lastly, yes, just about anything we humans do will have an impact on the environment. Even solar cells and wind mills have their negative impact as you stated. However, it's all about scale as they are not all comparable. A paper cut and a gunshot wound are both injuries that cause one to bleed. However, it's obvious which one is a lot worse. Much like one can't bleed out from a paper cut compared to a gunshot wound, landfill waste by solar energy isn't going to have an impact on global warming which is by far the greatest environmental threat.