Toyota makes some 'green' cars that are at the minimum standards so they can make the dirtiest SUVs and large trucks for sale in CA. If California restricts the mix in CA, it pushes the ultra dirty Toyotas into the other states.
You seem to believe that if Toyota puts more SUVs for sale in other states they will sell them at profitable prices. Those vehicles sell well in the US market, but they adjust production to what will sell. When they produce more than the public wants, dealers need to cut prices until they sell and they won't order a many next year.
The big 3 used to make large, rear wheel drive, V-8 powered family cars. Fuel economy standards combined with higher fuel prices for many years pretty much mode those cars extinct. In the case of the Impala/Caprice, it's now applied to a smaller car with a V-6 and FWD and the Crown Victoria/Grand Marquis names are gone. If they were allowed to sell more V-8 powered cars, they would sell some, but to a large extent the public doesn't want them anymore.
SUVs and trucks sell well in the US because gasoline prices are low and they have been since around late 2010. If gas prices went up sharply like they did in the 1970s, suddenly sales of economy cars would skyrocket. That's how the Japanese cars got a foothold in the American market. They provided more economic, but well built cars at a time many Americans were looking at their big V-8 powered cars and thinking they couldn't afford them anymore and the smaller cars from the Big 3 were awful.
And the H2 we require to fuel Sacramento creates it's GHGs in other states. That's why we call them ZEV, but should be called ZCEV (Zero California Emissions Vehicles).
H2 might have a future as a long distance truck fuel, but I think it will lose out as a passenger car fuel to electrics. H2 stations are very expensive, much more expensive than gasoline stations, there are storage problems, and economically H2 from source to turning the wheels is 3X more wasteful than electricity. Electric cars aren't quite to the point where they are price competitive with ICE, but they are much closer than H2 is.
It is possible to make your own fuel for an ICE, you can grow some kind of biomass and make ethanol, but the feds aren't too keen on the idea because the same process also makes distilled drinking alcohol and there really isn't any way to prevent that. Making your own hydrogen at home is technically possible with a solar array and a water source, but it's very energy inefficient. Making it from your natural gas supply is not very easy.
Fueling an electric car from fuel made at home is very easy though. Not everyone has the climate for efficient solar (it isn't as efficient at northern latitudes, nor in places that are cloudy a lot), but in places where the sun does shine much of the year, it allows people with electric cars to do most of their driving for free. With gasoline so cheap, it isn't a convincing argument, but the world's supply of oil is subject to disruptions. A major war in the Middle East would not impact US supplies dramatically (most US oil imports come from this hemisphere), but it would drive up the global price of oil.
Considering how unskilled and unstable the management in Washington DC is these days, the odds of a major war have gone up IMO.
And we forced much the 'dirty' manufacturing to relocate, usually in bordering states. We still buy the goods, we just move the pollution.
California doesn't do much manufacturing these days. Los Angeles used to be the hub of the aircraft industry with North American, Northrop, Douglas, and Lockheed in the LA area. Consolidated (later Convair) was down the road in San Diego. All those plants are gone. There still in some manufacturing of satellites in California, but the only aerospace builder making large things there is SpaceX. Lockheed's Palmdale plant may be doing some manufacturing, but that place is so hush hush, nobody knows for sure what's going on in there.
A lot of the old aircraft factories have either been torn down or re-purposed. The old Consolidated plant at Lindbergh Field in San Diego is still there, but it's now owned by the Navy and used as a testing facility.
California also had a lot of car manufacturing plants at one time, but now only has one building new cars. There are some small shops making conversions and custom cars, but that's very low scale.
California was a major ship building center in the 1940s. Both the Bay Area and Los Angeles areas had major shipyards. The Kaiser yard in the Bay Area was one of the highest volume shipyards in history. The only ship industry in California is the ports for trade and some ship repair businesses.
The San Joaquin Valley does have a large food processing industry. Fresno, Kern, and Tulare Counties compete every year to see which one takes the crown as the biggest ag producing county in the world. California is a massive ag producer. But food processing and packing is not a terribly dirty industry as far as air quality goes, and it can't really move all that far from where the food is grown.
There are some oil refineries in California. Tesoro and Chevron are the biggest refiners, but Exxon, Shell, Phillips, and Valero also have large refineries somewhere in the state. If demand for gasoline dropped significantly, at least some of those refineries would shut down. Because of NIMBY, building new refineries in other places is difficult. The US's refining capacity is very tight because very few refineries have been built since the 1970s and the population has grown.
A lot of the refineries are in coastal cities to refine oil coming in from overseas. Oil companies are likely going to suck it up and keep refineries running where they are rather than fight the public to build refineries in other places. They would need the expense of building pipelines to the new refineries. Add to that oil refineries need a resource that isn't common in the interior of the western US: water. Arizona's government would probably welcome refineries, but there isn't enough water to run the plants.
Just about all the manufactured goods sold in California today come from out of state. Either made in another state, or more likely, comes in from overseas.
California's clean air standards have already driven out most of the industries that would be driven out. The remaining industries don't have that big an impact on air quality, or it just isn't feasible to move them.
It's been a long time since we were killing the Mojave Desert with LA Basin airborne toxins, but we still have an effect on Federal land, which technically, does not belong to California. I was studying desert ecology back then.
I don't quite get this argument. If Los Angeles' air quality improves from a reduction of fossil fuel use, the pollution falling on any land inland from the city would go down. I would think this would be a good thing for the environment.
Many of the cities of the San Joaquin Valley, especially the more land locked ones like Bakersfield and Fresno have some of the worst air quality in the US. Hydrocarbons escaping from oil production in Kern County doesn't help, but the Bay Area's smog is the worst culprit. The prevailing winds on the CA coast blow the Bay Area's smog inland where it gets trapped in the southern Valley.
If the Bay Area produces less air pollution, the air quality in the Valley will improve too. Here are the worst polluted cities in the US for 2015:
The 10 Most Polluted Cities in America
California has more than its share. I can see why air quality is a major issue there, it's a major problem.
