So, today via executive order, CA Governor Newsom banned new sales of ICE powered vehicles (cars and personal trucks) in CA after 2035. Did a lot of the usual climate change spiel.
Where this gets interesting is that Trump has in the past, mentioned revoking California's exemption in the Clean Air Act that lets them have their own emissions standards (CARB) vs rest of country (EPA).
EASY MODE: Interstate Commerce Clause gets used against Newsom.
Gavin Newsom is pushing that further today with an executive order that all new in-state sales of passenger vehicles must be zero-emission by 2035. In other words, only EVs will be available for purchase as new vehicles from 2035 forward in the state. Announced in a live feed, the order was signed on the hood of a Ford Mustang Mach-E.
The governor said that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) will develop regulations that mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in the state be EVs by 2035. The state follows regulations from 15 countries that have called for similar bans on the sales of new vehicles. It would be the first state in the United States to announce such a regulation.
Gavin Newsom
@GavinNewsom
NEW: We’re facing a climate crisis.
We need bold action.
CA is phasing out the internal combustion engine.
By 2035 every new car sold in CA will be an emission free vehicle.
Cars shouldn’t give our kids asthma.
Make wildfires worse.
Melt glaciers.
Or raise sea levels.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
2035 is probably an unrealistic deadline, lithium-polymer batteries aren't the most environmentally friendly thing in the world themselves and how they're supposed to stop Republicans buying cars in the next state over out of pure spite I have no idea. But how much of California is not yet on fire? I can hardly blame them for being desperate enough to take drastic action at this point.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin
Hahahaha. Yeah, and we're all gonna ride the Bullet Train that'll totally be built and run on time and at a cost effective manner.
Newsom's just doing all he can to set himself up as the 'Anti-Trump' in case the orange man wins another four years so he can run in 2024. Meanwhile, his state can't keep the lights on during hot days. Yeah, Electric Vehicles are great, and I'd love to have one of those Telsa pickups when they finally roll out, but no way is this gonna actually happen.
Until there is at least plant producing non-ICE vehicles are a rate comparable to a ICE production line, this is completely unrealistic and unobtainable.
Preferably two, with one based in California
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.
It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
didn't cali try to do this before and was overulled by bush?
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
I STRONGLY doubt electrical vehicle technology will be sufficiently mature AND ECONOMICAL enough to replace gas and diesel vehicles by 2035. Not only that, but many homes must be retrofitted with chargers for electrical vehicles for them to be viable- and if you live in a condo or an apartment building (as I do), you'll also have to install security systems to prevent your neighbors from using your chargers and saddling you will the bill.
I'm reminded of the US Army and Navy's EPIC FAILed attempts to develop the Future Combat Systems and Littoral Combat Ship, as replacements for legacy weapons systems; I doubt attempts to replace gas and diesel vehicles with electrical ones will be any more successful.
Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.
They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)
So the question is, what will step into the gap left by ICE engines being banned ?
While I've got my doubts on an executive order holding for 15 years, I can see legislation doing the same thing. At some point, fighting climate change will require the banning of fossil fuel vehicles. So something will have to fill the gap.
Maybe a lot more work from home, with public transport/taxis covering the travel that still happens.
Maybe hydrogen powered vehicles. I run into someone trying to hype them up a few times a year.
Banning fossil fuel vehicles won't do much for emissions when most of the electricity to charge them comes from fossil fuel plants.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
I heard (have not done any research to confirm this) that even when electricity is produced by fossil-fuel burning power plants it has at least the potential to be less polluting because capturing emissions from a power plant is more likely and more feasible than from a million individual vehicles.
Whether that's true or not, alternatives to petroleum for power production might be the way to go, although I assume we all know that's not quite as easy to achieve as many would like.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Batman wrote: ↑2020-09-28 09:16pm
Banning fossil fuel vehicles won't do much for emissions when most of the electricity to charge them comes from fossil fuel plants.
bilateralrope wrote: ↑2020-09-28 08:12pm
So the question is, what will step into the gap left by ICE engines being banned ?
While I've got my doubts on an executive order holding for 15 years, I can see legislation doing the same thing. At some point, fighting climate change will require the banning of fossil fuel vehicles. So something will have to fill the gap.
Maybe a lot more work from home, with public transport/taxis covering the travel that still happens.
Maybe hydrogen powered vehicles. I run into someone trying to hype them up a few times a year.
Hydrogen is absolutely not going to see widespread use. Ever. Thermodynamics and entropy alone will see to that. Storing hydrogen is also an absolute bastard. It's not as much a fucker about sneaking out of seals as monoatomics like helium, but it's still a tiny bastard that loves to get out. Horrible energy density in terms of volume. Gets into the metal it's contained in and makes it brittle (check out hydrogen embrittlement)... And to get a little more detailed on the thermodynamics and entropy of the matter, any source of hydrogen we can readily get is going to take a pretty big energy investment to isolate hydrogen gas. Then you burn it and get, if you are very lucky, 40% thermal efficiency. After you even get molecular hydrogen with efficiency worse than that from methane or water. Compare to electric, where if you're only at 80% efficiency from battery to motor you've got a godawful electric motor. Hydrogen is just... terrible. The more steps you have until you're moving the vehicle, the worst it gets.
Investing in infrastructure for electric and improving battery capacity and charging speed is going to do more to help get us away from fossil fuels than trying to burn something that doesn't have carbon. Getting away from lithium and rare-earth metals is something that's a target of research right now and would prove very useful if successful. For now, lithium-ion is the best choice but who knows what tomorrow will bring? The important part is that batteries are less inefficient than hydrogen would be.
I don't see there being sufficient manufacturing capacity for California to actually go all-electric by 2035. A miracle might happen, but... I'm not expecting it. This'll either get dropped or pushed back. Repeatedly.
Sig images are for people who aren't fucking lazy.
