SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
posted by
CoolHand
on Wednesday August 31 2016, @05:37AM
from the tonight-they're-going-to-pollute-like-its-1999 dept.
from the tonight-they're-going-to-pollute-like-its-1999 dept.
Both houses of the California legislature have passed a bill called SB-32 which would tell the California Air Resources Board "to ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to 40% below the 1990 level by 2030." The state's Democratic governor has issued a statement indicating that he intends to sign it into law.
The Western States Petroleum Association and the California Manufacturers & Technology Association expressed their opposition to the bill.
links:
- the bill
- governor's statement
- Western States Petroleum Association statement
- San Jose Mercury-News
- UPI
- Vox
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
California Likely to Impose Drastic Carbon Dioxide Restrictions
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 58 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You are a fluke of the universe; you have no right to be here.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31 2016, @01:20PM
Ok, so California is taking some responsibility by limiting the CO2 they put directly in the air. Great.
But the last time I checked, China was also a major polluter, dumping CO2 and other stuff in to the the air everyone else has to live with, largely on behalf of all the crap we buy from them.
So how about an additional tax or something on items produced by China?
Yea, I thought not.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31 2016, @02:06PM
> So how about an additional tax or something on items produced by China?
People within california are like-minded enough to get a law like that passed (as evidenced by this law getting passed). But congress is composed of people from all over the country, half of which don't even believe carbon pollution is real. Consensus from them is a lot harder to achieve. If it were up to california they would impose a "carbon tariff." But states absolutely do not have the ability to create import tariffs. So, it isn't hypocrisy, its structural.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31 2016, @04:19PM
Ok, so California is taking some responsibility by limiting the CO2 they put directly in the air. Great.
But the last time I checked, China was also a major polluter, dumping CO2 and other stuff in to the the air everyone else has to live with, largely on behalf of all the crap we buy from them.
So how about an additional tax or something on items produced by China?
Yea, I thought not.
Yes, China is the largest polluter in the world. However, their population is something like 3-4x that of the US. If you want to judge by that standard, how long until the US gets to Liechtenstein's (population approximately 40,000) pollution?
China has a huge pollution problem, but before complaining about that splinter, the US really ought to remove the log from its own eyes... you know, like California is trying to take one step towards doing here.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday August 31 2016, @06:27PM
There is one, it's paid by the people of China, to the tune of 26.7 billion dollars. [bloomberg.com]
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Wednesday August 31 2016, @07:18PM
California can make a gesture like this primarily because they've outsourced manufacturing. It's not hard to have wineries and tech startups reach carbon neutral.
Of course, their lifestyle still requires CO2 be generated, but that's not directly by them. So they can feel smug and then hit the beach.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31 2016, @08:18PM
So what?
The people for whom it is most easy to take the first step are taking the first step. Somebody has to go first. If it were the people for whom it is hardest to take the first step, I'm pretty sure you'd be shitting on them for being unrealistic. Heads you win, tails they lose.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Wednesday August 31 2016, @08:52PM
Yes, gotta start somewhere. But this really doesn't seem like much. In the past, California has gotten better fuel standards for cars by mandating them for sale in the state. I worry that without that motivator of higher than US standards, this law will actually do damage to the environment by encouraging hybrids/evs and having gas guzzlers revert in quality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31 2016, @10:31PM
This law is the mechanism for higher fuel standards. It gives CARB the authority to mandate the necessary fuel efficiencies to meet the total carbon emissions target.