SoylentNews is people
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This discussion has been archived.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.
Don't despise your poor relations, they may become suddenly rich one day.
-- Josh Billings
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday August 31 2016, @06:18PM
80% of families are two-car households with one of those cars being driven exclusively less than 40 miles a day. The original Nissan Leaf from several years ago is perfect for those people
Perhaps because they have nowhere to charge this wonder? I thought that I already mentioned this sad fact. Besides, I think that your 80% relates to families only - and there are plenty of people who do not fall under that definition. Most rental places only give you one parking spot, and a single person has no use of a second car. His gf has her own, also one car.
they have less range anxiety than in a gas-powered car. The car starts every day with a full "tank,"
Only if their day is extremely regular. Such as there is never a need to hurry home from work to rush a child to a doctor. If your life is not predictable, most today's EVs (except Teslas with adequate range) will not be a good choice. It's not I who tells you that - it's the customers who by and large stick to gasoline cars. They are not stupid! But those who find an EV good for them, buy them! I see them on the roads more and more. If you are a homeowner and you never have a need to unexpectedly travel too far, why not? But if you are young, mobile, active, you have no house to charge at; you probably rent, and you probably travel from one end of the state to another on a whim. I still do. You are trying to sell an EV to a wrong demographic!
We get it. You're a special snowflake. But that's just the point -- you're special
I have thick skin. But the important fact is that there are many people like me. We are trying to tell you how things are in our land, but for some reason you refuse to listen! You seem to resort to insults instead. “Jupiter, you are angry, therefore you are wrong.”
(Score: 2) by TrumpetPower! on Wednesday August 31 2016, @07:03PM
Yet more FUD.
I challenge you to find a suburban garage that lacks a 110-volt outlet. And that outlet will be far more than enough to put a full charge in an empty Leaf battery overnight.
Did you not read a word I wrote? Where, exactly, did I even hint at suggesting that EVs are good for everybody? How on Earth did you miss my comparison with SUVs and pickups, which are themselves laughably bad options in just as many not-hard-to-find circumstances?
Oh, give me a break. For normal people, the distances involved in those sorts of things are well within range of an EV. You're having more snowflake fantasies.
And you completely utterly failed to comprehend a word of what I wrote. How many times do I have to write that EVs aren't for snowflakes, and that snowflake specialness is as irrelevant to the suitability of EVs for the masses as the power-to-weight ratio of SSO rockets?
Oh, the ironing.
I'm not even vaguely hinting that an EV is good for you. I'm typing practically in every sentence that EVs are not an universal solution.
Whereas you're the one insisting that, because an EV is bad for you, EVs are bad for everybody. Despite your simultaneous pride at being part of a minority.
Let me guess: you and everybody you know only wears Birkenstocks, and you'd argue just as vociferously and insanely at a suggestion that most people (but not you and your friends) are going to be well suited to wearing closed-toe shoes, right?
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @03:12AM
No, I think he's saying that if California goes this route, it's going to fuck over a number of poor people, the very people many politicians claim they want to protect. So instead of imposing broad restrictions that create such collateral damage, maybe they should make a more focused effort.