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:
(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.