SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the ban-gas-instead-of-passing-it dept.
France and the United Kingdom are doing it. So is India. And now one lawmaker would like California to follow their lead in phasing out gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles.
When the Legislature returns in January, Assemblyman Phil Ting plans to introduce a bill that would ban the sale of new cars fueled by internal-combustion engines after 2040. The San Francisco Democrat said it's essential to get California drivers into an electric fleet if the state is going to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets, since the transportation sector accounts for more than a third of all emissions.
"The market is moving this way. The entire world is moving this way," Ting said. "At some point you need to set a goal and put a line in the sand."
California already committed five years ago to putting 1.5 million "zero-emission vehicles," such as electric cars and plug-in hybrids, on the road by 2025. By that time, the state wants these cleaner models to account for 15 percent of all new car sales.
Could the hills surrounding Los Angeles one day become visible?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 30 2017, @03:28PM (13 children)
Assholes. It's alright to push a new tech out. Subsidize it if you like. But, ban an old tech? Bullshit. And, with all the ancient vehicles ambling up and down California's highways? Consider that not ALL Californians have given up their guns. I foresee an untimely death for politicians who enact any such law.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @03:59PM (1 child)
Sounds like you huffed too much leaded gasoline.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @08:36PM
That's just unfair. We all know that Runaway [soylentnews.org] doesn't huff gasoline (leaded or otherwise), he prefers booty bumping [tweaker.org] meth.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @04:10PM (6 children)
But but that would be murder! There is no Constitutional right to own an internal-combustion vehicle! The politicians who would enact such a law draw their authority from various constitutions, with authority drawn directly from We the People, so we HAVE to obey such a ban!
Yes, I'm being facetious. I'm stalking you from another thread [soylentnews.org] where you appeared to show blanket support for "government authority", where such "authority" included the ability to do things that the sole source of said authority could not do.
After all, what's the root difference between a republican government banning you from land you owned so it can be used be someone else, and banning you from owning or using an ICE vehicle you owned?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 30 2017, @05:42PM (4 children)
"appeared to show blanket support"
Perhaps it appeared that way. But, no, no blanket support. Eventually, the assholes answer to "we the people". Right now, I believe that an overly large number of them have forgotten that important fact. They do need reminders from time to time. How's that saying go?
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. -Thomas Jefferson
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @06:28PM (3 children)
What delineates a patriot from a tyrant, or a citizen-soldier from a murderer? I'm trying to push your viewpoints, which I perceive through your words as being hazy at its foundations, into sharper relief.
Who are "we the people"? This is a deadly serious question. Are "We the People" 50%+1 of the specific subset of all humans within the USA's borders who are allowed to vote? That would necessitate things like the stupid ICE vehicle ban as being perfectly legitimate, and that any watering of the tree of liberty would in fact be murder by thugs angry at justified government agents. If in fact "We the People" are 50%+1 of the voting populace, then there are effectively no limits on "legitimate government authority" as anything that 50%+1 can be bamboozled into voting for becomes justifiable for government to enforce at gunpoint. Therefore, I assert that "We the People" are no greater than a single human individual in terms of authority: "We the People" are just ordinary lone humans writ large
This is why I harp repeatedly about the original source of authority, which starts at a single individual human and his right to life. The mechanics of a right to life require that the human who inhabits the body is the exclusive and sole owner of that body, because ownership includes and necessitates the ability to destroy, and if someone else has authority to destroy a human's body, then that human can't very well have a right to life. (Please excuse me if I don't address conjoined twins or pregnant women at this time.) If you are the ONLY owner of your body, then all you do with your body also belongs to only you: your work, your artistic creations, and all derivative works are yours alone with no one else having a legitimate claim to any portion of it.
This means that you and I are exactly equal in authority. I have 100% authority over myself and 0% authority over you, and vice-versa. I can offer to buy your land if I want to build a road over it, and if you consent, I can proceed with proper authority as you have sold your land to me which I can then build my road on. If you refuse to sell me your land, then NO amount of neighbors I gather together to support my cause will have any more authority than I do to take your land without your consent. Likewise, I cannot delegate authority to seize your land to my enforcer, Brutus, nor to my band of neighbors, nor to a gaggle of people I refer to as a government
I can't delegate what I don't have.
Thus US government authority is FAR diminished from what most people perceive it to be, and anyone using power against others without authority is aptly described by a common term: criminal.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 01 2017, @06:40PM (2 children)
Hey, AC. I haven't forgotten you. I'm thinking. Or, at least putting my thoughts in order. Maybe I'll have a good answer for you, maybe I won't, but I haven't forgotten you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @09:57PM
Awesome. I'm still stalk- er, watching this thread.
I'd be very much interested in your thoughts after having them mulled over. I'm encouraged to have engaged with you on this topic, and am quite interested in the outcome, even if it means you find a flaw in my assertions that I hadn't thought of myself. It's fun when two minds meet to dissect a topic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @06:44PM
I've still got an eye on this thread. Though my ultimate goal isn't to solicit further responses from you, but to find a "better truth". I hope the ideas we talked about have had some merit, and can be used to bash away some of the weaker aspects of your ideology. Likewise, I hope to have the weak bits bashed off of mine, so I'll keep pitching them to seemingly-interested folks and see what comes of it.
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Saturday September 30 2017, @08:41PM
A minor point, but perhaps an important one: Where exactly does it say in TFS or TFA that ICE vehicles on the road or sold before 2040 would be banned?
IIUC, the proposal to to ban the sale of *new* ICE vehicles after 2040, not to ban the use of them or even to ban the sale of used ones.
But perhaps I missed something somewhere.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Informative) by tfried on Saturday September 30 2017, @05:19PM (3 children)
Not trying to stop your righteous fury, but you did note that the proposed ban is about sale of new gas cars?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @06:47PM (2 children)
How does that distinction make a difference? All I see is an attempt to soften the backlash against the ban by spreading its effects out over time.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Saturday September 30 2017, @06:52PM (1 child)
Because it doesn't affect anyone who owns a gas car.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01 2017, @12:46AM
Yes, parts and supply lines for the same won't be affected by a ban on new ICE vehicles AT ALL.
Now imagine me rolling my eyes at you.