California Continues To Try And Force Feed EVs To An Unwilling Public So It Can Meet Obama Like Emission Goals

CARB is here to stay. CO2 emission reduction is a global effort and it doesn't stop with a change in US policy. Trump administration will last only 4 years or less so whatever they try to do will be temporary.

Come 2018, the Republican politicians will learn the hard lesson of bowing to Trump.

re "...Obama Like..." -- Wow, talk about politicizing a car website and inciting hate :-(

Who are you appealing to? Obama-haters? Republican supporters / Democrat haters[1]? Hateful Conservatives[2]? Haters in general? Not cool. Definitely not cool.


For people who care to get past the hate and read the linked article, its subject is "California snubs free EVs, auto industry says in push back on new emissions mandate." That's quite a different slant, no? The article goes on to say that California pledges by law to reduce so-called Greenhouse Gasses "to 40 percent below below 1990 levels by 2030".

So whether Climate Change is real or whether the climate is not changing (even though everything else in the universe is), whether humans play no part at all in that alleged climate change or they're responsible for it, in whole or in part, "Climate Change" and "Greenhouse Gasses" are largely a red herring.

Reducing alleged Greenhouse Gasses reduces POLLUTION overall, and that's a Good Thing™! It's not possible to reduce the (allegedly harmless) CO2 emissions of an internal combustion engine (ICE) while simultaneously leaving harmful levels of NOx (various oxides of Nitrogen), CO (carbon monoxide), and other harmful-to-humanity gas emissions high. They come down *together*.

I believe reducing harmful pollution is a Good Thing™, regardless if it comes about as a consequence of a Dieselgate scandal, or the allegedly incorrect "Greenies" who want to reduce so-called Greenhouse Gasses, and inadvertently end up reducing pollution over-all while possibly not affecting the climate one iota. Reduced pollution is still a very positive change, especially in smog-prone areas like LA.


I now return you to your regularly-scheduled hate-fest.


_____
IMPORTANT NOTES:
[1] I do NOT imply that *all* Republican supporters, or even the majority of them are haters.
[2] I do NOT imply that *all* Conservatives, or even the majority of them are haters.

Many of us in California really hope that Trump goes out of his way to pummel California for getting too full of itself. It simply is time for a 50-state vehicle emissions policy that prevents a rogue state like California from exceeding federal laws.

Yeah, god forbid if someone chooses to pollute less than others. It might set a bad example.

Hey... isn't this sort of like beating up and ostracizing the smart kid in class, just because they're smart and gets good grades?

#triggered #losing the debate

I've always thought that it was stupid to have a 49 state requirement, and another for one state. Even with the additional states that follow CA (and mine is now one of them), I still feel that it needs to be a national standard. I would support cancelling the ability of CARB to set standards that differ from the rest of the country. It might have been a necessary evil in the 70s, but the national standards nowadays is more that sufficient for CA as well.

The real need is to move to federal laws that apply to all 50 states so that there truly is equal protection under the law.

MDarringer: Damned right! Get that smart kid in line so that everyone in class can be protected by being equally average. We don't want to let anyone's feelings get hurt by being shown up by some know-it-all, right?

Your argument is equivalent to defining building codes, and punishing those who choose to build *better* than code. In case you're not aware, building codes are a way of of saying "you cannot construct a building that's any WORSE than minimum standards, AKA 'The Code'." Similarly, pollution laws should be intended to say "you cannot pollute any more than X", rather than decreeing by law "you must pollute at X, and not less."

My understanding is that even though the state of California has some of the strictest pollution laws around, and it's getting stricter all the time, that it has the 6th largest economy in the world[1]. Not too shabby for a bunch of lunatic "Greenies" who are allegedly hell-bent on destroying business!

____
[1] As measure by 2015 GDP. Thereabouts, as it fluctuates year to year.

@TheSteve You must be losing your mind to go down the path of such an illogical response. Dumbing down students that the liberal teachers unions you support take glory in has nothing to do with equal protection under the law.

You offer an apples-to-oranges comparison and you fail to prove.

What you ARE advocating for is a separate-and-unequal system of laws, but then again you party wanted to keep gays in the closet, black from voting, and women barefoot and pregnant.

You probably believe that utopia is just a few laws away. That was Hitler's plan.

MDarringer & BobM: Both of you seem to be violently opposed to a state decreeing “we choose to pollute less than other states, and we will create laws to reduce pollution in our own state.” You spin that as being unfair to others, and that all states should be compelled to pollute equally.

My belief is to let California create whatever anti-pollution laws they want FOR THEMSELVES. If these laws end up crippling their economy (i.e., bad for business), then you can be sure there will be a popular revolt! If those laws end up hurting the population (possibly by an excess of clean air?) then you can be sure there will be a revolt. If it makes California a bad place to live, then you can be sure that real estate prices will plummet and there will be a mass population exodus. So far, none of these dire consequences are happening.

California seems to be benefiting by being a progressive U.S. leader in reducing air pollution. And yet, good folks like you put a negative spin on that. Oh well :-(

I return you to your insults and Ad Hominem arguments.

@The Steve Nice try, but I'm not "violently opposed" to anything because I'm not a Liberal. Liberals are the ones who get violent.

Let's say that we agree that logic and reasoning behind it being OK to "...choose to pollute less than other states, and [to] will create laws to reduce pollution in our own state.”.

It follows then that you would also agree--using literally the same logic--that banning all entry of Muslims to the USA would be OK.

You would say “we choose to have stricter rules (pollute less) than other nations (states), and we will create laws to control criminal aliens (reduce pollution) in our own nation (state).”

The environmental laws have crushed the California economy that yearly wrestles with insolvency.

Bullies come in all shapes and forms, but you "sir" are an intolerant, ideological bully.

As for "insults and Ad Hominem arguments", that's literally YOUR tactic in a nutshell.

But hypocrisy is OK when you're a Liberal as you are.

MDarringer wrote "...As for "insults and Ad Hominem arguments", that's literally YOUR tactic in a nutshell..."

I believe that anyone reading the written record, as shown in this forum (and many of your other posts), can clearly decide for themselves who is 'Attacking the Man' (Ad Hominem arguments). As for bullies, well, your posts speak volume about that topic, as well, with everything from "Moonbats" and other name-calling, to vilifying and ridiculing anyone who disagrees with you.

Methinkst thou doth protest too loudly, Matt.

@TheSteve, you're so easily triggered that I almost derive too much pleasure sending you into paroxysms. It's so easy to do. Like a big, lazy fish, you bite the bait every single time and make yourself look foolish.

You used to be honorable and level-headed, but you must have gone off your meds because the borderline personality disorder with narcissistic tendencies is back. Take some clozapine and call me in the morning.

MDarringer: re "triggered"

There is a psychiatric trait called "transference," in which the patient attributes their own thoughts and characteristics to others.

A simple review of your posts (here and elsewhere) shows your inability to deal with people who disagree with you. Your posts provide abundant evidence of this, for other's review. You speak of me being "triggered," and yet it's you who is compelled to attack others with name-calling (e.g., "Moonbats"), groundless accusations (e.g., "off your meds"), personal belittling and ridicule, and other forms of personal (Ad Hominem) attacks. All it takes is for someone to disagree with you to trigger you into a venomous tirade.

My hope is that you might be able to see some truth in what I say, and possibly choose to moderate your behavior in the future, but I speculate you'll become even more angry, and you'll simply attribute your clear visible unsavory characteristics to me... and anyone else who disagrees with you, as you have in the past and as you do here.

It's classic transference pathology.

There will always be people who push back against change. Eliminating segregation, Giving women the right to vote, divorce and own property, safe work place laws, firearm ownership, seatbelts etc... California is doing just fine doing it's own thing. It will continue to do so as the rest of the USA catches up. Making vehicles less safe, less efficient or less attractive to consumers will not win you any market share in the future or overseas. I would personally like to avoid a future where I have to buy bottled "clean" air along with bottled water at the supermarket....