Government mandates, forcing and coercion.

[Funkworks]

Really ? What about all of the states that are mandating EV's ?

https://dec.vermont.gov/air-quality/mobile-sources/zev

QUOTE :

"To date, 13 states have adopted the ZEV Program (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington)."

END QUOTE :

https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-12/charging-into-the-future-the-transition-to-electric-vehicles.htm

https://www.mesapress.com/opinion/2022/10/17/california-residents-cant-turn-their-air-conditioning-on-but-will-be-forced-to-drive-electric-vehicles

https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisc...alifornias-electric-car-mandate-clmate-change

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/12...ectric-vehicles-phasing-out-combustion-engine

Dave F.

No, I think that they will, eventually, "force" everyone into an EV, regardless of the problems and shortcomings associated with them.

I suspect that the government will resort to the following to "coerce" people to move over to EV's.

( 1 ) Reduced quantities of available fuel will generate much higher prices per gallon.

( 2 ) They will offer "tax credits" to EV owners, while taxing ICE's with "Carbon Impact Fee's" and any other taxes / fees they can dream up.

( 3 ) The government may try to "leverage" auto parts stores out of existence, in order to limit "self-repair" or eliminate access to replacement parts for ICE vehicles. ( No Belts, No Brake Parts, No Fuel Pumps, No Starters, No Water Pumps, No Alternators, etc, etc, etc. )

( 4 ) The government may create some form of "Federal vehicles inspections" with the ability to "pass", being virtually impossible, for ICE vehicles.

( 5 ) Probably a lot more things I didn't mention.

As for the Politicians, we never got our Incandescent lightbulbs back, did we ? Once they're gone ( and the manufacturers are "in on it"), they aren't coming back. Once the supply dries up, it's "game over".

Dave F.

So, how about actually answering those concerns with information from cited, verifiable sources ?

Dave F.

Let's keep that other thread free of politics ok?

 

[Ez2cDave]

Let's keep that other thread free of politics ok?

Since the source of the mandates IS the Government, anything involving requirements for EV's, by its very nature, IS "political". EVERYTHING government does IS "political", as is EVERY "law" that has ever been passed.

 

[OzHybrid]

I don't think you can keep the politics out. In Australia, they are proposing a carbon trading scheme. Using the existing"TREES" to allow industry to offset their CO2 output. So not actually reducing CO2 output, just paying money to make it seem greener. Commonly known as greenwashing.
It's the politicians that make the decision to approve these nutty schemes which just result in higher costs for all of us.

 

[Steven]

I'll take my 'old fashioned' internal combustion toys to the grave. No politics involved with this decision.

 

[Titan II]

I'll take my 'old fashioned' internal combustion toys to the grave. No politics involved with this decision.

Same here.

 

[Joekeyo]

I don't think you can keep the politics out. In Australia, they are proposing a carbon trading scheme. Using the existing"TREES" to allow industry to offset their CO2 output. So not actually reducing CO2 output, just paying money to make it seem greener. Commonly known as greenwashing.
It's the politicians that make the decision to approve these nutty schemes which just result in higher costs for all of us.

License to pollute.

 

[OzHybrid]

License to pollute.

The argument for it is so seductive to big business that it's probably the one we'll end up with. Trading carbon credits for carbon assets that already exist....... What's being proposed in the US? The same?

 

[Ez2cDave]

The argument for it is so seductive to big business that it's probably the one we'll end up with. Trading carbon credits for carbon assets that already exist....... What's being proposed in the US? The same?

In other words, "pollute all you want, provided that you are willing to pay for the privilege" which, to no one's surprise, does absolutely ZERO to help "Global Warming / Climate Change", whatsoever . . . It's all a giant "global scam" to "redistribute wealth" !

Look at India . . . They have "air you could cut with a knife" !

 

[cerving]

Here in Cali they're supposed to stop selling ICE cars in 2035. Not gonna happen. There is absolutely no way that the grid can handle charging 14M electric cars... they can't even handle air conditioners in the Summer. It's going to take a lot longer than 12 years to build up that infrastructure, and it's going to be out of our pockets vs. the gasoline infrastructure which was paid for by private industry. Oh, and there's another 17M OTHER motor vehicles too... ATV's, motorcycles, RV's, etc. Good luck getting THEM electrified. Any law that can be made can be unmade and/or changed... most likely several times before this is all over. Yes, there is a lot of politics involved in this... more of the "do something, anything" type, I fear, rather than the "let's take our time and figure out the best long-term solution" type.

 

[Ez2cDave]

Here in Cali they're supposed to stop selling ICE cars in 2035. Not gonna happen. There is absolutely no way that the grid can handle charging 14M electric cars... they can't even handle air conditioners in the Summer. It's going to take a lot longer than 12 years to build up that infrastructure, and it's going to be out of our pockets vs. the gasoline infrastructure which was paid for by private industry. Oh, and there's another 17M OTHER motor vehicles too... ATV's, motorcycles, RV's, etc. Good luck getting THEM electrified. Any law that can be made can be unmade and/or changed... most likely several times before this is all over. Yes, there is a lot of politics involved in this... more of the "do something, anything" type, I fear, rather than the "let's take our time and figure out the best long-term solution" type.

Well said, sir !

Electric 18-Wheeler's ought to be interesting, too . . . They will all be pulling "tandem trailers", but one of them will be the Battery !

Hauling a load of 80,000 lb, plus the weight of the Battery, cross-country, in EV 18-Wheelers . . . Scary !

 

[OzHybrid]

Well said, sir !

Electric 18-Wheeler's ought to be interesting, too . . . They will all be pulling "tandem trailers", but one of them will be the Battery !

Hauling a load of 80,000 lb, plus the weight of the Battery, cross-country, in EV 18-Wheelers . . . Scary !

Or maybe fix your railway and use smaller trucks for local distribution and fewer 18 wheelers......

 

[Steven]

License to pollute.

I quit smoking so I did my 'green' thing.

 

[Art Upton]

I quit smoking so I did my 'green' thing.

Same here in 2020

 

[Steven]

Same here in 2020

You're a 'greeny' too.

 

[Art Upton]

You're a 'greeny' too.

Actually i misss quoted, i quit in 2000

 

[Steven]

Actually i misss quoted, i quit in 2000

You're a double dog greenie.

 

[shockie]

I think our FEDGOV has been blatantly violating the 10th Amendment to the Constitution which states,

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

of course that's just one of several they've been violating for the past 100 years.

you know like the 1st,2nd,4th, etc etc

 

[cerving]

It's kinda funny that the "states rights" people love to make fun of California, just because Cali is exercising THEIR "states rights" differently than themselves. The government of CA has every right to pass laws restricting what kind of automobiles can be sold there... and the people of CA have every right to vote out the legislators that pass laws against their will. That's the beauty of the representative form of government... the ballot box is the ultimate checks and balance system.

 

[SolarYellow]

I'm kinda morbidly curious to see whether CA gets the electric cars thing to stick before there is no more ground water left in the San Juaquin Valley aquifer and 30 percent of the nation's food supply can't be grown any more.

 

[Cape Byron]

Or maybe fix your railway and use smaller trucks for local distribution and fewer 18 wheelers......

Yes x1000. Mass transport of goods via rail, even with diesel electric locos, makes way more sense than doing it by road. You know, the railway system was closed here (Lismore) after government lobbying by trucking companies. Money talks. Always has.

 

[bwayne64]

Yes x1000. Mass transport of goods via rail, even with diesel electric locos, makes way more sense than doing it by road. You know, the railway system was closed here (Lismore) after government lobbying by trucking companies. Money talks. Always has.

One of the most awesome Hybrids ever invented. Able to move massive amounts of product for relatively small amounts of Denaro. The greenies will still scream about the diesel component, but they've lost all credibility, if they ever had any, imnsho. If we keep going the way we are, will be back to horse and buggy. Then they'll complain about horse flatulence, lol.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Here in Cali they're supposed to stop selling ICE cars in 2035. Not gonna happen. There is absolutely no way that the grid can handle charging 14M electric cars... they can't even handle air conditioners in the Summer. It's going to take a lot longer than 12 years to build up that infrastructure, and it's going to be out of our pockets vs. the gasoline infrastructure which was paid for by private industry. Oh, and there's another 17M OTHER motor vehicles too... ATV's, motorcycles, RV's, etc. Good luck getting THEM electrified. Any law that can be made can be unmade and/or changed... most likely several times before this is all over. Yes, there is a lot of politics involved in this... more of the "do something, anything" type, I fear, rather than the "let's take our time and figure out the best long-term solution" type.

I‘m not sure if California will make the 2035 deadline either, but if it starts looking impossible as we get closer, then like you said, it will be changed. Maybe “do something, anything” isn’t an ideal approach, but if you don’t set a goal, then nothing ever changes. Better to start working toward a target that is 12 years out and adjust as needed than to spend 12 years trying to figure out the best approach while doing nothing. I mean, we’ve known this has been coming for over 30 years already and haven’t really done much about it up to this point. It’s time to get started.

California has always had good reasons to be on the leading edge of environmental innovation and regulation. A lot of it has to do with our unique Mediterranean climate and varied terrain and geography, which create a lot of micro-climates and strange weather patterns. We’ve always been on the edge of drought, while also having a huge irrigated agricultural sector. And we have some geographical features and weather patterns that trap smog, while also having a high population and car-oriented culture that generate a lot of air pollution. So we’ve had regulations around water saving and smog control for a long time out of necessity.

The number of unique and fragile micro-climates in California makes it more susceptible to climate disruption. I think a lot of Californians have been aware of how the weather we have now is different from what we had as kids. It actually feels noticeably different. And we’ve been hit with droughts like we’ve never seen in history, fires like we’ve never seen, the first hurricane in over 100 years. We’ve been told for over 30 years what is coming, and now it’s actually happening. It’s one thing to think about global warming and climate change as some distant, theoretical possibility — its different when you confront smoke, heat, and drought all the time.

And now the rest of the country is confronting that reality as well, roasting under the “heat dome” all summer long, and sucking up that Canadian smoke. Soon enough, it will be the droughts and floods (both!), and eventually the fires too. The fires and smoke are the worst. I’ve had months of summertime and fall lost to smoke in recent years, and that’s very depressing when you deal with it day after day. Although, I’m sure a straight month of 100+ degree temperatures every day is no picnic either. Literally, no picnics. Soon we will all know what it’s like to lose out on the best parts of the year because it’s just not comfortable, or even safe, to go outside due to air quality or heat. I never had to check the air quality map or weather app before planning a day outside, but now it’s part of the routine for some chunks of the year. It came to California first, but it’s coming to everyone eventually.

Maybe when that happens, people will be a bit more open to switching over to electric vehicles.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

For attribution of

I thought I duplicated a post but did not. But I couldn't delete the dupe. post. I was going to post a climate attribution effect table from the IPCC AR6. Interesting reading. Maybe later.

My post was mostly about the subjective experience of climate change and how that may affect people’s feelings about regulatory steps to switch over to EVs or other less-polluting transportation. Reports and statistics probably won’t have much bearing on that.

For people suffering under the heat dome all summer long, have they ever experienced anything like that? Is that weather like what they had as a kid? Or is it different? How do they like it?

How about people in Canada and in the northern Midwest and Northeast suffering under fires and smoke? Is that “normal”, or is it different? How do they like it?

People experiencing floods, hurricanes, storm surge, heat, cold, fires, smoke, drought and other “bad weather” anywhere in the country and world — is it what you remember, or is it more extreme?

We’ve been warned for decades that extreme weather was coming if we didn’t do something about it. For myself, I feel like what we were warned about is starting. The weather is getting more extreme than it was when I was young. I don’t like it. It’s impacting my quality of life.

I think if enough people start to feel like their quality of life is being impacted, they may be more open to government regulation aimed at keeping things from getting a lot worse.

That’s what happened with past regulation here in California, especially around air quality. We didn’t adopt government mandates for fuel economy standards and expensive smog-control devices because of reports or a vague concept of protecting the environment. It was because a lot of the state was choking on smog, and it was impacting our quality of life.

 

[jderimig]

My post was mostly about the subjective experience of climate change and how that may affect people’s feelings about regulatory steps to switch over to EVs or other less-polluting transportation. Reports and statistics probably won’t have much bearing on that.

For people suffering under the heat dome all summer long, have they ever experienced anything like that? Is that weather like what they had as a kid? Or is it different? How do they like it?

How about people in Canada and in the northern Midwest and Northeast suffering under fires and smoke? Is that “normal”, or is it different? How do they like it?

People experiencing floods, hurricanes, storm surge, heat, cold, fires, smoke, drought and other “bad weather” anywhere in the country and world — is it what you remember, or is it more extreme?

We’ve been warned for decades that extreme weather was coming if we didn’t do something about it. For myself, I feel like what we were warned about is starting. The weather is getting more extreme than it was when I was young. I don’t like it. It’s impacting my quality of life.

I think if enough people start to feel like their quality of life is being impacted, they may be more open to government regulation aimed at keeping things from getting a lot worse.

That’s what happened with past regulation here in California, especially around air quality. We didn’t adopt government mandates for fuel economy standards and expensive smog-control devices because of reports or a vague concept of protecting the environment. It was because a lot of the state was choking on smog, and it was impacting our quality of life.

The IPCC has determined that most all the of those subjective effects of recent weather cannot be attributed to climate change. I try and follow the science and that wacky MAGA IPCC. This is the best climate/weather I have personally experienced.

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-the-ipcc-actually-says-about
The IPCC has concluded that a signal of climate change has not yet emerged beyond natural variability for the following phenomena:

• River floods
• Heavy precipitation and pluvial floods
• Landslides
• Drought (all types)
• Severe wind storms
• Tropical cyclones
• Sand and dust storms
• Heavy snowfall and ice storms
• Hail
• Snow avalanche
• Coastal flooding
• Marine heat waves

Furthermore, the emergence of a climate change signal is not expected under the extreme RCP8.5 scenario by 2100 for any of these phenomena, except heavy precipitation and pluvial floods and that with only medium confidence. Since we know that RCP8.5 is extreme and implausible, that means that there would even less confidence in emergence under a more plausible upper bound, like RCP4.5

 

[shockie]

I'm still rooting for the Big One, so that California slides off into the Pacific.

 

[Antares JS]

I'm still rooting for the Big One, so that California slides off into the Pacific.

It's really not cool to wish for disaster to befall others, no matter how much we may dislike the politics of their state.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I think people know what’s going on or are waking up to it, and it’s not natural variability. When something happens, and it has never happened before, then by definition it’s not normal. And when enough things that are not normal happen over and over again, people begin to detect a pattern and determine that something has changed. And when those changes match up well with what they have been warned might happen, people are smart enough to see that the predictions are probably coming true.

Why is the ocean water temperature off the coast of Florida over 100 degrees? Natural variability! But it never happened before…

Why is there a hurricane hitting southern California? Natural variability! But it never happened before…

Why did Pheonix have over a month of high temps over 110 degrees? Natural variability! But it never happened before…

Why is the Northeast choking on so much smoke? Natural variability! But it never happened before…

People start to figure it out.

The idea that a “signal has not yet emerged beyond natural variability” reminds me of the sports doping scandals. You may have a baseball player who is already great at hitting home runs, and then one season, all of the sudden they are on fire and breaking home run records, doing way better than they ever have before and better than anyone else has ever done in the past. He was already good, and sometimes people get streaks where they play better than ever. So is it a streak that fits within the natural variability of what you might expect, even though it’s obviously unusual? Or is it doping? You can’t say any given home run is due to doping, because he hit home runs in the past. But if the streak goes on long enough or the records get far enough outside the historical norm, a lot of people will figure out it’s doping, long before anything can be proven.

Anyway, getting back to my point in my previous post, I think people will likely become more accepting of government action to switch over to EVs and other changes as they feel the impacts of climate change themselves. Mostly people are NOT convinced by scientific arguments, as anyone who’s been involved with warning about climate change can tell you from 30 years experience. They are moved by personal experience.

 

[Antares JS]

Why is there a hurricane hitting southern California? Natural variability! But it never happened before…

Other hurricanes made landfall in California in 1854,1859, and 1939.

 

[jderimig]

Got it. Follow the science only when it fits your feelings and preferred narrative.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Other hurricanes made landfall in California in 1854,1859, and 1939.

It’s clearly not common.