California Governor signs order to ban gas vehicles by 2035

[Marv]

Steve I truly admire the patience you have when writing these long answers trying to convince people with facts
who actively ignore facts and don´t want to change their mind. It has to be quite exhausting, but if everyone would
be like me the fight against climate change would be lost in a heartbeat... if it´s not too late anyways. In some ways
I´m really not looking forward to what this earth is going to be like in 20 to 30 years from now

 

[Old Mike]

The biggest problem with EVs is and always has been range, and that problem is being addressed as we speak. Even so, if EVs are going to be a viable replacement for gas power, we need a reliable network of charging stations, just like gas stations. Home chargers and public stations in trendy downtown areas won’t cut it. And that means we need to produce more electricity. Good that we’re discussing it here, but I don’t see a lot going in the media. The bartender from NYC made a big stir with the green new deal, but like her aide or policy advisor said, it’s not really about the environment, it’s about controlling the economy. So there are issues involved here that aren’t getting much coverage. Are we prepared to cover hundreds of thousands of acres of open landscape with wind generators and solar panels. Did anyone do an environmental impact study on that? And never mind that wind and solar simply don’t have the capacity to replace existing power sources. Increasing the range of these cars means new battery technology. But very little has been said about the materials used in the newest batteries. Some of the materials are toxic and currently come from countries that are hostile to us. Add to that the fact obtaining those materials and disposing of the batteries when they’re no longer serviceable is not environmentally friendly. Again, where’s the environmental impact study? I’m not against EVs, but as far as I’m concerned, they’re not far enough along developmentally, and we’re not getting the whole story.

 

[The Goose]

You obviously do not know what you are talking about. I know Mary Nichols and and her background and you don't obviously. You put up the equipment, so what do you really know about the cost and other issues you claim to know so much about? This is all B.S. You have often stated you hate this state and it shows. Why not move somewhere else and get a good job then? I asked you this before and you don't answer that question. Caterpillar isn't the only provider of backup generators for hospitals and many hospitals use equipment that complies with CA standards.

And no one said that at this point in time all of this equipment is yet where it needs to be in terms of development but we have to start somewhere.

Here’s one of the bunch of stories on the corruption going on with fake credentials in CARB. Most of these clowns still have their jobs. I just picked one at random so I can’t be accused of cherry picking.

CARB scandal also shames California media
05Nov, 2012by CalWatchdog Staff
Print this articleFont size -16+

Nov. 5, 2012

By Chris Reed

It was four years ago yesterday that the California Air Resources Board sent out a letter that marked the beginning of an amazingly juicy and revealing scandal that the Los Angeles Times and San Jose Mercury-News chose to ignore — a scandal that the Sacramento Bee later tried to pretend it hadn’t ignored.

In the Nov. 4, 2008, letter, state Secretary for Environmental Protection Linda S. Adams responded to S. Stanley Young of the National Institute of Statistical Sciences, based in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Young had questioned the expertise of the authors of an air board report on the purportedly extreme health risks posed by tiny airborne pollutants contained in diesel emissions. Adams wrote that Young was off-base:

“Regarding the professional background of the authors, the lead author and project coordinator, Hien Tran, holds a doctorate degree in statistics at the University of California at Davis …”

Except he didn’t, as I established seven weeks later. (I had been contacted by UCLA epidemiologist James L. Enstrom, who worked with Young in questioning Tran’s credentials.) But for months, no California newspaper, except the editorial page of my newspaper, the U-T San Diego, covered this undeniable scandal. This greenout occurred even though Rough & Tumble had my blog item on Tran’s deception as its lead story for several hours on Dec. 23, 2008.

Truth kept from CARB leaders for nearly a year
Incredibly, most of the governing board of CARB didn’t hear about Tran’s deceit from the staff of air board chair Mary Nichols for nearly a year.

What followed the events of December 2008 was a slow-unfolding debacle in which Enstrom became a martyr for scientific integrity and Tran turned out to be the perfect symbol of CARB arrogance and media incompetence, unprofessionalism and bias.

Tran did have a statistics Ph.D. — a mail-order document (shown above) from an online degree millwith a mailing address that matched a New York City UPS office and that was associated with a fugitive pedophile named Avrohom Mondrowitz.

But Tran didn’t get fired by CARB. He only gotsuspended without pay for two months and demoted. He now makes $87,492.52 a year as a CARB pollution analyst.

Given that the rules for diesel particulates that Tran crafted were costly and controversial, isn’t this a perfect storm for a scandal gleefully detailed by a media eager to heap scorn on some really bad public servants? How can the pedophile link not be irresistible?

Media were air board’s partner in deceit
Well, when you’re as deeply in the green tank as most of the people covering CARB, it’s plenty resistible.

(The San Francisco Chronicle did a solid job. But, incredibly, it didn’t depict “Thornhill University” as a diploma mill. It called it a “distance learning” institution.)

The L.A. Times has never mentioned Hien Tran in its pages. The Mercury-News never covered the scandal either, with Tran only mentioned in two columns by non-Merc writers.

And when the scandal finally broke wide open, the Sacramento Bee — the newspaper of record for state government — tried to rewrite history. In December 2009, after CARB’s governing board publicly confirmed Hien Tran’s lies, Bee columnist Dan Walters said the scandal had received “a couple of brief media mentions.” In his front-page story, Jim Sanders of the Bee said that Tran’s lies had been detailed by “bloggers.”

Actually, as Nexis confirms, I’d written about it over and over again on the pages of the UT San Diego — a total of 10 editorials and columns. Lois Henry, star columnist for the Bakersfield Californian, had also covered it thoroughly. I pointed this out to several people at the Bee. None thought it was worth correcting. Why? Because the Bee’s account made the Bee look good, but not the truth.

This is your mainstream media, California. I don’t know what we did to deserve this.

I was asked on a radio show a few months ago how on Earth reporters could actually promote the bizarre CARB claim that arbitrarily increasing the cost of energy via AB 32 would somehow help the economy.

I replied that nothing is beneath California’s environmental journalists — starting with those at the L.A. Times and Mercury-News.

Consider the amazingly juicy basics of the Tran scandal:

* Costly, controversial pollution rules were crafted by a guy who lied about his scientific background.

* The liar’s mail-order degree came from a bogus institution linked to a fugitive pedophile.

* The liar not only didn’t get fired, he continues to write state regulations.

* His leading academic critic did get fired (by UCLA).

* The boss of CARB didn’t tell members of the governing board about the scandal until forced to nine months later by comments made at a public hearing.

Air board boss the luckiest woman in the world
If the L.A. Times and Mercury-News didn’t think this was worth sharing with their readers, their reporters and editors are capable of infinite distortions on behalf of their green gods and their friends at the air board.

CARB Director Mary Nichols is the luckiest woman on Earth. In any responsible organization, her handling of the Tran scandal gets her fired. But here in California, she’s a media hero who could soon become a Cabinet member if President Obama wins re-election.

If that happens, I hope someone brings up Hien Tran in the confirmation hearings — so the L.A. Times and Mercury-News can ignore him all over again, and the Sac Bee can pretend once again in its coverage that its staff wasn’t part of a shameful media cover-up.

I love California. I just hate what people with your messed up beliefs are doing to it.

 

[Mntac]

It’s boggles my mind that it’s the year 2020, and there are people who still do not believe man-made climate change is real...

John Tyndall first noted the possibility for global warming from human made greenhouse gases in 1859. 161 years ago. This ain’t anything new. You weren’t even alive then. Neither was your father. Maybe your grandfather was if you’re 90 years old.

It’s 2020, not 1654 where you couldn't readily go out and disprove theories and hypothesis’. You could literally go outside in your backyard, study and run your own tests if you wanted to disprove climate change. If it’s a hoax why don’t you? If you did you would be disproving possibly one of the greatest “conspiracies” in human history.

It's the "man made" part of climate change that I disagree with and it's not up to me or anyone else to disprove others "theories". I say theories because thats all there is. There is no proof or proven evidence of man made Global warming. Only consensus among those that profit from it and refuse to debate it. The religion of climate change is all about power, money and control nothing else. If you want to see GW disappear all on its own, force its believers to fund all research 100% themselves. It would no longer be an issue inside 3 years.

 

[The Goose]

It's the "man made" part of climate change that I disagree with and it's not up to me or anyone else to disprove others "theories". I say theories because thats all there is. There is no proof or proven evidence of man made Global warming. Only consensus among those that profit from it and refuse to debate it. The religion of climate change is all about power, money and control nothing else. If you want to see GW disappear all on its own, force its believers to fund all research 100% themselves. It would no longer be an issue inside 3 years.

Amen! People get hung up on global warming (wait that didn’t work out so good so let’s call it climate change) instead of pollution. Plastic in the ocean don’t look at me look at 3rd world. Mud raining in Japan don’t look at me look at chinah. Air pollution don’t look at me look at the developing countries. Hobos camping on your sidewalk don’t blame me blame them and their drug dealers. It’s easy to virtue signal and post slacktivism on social media but nobody has the balls to blame the source. It ain’t me babe.

Pollution, just blame the real polluters and let me keep my straw thank you very much.

 

[saforwardlook]

Steve I truly admire the patience you have when writing these long answers trying to convince people with facts
who actively ignore facts and don´t want to change their mind. It has to be quite exhausting, but if everyone would
be like me the fight against climate change would be lost in a heartbeat... if it´s not too late anyways. In some ways
I´m really not looking forward to what this earth is going to be like in 20 to 30 years from now

Yeah Marv, I violate my rules on this site and venture out once in awhile to remind myself how really messed up this country has become. People just believe what they want to believe is true when it clearly is not. Some can not even spell or write a cogent sentence and they are convinced they are the smartest folks on the planet. Just ask them..................................

 

[Marv]

to remind myself how really messed up this country has become

cancel <<this country>> insert <<this world>>

it´s not an US problem, it´s everywhere... it´s a side effect of social media. People with certain opinions can connect and can exchange
their thoughts and believes. Unfortunately also people who in real life are considered as weirdos and they form groups which leads to an incredible
amount of people who believe in the earth being flat, climate change doesn´t exist and Covid19 was created in a laboratory by Bill Gates
to pave the way for the reptoids to take over world domination

 

[saforwardlook]

I couldn't agree more Marv. I just don't know where it ends but it surely can't be good..................

 

[volksworld]

it ends when the next major volcanic event triggers the next ice age....with a little mass extinction thrown in

 

[1970cat]

the climate is always changing. it has been somewhat of a cyclical change since records have been kept. the earth warms up , cools down, etc. the northern ice caps are melting and the southern ones are growing. the earth wobbles on it's axis from time to time which causes changes in sea levels and land temperatures. nothing new.

we as humans can certainly change our ways to help the earth regenerate air ,water and manage the use of natural resources. i'm not convinced that people have a large enough impact to cause the "climate change" that these "scientists" are claiming. we have to keep in mind that some scientists are sponsored by wealthy groups or individuals who have an agenda. without their backers and without results, they wouldn't be published and would soon be out of work. to all of the real scientists i applaud your efforts but there is a good chance that you will never be heard.

electric vehicles aren't practical. they would work fine as commuter cars or running around town. for some reason consumers have been brainwashed into believing that everything rechargeable is the best. try finding a charging station in the mojave or at the top of pike's peak. think about going across country while planning to charge every 400 miles. how long does it take to fully recharge? 1 or 2 hours?
i think hybrids are the key. they are the best of both worlds.

 

[1970cat]

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I was in charge of a ministry for homeless younger people when I was in my late 20s and it was a real challenge. Every single case was very different and we did our best to make each one of them whole. We required them to attend our Bible studies and required them to go out and look for work in order to stay in the housing we set up for them. Maybe 20% of them were able to get out of their difficulties and the rest of them just didn't seem to have the will or capability to function much at all. It opened my eyes to the real challenges of trying to help these individuals most of whom had mental attitudes, alcohol addiction and thought processess that were impossible to penetrate. One thing we did provide and that subsidized housing in general provides for a temporary time period at least is an address showing where they lived that was vital on their job applications. The ministry I was involved in was supported by a local church and we had a number of board members working with us to provide the folks in the home with the support and discipline needed for them to function in the real world. We had one home for the men and another for the women. The home for the women was even more of a challenge than one could possibly imagine unless you were involved in it first hand.

I do agree with you that not all these homeless folks are as miserable as they might seem or appear and seem to function reasonably well in the environment they are in. But alcoholism is a difficult challenge that many of these folks can not over come .

Thanks again for you thoughts, as they are helpful.

you made a huge difference in the lives of that 20%. thank you for that. it's too bad the state can't adopt the mindset and values of the ministry.

 

[1966newport]

if this topic is allowed it time to find a new website. if wanted this bs i would be watching cnn

 

[Wildaugust]

collector cars like I drive very seldom are exempt from smog check because the effects of the infrequency of folks with collector cars using them is relatively minor and doesn't contribute significantly to the smog problem or climate change issue. In our governor's Executive Order, old cars are not being banned from still being used. California tries to achieve balance that makes sense in all the rulemakings I have been aware of.

All I'm going to say to that is you better hope they don't change their minds.

The faster climate change emissions are brought down, the focus on forcing older vehicles off the road entirely will be decreased, just like it was possible to exempt 1976 and older cars from Smog Check in this state. Even Jay Leno has his collection out here. Things need to be balanced to preserve the CA lifestyle that includes collector vehicles .................

The environmentalists are becoming increasingly more fanatical. Many, maybe most, of them are zealots who will not be satisfied until there isn't even one internal combustion engine left on the entire planet. So, as much as it makes sense that as emission levels go down, there should be less urgency to legislate older vehicles off the road, I'm not easily convinced that it will work out that way. So many impressionable people, especially younger people who will be of voting age in just a few years, have been whipped into a "Climate Emergency" panic mentality by predominantly left-wing politicians, professors and the mainstream media (not necessarily in that order) and are literally terrified that if we don't eliminate all carbon emissions by 2030, the planet will no longer support life.

 

[Wildaugust]

It’s boggles my mind that it’s the year 2020, and there are people who still do not believe man-made climate change is real...

John Tyndall first noted the possibility for global warming from human made greenhouse gases in 1859. 161 years ago. This ain’t anything new. You weren’t even alive then. Neither was your father. Maybe your grandfather was if you’re 90 years old.

It’s 2020, not 1654 where you couldn't readily go out and disprove theories and hypothesis’. You could literally go outside in your backyard, study and run your own tests if you wanted to disprove climate change. If it’s a hoax why don’t you? If you did you would be disproving possibly one of the greatest “conspiracies” in human history.

What boggles my mind is the fact that there seems to be a widespread mindset that believes, even though this planet has gone through several drastic changes in it's climate, from ice ages to tropical conditions, all occurring without any help from mankind, sometime during the 1950's or 1960's this planet entered into some magical perfect climate, that would never change even the slightest again throughout eternity, if it weren't for human activity.

 

[Yeahrightgreer]

What boggles my mind is the fact that there seems to be a widespread mindset that believes, even though this planet has gone through several drastic changes in it's climate, from ice ages to tropical conditions, all occurring without any help from mankind, sometime during the 1950's or 1960's this planet entered into some magical perfect climate, that would never change even the slightest again throughout eternity, if it weren't for human activity.

I think if you even slightly dug into some personal research you would find out quickly that although yes climate change of course happens on a planetary level; the rate that which we have accelerated is far beyond natural. Even glancing at this graph Published by NASA of CO2 levels over the last 800,000 years shows that in the last approximately 150 years, levels have risen to astronomical proportions.

Using the ice age as a example is a moot point. The last age ended approximately 11,600 years ago. The oldest known civilization (that we think of in today’s context with writing) is approximately 5-6,000 years. Human societies weren’t running around, flying from New York or London during the last ice age.

Life will of course go on regardless of how the climate goes. It must adapt to survive. But never before in human history has societies gone through such drastic changes in climate. Changes that normally take tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years to happen; all happening in only a few decades.

In the US fourth national climate assessment, it was determined that between 93% to 123% of observed warming throughout the earth from 1951-2010 warming was due to human activities and not natural.

I know that you won’t really care what happens regardless, because likely by the time that any of the effects take place you’ll be long dead in a grave somewhere. Probably underwater from the rising sea levels. But it will be me, and my children, and maybe even my grandchildren that are suffering the effects.

 

[saforwardlook]

The environmentalists are becoming increasingly more fanatical. Many, maybe most, of them are zealots who will not be satisfied until there isn't even one internal combustion engine left on the entire planet. So, as much as it makes sense that as emission levels go down, there should be less urgency to legislate older vehicles off the road, I'm not easily convinced that it will work out that way. So many impressionable people, especially younger people who will be of voting age in just a few years, have been whipped into a "Climate Emergency" panic mentality by predominantly left-wing politicians, professors and the mainstream media (not necessarily in that order) and are literally terrified that if we don't eliminate all carbon emissions by 2030, the planet will no longer support life.

I was very well aware at the time of how the decision was made by the California Air Resources Board in conjunction with the California Bureau of Automotive Repair to exempt 1975 and older cars from our Smog Check program. What it boiled down to was looking at the emissions inventory that the ARB keeps track of and looking at the contribution of collector cars to the overall air pollution problem and when the modeling took into account how often collector cars are used, including the actual number of such vehicles and their very high tailpipe emissions, the reality was that their contribution was just not that significant to the overall problem given the millions of newer, cleaner vehicles on the road today. Included in that decision also was the benefits of the OBDII system that was adopted also would improve in-use emissions in conjunction with Smog Check that also brought emissios down from the new vehicle fleet over time compared to cars without the OBD II systems. Those factors are almost solely how the decision was made.

There are supporting groups such as SEMA, the Speciality Equipment Market Association that lobby government to allow reasonable requirements for older vehicles and others whose businesses support the hobby that keep tabs on what is going on and can influence the decisions as well. It is not all one-sided. And a lot of ARB employees are also old car buffs too. I am not going to go into the details of how, but I was involved in the decision too and when the decision was finally made, it all came down to impact on air quality and it just didn't warrant including the older vehicles.

The bottom line is that the projected reduction in emissions from conventional vehicles was the critical input that determined that collector cars could be exempted from Smog Check. And those new clean car emission standards were adopted and have been in effect for more than a decade now that made the ultimate collector car decision possible. With the modeling projections showing that adoption of the clean car standards segment of the problem would substantially make it much more possible to meet the Ambient Air Quality Standards in CA, there was no need to include the older vehicles in Smog Check.

Numbers matter and that is what decisions are based on primarily. If a bunch of environmentalists get over zealous, numbers affect their intensity and there are many other areas of focus that deliver better bang for the buck than getting the last few combustion vehicles off the road. The more electric, fuel cell or battery powered or whateverjvehicles, the intensity of public response to getting the older cars off the road is substantially reduced. The law requires cost effectiveness and many other hurdles to be overcome when proposing regulations. So the goal is to make the contribution of older cars insignificant by increasing the benefits of the new electric technologies and also getting renewable fuels into production to generate the electricity. And California is working hard with many many organizations and businesses to greatly expand electrical power generation from renewable fuels and also making sure there are enough charging stations to meet the needs of the antcipated number of drivers that adopt these vehicles with time. Even the oil industry sees the writing on the wall and not just the utilities. And all the major car companies are involved big time too. And focus on battery development is on fast charging and not having fast charging deteriorate battery life as is now the case and there is widespread awareness of the need for interstate highway charging outlets also that need to be put in place and soon.

The auto industry belives in global warming, wall steet investors believes in it, most states believe in it and the train has left the station. Scientists have won the battle where it counts most. And trusting science over the years has been core to what has made America great in the past too. Now the goal it to be out there first with the best technology.

 

[fc7_plumcrazy]

The auto industry belives in global warming, wall steet investors believes in it, most states believe in it and the train has left the station. Scientists have won the battle where it counts most. And trusting science over the years has been core to what has made America great in the past too. Now the goal it to be out there first with the best technology.

Tesla has an advantage. I am curious to see if and how fast the german manufacturers will close the gap or not.

 

[The Goose]

“The Auto Industry believes in global warming” yet they also do this...

Daimler, the parent company of Mercedes-Benz, has agreed to pay $1.5 billion to settle government accusations that it equipped 250,000 diesel cars and vans sold in the United States with devices that cheated emissions tests and spewed pollutants into the air, California and U.S. Justice Department officials announced ...Sep 15, 2020

San Francisco Chronicle › article
Maker of Mercedes-Benz vehicles to pay $1.5 billion in emissions ...

 

[saforwardlook]

“The Auto Industry believes in global warming” yet they also do this...

Daimler, the parent company of Mercedes-Benz, has agreed to pay $1.5 billion to settle government accusations that it equipped 250,000 diesel cars and vans sold in the United States with devices that cheated emissions tests and spewed pollutants into the air, California and U.S. Justice Department officials announced ...Sep 15, 2020
View attachment 404991
San Francisco Chronicle › article
Maker of Mercedes-Benz vehicles to pay $1.5 billion in emissions ...



View attachment 404992

Thanks for reinforcing my point - since diesels are significantly more efficient than gasoline vehicles, they emit less CO2, which is the pollutant that is key in man made global warming. So Mercedes was just too avid to fix the global warming problem by keeping diesels in thier mix when they couldn't meet smog forming emission rules with them. Gasoline vehicles emit more CO2 emissions than diesels but diesels emit more smog forming emissions (e.g. HC, CO and NOx) than gasoline vehicles and diesels are much harder to control in terms of smog forming emissions.

Maybe if you check your facts before going to your keyboard, you would know the difference.

You don't really know much about global warming apparently but you say you are in the trenches building wind generators and know all about the economics and viability of those machines, the kinds of discussions that take place in engineering meetings and boardrooms, which I doubt you frequent.

You also make a lot uninformed posts relative to fusie vehicles on the site too for which we routinely call you out.

 

[Mntac]

According to Ocasia-Cortez, savant and youth leader of the Democrat Party we have less than 12 years to live due to climate change anyway. So, today in her honor... I'm gonna go burn some petrol in my 66 Town and Country 440 at 8 mpg. And, I might have a beer while doing it!