Climate Change

[synistar]

I mean you're basically saying that facing the facts is cowardly and the courageous thing to do is take an already irresponsible state (CA) and make it an even more exclusive, price discriminatory and unstable environment for the typical American to live. If taking risks requires a state to make legislation that is undoubtedly going to not only first, fail, but also create hardship that may not be reversible for some individuals living there that eventually pushes them out of the community itself, then yeah, count me out.

I'm not critical of the ideas themselves, but I think it's almost laughable that CA is the state that picks this (overly) ambitious mission due to the fact that it's the least likely to succeed. That's not bravery. And me pointing it out isn't being cowardly. At least the moon mission started with you know, actual working rockets. This is like starting the moon mission with uh, I don't know, a card board box carrying space, 1 oxygen tank for everyone on board and a flip phone (back in the day, yeah, but speaking in relation to current tech) as your navigational computer.

Didn't everyone think California was crazy back in 2011 to set a target of 33% of in state energy generation was going to be from renewable sources by 2020? Well it's happening ahead of schedule.

[Mythe_Seraph]

if you really believed in the "ideas themselves," then a state committing to implement them wouldn't invoke the undoubted failure you forecast

furthermore, the lone state making such commitments is somehow less likely to achieve them than other states that mandate no such shift to renewables? this makes no sense

you're trying to cloak negativity under the guise of realism, when the most realistic thing to understand is 27 years is far enough away that none of us know how well the targets will or won't be met (also perhaps long enough for the effects of climate change to truly shake us)

like what are you hating on CA for here? you've got some Fox News-like descriptors calling CA irresponsible but no real substance beyond poor people may have increased hardship, something sure to happen with unchecked climate change

i mean if nihilism is your endgame and you think we should just emit carbon until biodiversity approaches zero, then just say that. you present no better (or even alternative) approach for a state to combat climate change, which itself might be fine, but instead you insist it's laughable and has no chance to succeed

this legislation will surely increase renewables technologies, climate change awareness, and stand as a firm rebuke to this administration's gross ignorance and lack of action. those alone make this a sound move

you know, it may be too little too late already, and this legislation is by no means perfect, but to imply you'd support the initiative were it any other state is frankly disingenuous and shows a dismissal of the scale of our problem here

Oh, I don't know, how about starting with smaller deadlines and timelines to contribute a sense of reality towards the people you expect to participate to make this a rational goal. Let's get some cohesive regulations to give people the ability to actually make this financially feasible.

I'm not saying that I don't support CA's trying, I'm just saying that it's very likely to fail to meet that deadline and we should stop jerking our dicks off so hard at it. I also suggested that other states, with a smaller population specifically (or densely populated counties), would probably be much more successful in this endeavor.

Legislation doesn't automatically increase technology if there is a very evident halt in the available technology. We have a large raw material hurdle to clear.

If you think CA isn't an area that is an economic concern due to irresponsibility I don't know what to tell you, we obviously don't see eye to eye on that, however, don't expect any state or government rebates on these vehicles due to the simple fact that it's mandatory and the amount of tax rebates the state or government would see with 100% of the population claiming them would be astronomical.

When the auto and power industries are given the choice of advancing their technology or not doing business with California, they will update their tech every time.

California is a small potatoes in comparison to countries like China. Their deadline is the only one that matters. If people are as resistant as I think they will be, and CA is hard headed as it usually is, I think you'll see people continue to leave the state. Can't have big business without the people.

[kuronosan]

I can tell you based on my experience that realistic goals are great but soft deadlines were made to be moved back.

[Zetanio]

China is already ahead of us from a renewable investment standpoint. Not really a good example.

Chinese consumers are on track to buy more than 1 million electric vehicles (EVs) this year after sales grew 53% in 2017. And China’s leadership is charting a course to an all-electric future, targeting 2 million annual EV sales by 2020 and a complete ban on internal-combustion engines, which officials predicts will happen before 2040.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyi.../#757521cae5c1

[Eurell]

Sounds like a bunch of you assholes are pretending to care about the earth and stuff

[synistar]

California is a small potatoes in comparison to countries like China. Their deadline is the only one that matters. If people are as resistant as I think they will be, and CA is hard headed as it usually is, I think you'll see people continue to leave the state. Can't have big business without the people.

Not really small potatoes if the GDP of California is relative to economic powerhouses like the UK (rank 6th, but California is slightly higher) and Germany (rank 5th). It's a region that cannot be ignored, and, like I said earlier, will pull other neighboring states into similar policies. It's already happening for automobile MPG standards. CA is continuing with its aggressive policy for more fuel efficient cars while federal regulations are being stalled. What would a car manufacturer do: 1) build 2 models of a car, one to meet CA standards and the other for the rest of the US or 2) invest in CA standards and sell that car everywhere? Most car companies are leaning towards option 2. You're doubting the economic sway the state has and maybe this ambitious policy doesn't get there by a deadline, but it's progress towards investing in an ideal green policy.

[Mythe_Seraph]

China is already ahead of us from a renewable investment standpoint. Not really a good example.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyi.../#757521cae5c1

How is that not a good example? I'm saying they can serve as a benchmark. If anything this supports the idea that CA can actually do this.

Man ya'll are some sensitive mother fuckers.

Me: Ever so slightly disagrees with proposed deadline, criticizes current plan, points out that current progressive legislation location is probably not the best (and slightly criticizes said location), offers some reasons as to why it appears likely to fail and maybe brings about other cause for concern.

Ya'll: Claims cowardice to criticize anything non-progressive or brings about the possibility of less than immediate progressive progress/legislation (even if it doesn't seem feasible at said time), labels one as a FOX news enthusiast, claims the human species can do anything, "because we went to the moon." Argues that no alternatives are proposed but also doesn't suggest why said plan is absolutely going to prevail.

Keep 'em comin' boys, best echo chamber yet.

[Zetanio]

Cmon fam. You didn't think they had that and you're backpedaling a lil bit here.

Can we agree that this is all good for mother nature and stuff.

[Mythe_Seraph]

I can agree that my initial comments come off completely one sided, and yeah they did, and yeah that had a purpose, and no I still don't think this is a feasible piece of legislature, I can agree that the intentions may be good but I don't agree they will yield the results that people are hoping for? I mean if my stance doesn't change but my tone does I wouldn't consider that back pedaling.

If you're referring to my reference to China, as backpedaling, it's simply because I'm shocked that nobody brought up other countries that have already passed similar, and even more demanding, legislature. I mean you were asking for a bone to be thrown.

[Zetanio]

All good man.

[Mythe_Seraph]

I'm not mad, but the way some of us argue/converse here warrants a real good look in the mirror lol

[Zetanio]

yeah, we're all fucking sniping dickheads.

[Roranora]

if the qualm with the legislation is indeed an ever so slight disagreement about the deadline, then very good. it can still be an overwhelmingly good initiative

sorry didn't mean to come in 1st and 3rd in the circle jerk

[archibaldcrane]

Look, California isn't THE IDEAL state to try to pull this off - there are more densely populated/richer states (mostly in the northeast - NJ, MA, CT for example) that have more resources per capita and less transportation pressure. But the reason this is important, and what does make California unique, is that it is large enough to be a real market driver for new tech.

And California is 8th in GDP per capita, it is 11th in population density (and that's kinda misleading given how concentrated so much of the population is on the coast). But yes, it is extremely unequal. It does have the highest rate of (cost-of-living-adjusted) poverty. It does have a massive housing crisis. Property taxes are really fucked up by prop 13. Distribution of resources and wealth and opportunity are certainly a challenge here, but forward-thinking policy making is much more aware of that now than in the past and can compensate for it as we pursue carbon neutrality.

And there's a synergy opportunity there too - you can tax carbon and use a portion of the proceeds to refund lower-income people so they aren't getting crushed by higher energy costs, and plow the rest into new clean tech, rebates for low-income people to afford replacing their vehicles with clean ones, public EV charging stations, etc. etc. etc.

It requires good, diligent, careful public policy - but we're a one-party state now with a significant caucus of "woke" legislators and voters pushing for equity. We don't have to compromise with craven Republicans looking to wrench up solutions or divert the benefits to the rich (of course you always have to stay diligent about Democrats doing the same).

And this isn't an all-at-once moonshot, we've been amping up MPG standards in the state, requiring higher percentages of renewable power, shuttering two perfectly good nuclear power plants stupidl....ok wait that's a bad one but still. This has been a progress (as outlined in that Vox article I posted) started way back in 2002 with our renewable portfolio standards, and has only ramped up since.

[Mythe_Seraph]

It requires good, diligent, careful public policy - but we're a one-party state now with a significant caucus of "woke" legislators and voters pushing for equity. We don't have to compromise with craven Republicans looking to wrench up solutions or divert the benefits to the rich (of course you always have to stay diligent about Democrats doing the same).

And this isn't an all-at-once moonshot, we've been amping up MPG standards in the state, requiring higher percentages of renewable power, shuttering two perfectly good nuclear power plants stupidl....ok wait that's a bad one but still. This has been a progress (as outlined in that Vox article I posted) started way back in 2002 with our renewable portfolio standards, and has only ramped up since.

The problem is still the deadline. It's at a literal break-neck pace in regards to the hurdles it has to jump. I mean there's really three major issues that then branch into much, much larger ones. There are a sequence of events that have to happen to make this possible and putting a time frame on it seems unreasonable considering the first step alone.

1) Battery Technology, once this is figured you then have to...
2) Make the vehicles affordable
3) Manufacture and distribute, said vehicles

Each of these steps on the toes of the others and these steps need to remain a consistent priority for an incredibly long period of time in an increasingly volatile political state. You discuss how the politicians aren't looking to divert benefits to the rich and you have corporations moving out of the state further reducing opportunity (and trade with it). This is going to upset a lot of people and their voting standards might change (lots have, rather quickly), individuals who already have it rough are now looking at this like fuck I have to buy a new car too? That's a problem for their voting status and whatever is the most immediately relevant to them is going to dictate their loyalty (this isn't surprising).

I don't see this happening, in CA, by 2045, still. I agree with you that a state like CT, or RI in the NE would be a more, purely logical choice, given the extreme time frame.

Then there's the whole argument about how there are a lot of political interests in non-ICE vehicles. Who's hand do we want our money going to in order to keep these vehicles powered? The regulations that come in response need to be carefully scrutinized to ensure healthy competition continues.

[archibaldcrane]

My guy, you do realize you can buy a brand new EV in California right now for significantly less than the average new vehicle price, right?

The deadline is 27 years away. The battery technology is "figured out" for most people's use-cases already.

[Mythe_Seraph]

My guy, you do realize you can buy a brand new EV in California right now for significantly less than the average new vehicle price, right?

The deadline is 27 years away. The battery technology is "figured out" for most people's use-cases already.

You're aware of the fact that the vast amount raw materials, namely cobalt, needed for making batteries isn't located in the U.S. and increased in price by over 100% within a year's time right? Current usage estimates don't even get us through the rest of this century at the going rate for lithium, right?

Tons of articles about it due to the BMW initiative but someone posted a similar article a while back.

[archibaldcrane]

Yes, I already commented about this earlier in the thread. It's certainly a problem for worldwide EV adoption.

Worldwide.

[archibaldcrane]

We, uh, did it fam

[archibaldcrane]

Siri, show me "fracking revolution in chart form"