Ostensibly, they set their own emissions standards, and their own standards for textbooks. But in practices, their rules cover the bulk of the market, so many simply adhere to those rules universally, effectively making them the rules/standards for everyone else
"California Emissions" became the standard when several other states passed laws to follow California's standards. It was not market forces that caused car manufacturers to "default" to California emissions, it took legislation in several states to make that happen.
Before those laws passed, CA was the outlier where people had to pay several hundred extra for their cars to get the "California Emissions" package.
Textbooks are also not dominated by California because each district in CA buys its own books. Which means there is not a single standard that publishers can meet to sell books in CA, so the state does not have the economic dominance that Texas has.
It's a hatchback, with a few interior seating mods so they can make you think "I bought an SUV"... if you are an urban yuppie... who has never driven through a ranch or a back country road.
Just like every other manufacturer's Crossover "SUV".
I was thinking of leaving Apple's walled garden with my next phone upgrade. I was already kinda hinky about switching due to all phone vendors that stop OS upgrades so quickly, leaving me with only Pixel models to choose from. This pretty much pushes me back inside the fence.
How do you verify that the money was spent on its intent? You don't. There was no mechanism.
There was also no mechanism to transfer the money in the Paris accord either.
It was a plan, mostly aspirational. Implementation details were intended to be worked out later. Presumably, there would be specific deals that fall under the effort, such as building a particular photovoltaic plant.
It was just a transfer of money from us, who need it badly for our own people
If you actually believed this, you wouldn't keep voting for people who keep cutting aid to the poor.
Bahaha, like the far left gives a shit about working class Americans. They voted for Trump! You think they're racist fascist deplorables, remember?
You do realize that Clinton is a centrist, right? The "far left" candidate in 2016 was Sanders.
Who's better: you educated people or the people of walmart?
Neither. But that's a bit problematic for you, isn't it? Those egg-heads have to be worse for some reason, right?
The cultural distance between progressives and working class people is now vast and I see little reason why that should change.
You believe this because you're unwilling to find out what progressives actually think. Because you've spent a long, long time getting your news and entertainment from sources that attack a caricature, in order to get you to keep voting to cut the spending you keep saying we desperately need.
You have the option to stop being played for a fool, and look at what people are actually proposing. To find out what those evil libtards actually think about you.
Nope. You're arguing that EVs are only good for people who drive very short distances. You say so right here:
the market is being vastly overestimated for people who live in such a bubble that they only make short trips from home day after day,
I realize you don't want to admit that this shows quite a bit of ignorance about the current state of EVs, but attempting to redefine what you said isn't going to stop that.
Why was the whole point of the Paris agreement to take money from America and give it to hostile countries who hate us?
It wasn't. The idea is we need the third world to "skip over" the step in their industrialization where they get energy from fossil fuels. That requires money. The wealthy countries would provide some of that money in order for the poor countries to be able to afford this skip.
After all, Miami going underwater is going to cost us a hell of a lot more money than a coastal village in a poor country going underwater. We have a greater financial incentive to fix the problem, and the money to fix it.
We have tons of our own people who need help, after we fix their problems we can start meddling in other countries.
Great countries are capable of doing more than one thing at a time. If we actually are a great country, we can help our poor and these third world countries at the same time.
Plans like the Green New Deal do this by employing those poor people. Folks like you call this a terrible thing, making it rather doubtful that you care about poverty in the US.
1) We could possibly, in time, figure out how to do it cheaper, but this would be a start.
Blowing money on "a start" that can never produce the necessary results isn't exactly the best way to spend money.
2) Is it more or less expensive than wack-job politician's "Green New Deal" that is currently tagged at somewhere around $90T and will NOT actually be capable of solving the problem? ("Solving the problem" means doing so without killing millions of people, which the raising of the price of energy would do by casting more and more people into poverty. Poverty kills. Smoking may take 7 years off your life, but living in poverty is good for a 10 year reduction.)
One key element of the Green New Deal that you are unwilling to understand is the efforts within the program create jobs. Somebody has to actually refit old houses to be better insulated, and so on.
Those jobs reduce poverty, ameliorating the problem you cite here.
3) Has it escaped everyone that we are currently adding about $1T to the National Debt every year and NOBODY has a clue what to do about it
We know exactly what to do about it because that deficit was created by a massive tax cut on the wealthy.
Fixing it is also trivially easy. Reverse those tax cuts. It would require you to give up your tax cut fetish though.
Clue: The last year that the National Debt didn't go up was 1957. We've raised and lowered the income taxes numerous times since without achieving that desired result.
1998-2001 called, and would like to remind you they existed. Though acknowledging that evil liberal tax hikes reduce the deficit and thus debt would require abandoning your tax cut fetish.
It's blinding obvious to me that income taxes are absolutely incapable of funding the gov't, and should be abolished. The Founders set up the nation to run on consumption taxes such as excise taxes and tariffs
The founders also set up the nation to not have a standing military and pressed for limited-to-no foreign entanglements. So, unless you also want massive defense cuts resulting in the US dropping out of being a superpower, you don't actually want to go back to what the founders set up.
Also, between your rant about how terrible poverty is and your tax proposals, you forgot that consumption taxes take a far larger percentage of poor people's income.
This is not a solution to the accumulated CO2 problem
Actually, it is. The various natural CO2-absorbing processes on the planet will eventually fix the problem, but only if we output less CO2.
Now, had you said "plant trees"
Trees die, burn, and so on. Releasing the CO2 back into the atmosphere. You need to not only plant trees, but you need to cut them down and sequester the resulting biomass so it does not return to the atmosphere.
If you're just planting trees, then all you're doing is slightly accelerating the natural processes I mentioned above. It won't accelerate the cleanup much.
You can see the same thing in the way nuclear isn't even a thought in the Green New Insanity.
Nuclear has a massive problem with waste that has not been solved, and likely can not be solved. It isn't a technical problem, it's a political one.
Massively increasing the waste problem does not solve it. Especially when the "exciting new designs" keep not working out as well as predicted, and the cost is higher than renewables + storage.
What would you study? We're already at the point where all that's left would be implementing it, and studying the results.
That implementation has a potential for massive disaster, and is unlikely to produce a feasible clean-up system - none of the proposals are efficient enough to do at sufficient scale to actually fix climate change.
So, huge potential downside affecting vast numbers of people. Tiny potential upside. The alternative, "reduce emissions and stop clear cutting everything", has very little risk and will solve the problem in about the same timetable.
They are also opposed to carbon sequestration [wikipedia.org] and nuclear. Both of these use our existing industrial infrastructure, and don't require any big new government initiatives
How, exactly, do you plan on widespread carbon sequestration without a government initiative making it profitable?
Also, nuclear requires a government initiative to deal with the waste since the government is required to deal with it by law. Also, it requires a new government initiative in the form of massive subsidies to make nuclear profitable.
How do you know ahead of time what power density you need?
Range of the vehicle vs distance you drive in a typical day.
Someone was always getting someone else out of the ditch.
Congratulations, you're not among those that need the higher density of gas. A momentary tow like this isn't going to overwhelm a battery vehicle's range. Towing a 5th-wheel on vacation would.
Quite frankly I don't want to be the one looking out my window because there is a foot of snow on the ground, or having to stick to the highway because I have to carefully plan my battery power.
If you look out your window and notice there isn't very many people living around you, that should be a clue that there are not many people in your particular situation. For you and the few who live alongside you, buy a gas car.
It's not like you're all buying Corvettes to handle your situation today, right? There's a giant list of extremely popular gas vehicles that you will not consider buying. The fact that EVs fall into that giant list doesn't mean EVs are useless for everyone else.
No, if you're among the few that would encounter a nail, you don't buy the car. Just like families with 4 kids don't buy roadsters for their "drive the kids to school" car.
The majority won't run into any problems, assuming they live somewhere a charger can be used. That particular hurdle is very easy to overcome if you own your home or rent a house. And for those that don't: see the first paragraph.
Actually, most states make it illegal to have a friend help you vote. Instead, they train specific poll workers to do the job, in an attempt to maintain impartiality.
Also, it turns out being anti-social or having social anxiety doesn't disqualify someone from voting. Who knew?!
This is why SUVs are a best selling category (90% of those trucks never leave bitumen)
People don't buy SUV anticipating that they're going to go off-roading. They buy SUVs for the same reason they bought station wagons and minivans - extra capacity for the kids and all the crap that they require. With an added bonus of sitting higher so you feel like you can see further and thus feel safer.
People don't want to pay tens of thousands of dollars for something that can't be taken away for a dirty weekend.
And the vast majority are not under the illusion that they're going to make such a road trip.
For the small number that do such a trip regularly, they're going to buy gas.
For the small number that do such a trip very irregularly, they're going to save so much on gas and maintenance that they can rent a car for that weekend and still come out ahead.
Barring some massive subsidy the property companies who own these apartments don't seem to be in any hurry to accommodate home charging infrastructure for their tenants.
EVs are still relatively expensive, so there's not a huge overlap between EV drivers and people who live in apartments. Once there's a decent used market as well as cheaper new vehicles, apartment complexes will see they've got a relatively cheap way to differentiate themselves from their competition.
Plus they'd have an excuse to charge a fee to those who want to park at the chargers.
Installation takes about a day, assuming they don't have a particularly difficult path to route the electricity. Charger itself is $500-$1000. So it's pretty easy for them to hold off until demand reaches a tipping point, and then all offer it pretty quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps they're more consistent with regards to social issues?
Not at all. You need to keep giving reasons for those people to show up at the polls.
Ostensibly, they set their own emissions standards, and their own standards for textbooks. But in practices, their rules cover the bulk of the market, so many simply adhere to those rules universally, effectively making them the rules/standards for everyone else
"California Emissions" became the standard when several other states passed laws to follow California's standards. It was not market forces that caused car manufacturers to "default" to California emissions, it took legislation in several states to make that happen.
Before those laws passed, CA was the outlier where people had to pay several hundred extra for their cars to get the "California Emissions" package.
Textbooks are also not dominated by California because each district in CA buys its own books. Which means there is not a single standard that publishers can meet to sell books in CA, so the state does not have the economic dominance that Texas has.
It's a hatchback, with a few interior seating mods so they can make you think "I bought an SUV" ... if you are an urban yuppie ... who has never driven through a ranch or a back country road.
Just like every other manufacturer's Crossover "SUV".
This is NOT really a vehicle that existing Tesla owners or fans will probably buy in any great numbers.
Isn't that a good thing?
If your current customers are satisfied with the current models, isn't it good to release a new model that appeals to different customers?
There's no reason to think Tesla cannot deliver full self driving at some point in the future
Yes there is. Nobody will be able to deliver full self-driving on all roads in the timeframe where the original purchasers still own these cars.
I was thinking of leaving Apple's walled garden with my next phone upgrade. I was already kinda hinky about switching due to all phone vendors that stop OS upgrades so quickly, leaving me with only Pixel models to choose from. This pretty much pushes me back inside the fence.
How do you verify that the money was spent on its intent? You don't. There was no mechanism.
There was also no mechanism to transfer the money in the Paris accord either.
It was a plan, mostly aspirational. Implementation details were intended to be worked out later. Presumably, there would be specific deals that fall under the effort, such as building a particular photovoltaic plant.
It was just a transfer of money from us, who need it badly for our own people
If you actually believed this, you wouldn't keep voting for people who keep cutting aid to the poor.
Bahaha, like the far left gives a shit about working class Americans. They voted for Trump! You think they're racist fascist deplorables, remember?
You do realize that Clinton is a centrist, right? The "far left" candidate in 2016 was Sanders.
Who's better: you educated people or the people of walmart?
Neither. But that's a bit problematic for you, isn't it? Those egg-heads have to be worse for some reason, right?
The cultural distance between progressives and working class people is now vast and I see little reason why that should change.
You believe this because you're unwilling to find out what progressives actually think. Because you've spent a long, long time getting your news and entertainment from sources that attack a caricature, in order to get you to keep voting to cut the spending you keep saying we desperately need.
You have the option to stop being played for a fool, and look at what people are actually proposing. To find out what those evil libtards actually think about you.
And we both know you will never take that option.
Nope. You're arguing that EVs are only good for people who drive very short distances. You say so right here:
the market is being vastly overestimated for people who live in such a bubble that they only make short trips from home day after day,
I realize you don't want to admit that this shows quite a bit of ignorance about the current state of EVs, but attempting to redefine what you said isn't going to stop that.
I look around me and see 100x more vehicles than you do. That would be the point you keep deliberately trying to not understand.
Why was the whole point of the Paris agreement to take money from America and give it to hostile countries who hate us?
It wasn't. The idea is we need the third world to "skip over" the step in their industrialization where they get energy from fossil fuels. That requires money. The wealthy countries would provide some of that money in order for the poor countries to be able to afford this skip.
After all, Miami going underwater is going to cost us a hell of a lot more money than a coastal village in a poor country going underwater. We have a greater financial incentive to fix the problem, and the money to fix it.
We have tons of our own people who need help, after we fix their problems we can start meddling in other countries.
Great countries are capable of doing more than one thing at a time. If we actually are a great country, we can help our poor and these third world countries at the same time.
Plans like the Green New Deal do this by employing those poor people. Folks like you call this a terrible thing, making it rather doubtful that you care about poverty in the US.
1) We could possibly, in time, figure out how to do it cheaper, but this would be a start.
Blowing money on "a start" that can never produce the necessary results isn't exactly the best way to spend money.
2) Is it more or less expensive than wack-job politician's "Green New Deal" that is currently tagged at somewhere around $90T and will NOT actually be capable of solving the problem? ("Solving the problem" means doing so without killing millions of people, which the raising of the price of energy would do by casting more and more people into poverty. Poverty kills. Smoking may take 7 years off your life, but living in poverty is good for a 10 year reduction.)
One key element of the Green New Deal that you are unwilling to understand is the efforts within the program create jobs. Somebody has to actually refit old houses to be better insulated, and so on.
Those jobs reduce poverty, ameliorating the problem you cite here.
3) Has it escaped everyone that we are currently adding about $1T to the National Debt every year and NOBODY has a clue what to do about it
We know exactly what to do about it because that deficit was created by a massive tax cut on the wealthy.
Fixing it is also trivially easy. Reverse those tax cuts. It would require you to give up your tax cut fetish though.
Clue: The last year that the National Debt didn't go up was 1957. We've raised and lowered the income taxes numerous times since without achieving that desired result.
1998-2001 called, and would like to remind you they existed. Though acknowledging that evil liberal tax hikes reduce the deficit and thus debt would require abandoning your tax cut fetish.
It's blinding obvious to me that income taxes are absolutely incapable of funding the gov't, and should be abolished. The Founders set up the nation to run on consumption taxes such as excise taxes and tariffs
The founders also set up the nation to not have a standing military and pressed for limited-to-no foreign entanglements. So, unless you also want massive defense cuts resulting in the US dropping out of being a superpower, you don't actually want to go back to what the founders set up.
Also, between your rant about how terrible poverty is and your tax proposals, you forgot that consumption taxes take a far larger percentage of poor people's income.
This is not a solution to the accumulated CO2 problem
Actually, it is. The various natural CO2-absorbing processes on the planet will eventually fix the problem, but only if we output less CO2.
Now, had you said "plant trees"
Trees die, burn, and so on. Releasing the CO2 back into the atmosphere. You need to not only plant trees, but you need to cut them down and sequester the resulting biomass so it does not return to the atmosphere.
If you're just planting trees, then all you're doing is slightly accelerating the natural processes I mentioned above. It won't accelerate the cleanup much.
You can see the same thing in the way nuclear isn't even a thought in the Green New Insanity.
Nuclear has a massive problem with waste that has not been solved, and likely can not be solved. It isn't a technical problem, it's a political one.
Massively increasing the waste problem does not solve it. Especially when the "exciting new designs" keep not working out as well as predicted, and the cost is higher than renewables + storage.
but right now is definitely the time to study them, which was what the proposal was about.
This proposal was to start implementing them so that you could study the results.
Implementing geoenginering with no real idea of the side effects, in order to find out what those side-effects are, is a very, very, very bad idea.
What would you study? We're already at the point where all that's left would be implementing it, and studying the results.
That implementation has a potential for massive disaster, and is unlikely to produce a feasible clean-up system - none of the proposals are efficient enough to do at sufficient scale to actually fix climate change.
So, huge potential downside affecting vast numbers of people. Tiny potential upside. The alternative, "reduce emissions and stop clear cutting everything", has very little risk and will solve the problem in about the same timetable.
You can not get a full understanding without doing it. And doing it has an enormous potential for disaster.
They are also opposed to carbon sequestration [wikipedia.org] and nuclear. Both of these use our existing industrial infrastructure, and don't require any big new government initiatives
How, exactly, do you plan on widespread carbon sequestration without a government initiative making it profitable?
Also, nuclear requires a government initiative to deal with the waste since the government is required to deal with it by law. Also, it requires a new government initiative in the form of massive subsidies to make nuclear profitable.
It's the fact that people think that they can be more than a niche that gets me
Look around you. Notice there's not all that many people living where you live.
You are the niche driver.
How do you know ahead of time what power density you need?
Range of the vehicle vs distance you drive in a typical day.
Someone was always getting someone else out of the ditch.
Congratulations, you're not among those that need the higher density of gas. A momentary tow like this isn't going to overwhelm a battery vehicle's range. Towing a 5th-wheel on vacation would.
Quite frankly I don't want to be the one looking out my window because there is a foot of snow on the ground, or having to stick to the highway because I have to carefully plan my battery power.
If you look out your window and notice there isn't very many people living around you, that should be a clue that there are not many people in your particular situation. For you and the few who live alongside you, buy a gas car.
It's not like you're all buying Corvettes to handle your situation today, right? There's a giant list of extremely popular gas vehicles that you will not consider buying. The fact that EVs fall into that giant list doesn't mean EVs are useless for everyone else.
Ok so you need to step on one nail.
No, if you're among the few that would encounter a nail, you don't buy the car. Just like families with 4 kids don't buy roadsters for their "drive the kids to school" car.
The majority won't run into any problems, assuming they live somewhere a charger can be used. That particular hurdle is very easy to overcome if you own your home or rent a house. And for those that don't: see the first paragraph.
Actually, most states make it illegal to have a friend help you vote. Instead, they train specific poll workers to do the job, in an attempt to maintain impartiality.
Also, it turns out being anti-social or having social anxiety doesn't disqualify someone from voting. Who knew?!
It is far superior to not being able to vote at all
Good thing nobody's arguing in favor of that strawman then.
The market is being vastly overestimated for people who live in such a bubble that they only make short trips from home day after day
The range on all mass-market EVs is over 200 miles.
You are arguing that most drivers have >100 mile commutes.
This is why SUVs are a best selling category (90% of those trucks never leave bitumen)
People don't buy SUV anticipating that they're going to go off-roading. They buy SUVs for the same reason they bought station wagons and minivans - extra capacity for the kids and all the crap that they require. With an added bonus of sitting higher so you feel like you can see further and thus feel safer.
People don't want to pay tens of thousands of dollars for something that can't be taken away for a dirty weekend.
And the vast majority are not under the illusion that they're going to make such a road trip.
For the small number that do such a trip regularly, they're going to buy gas.
For the small number that do such a trip very irregularly, they're going to save so much on gas and maintenance that they can rent a car for that weekend and still come out ahead.
Barring some massive subsidy the property companies who own these apartments don't seem to be in any hurry to accommodate home charging infrastructure for their tenants.
EVs are still relatively expensive, so there's not a huge overlap between EV drivers and people who live in apartments. Once there's a decent used market as well as cheaper new vehicles, apartment complexes will see they've got a relatively cheap way to differentiate themselves from their competition.
Plus they'd have an excuse to charge a fee to those who want to park at the chargers.
Installation takes about a day, assuming they don't have a particularly difficult path to route the electricity. Charger itself is $500-$1000. So it's pretty easy for them to hold off until demand reaches a tipping point, and then all offer it pretty quickly.