[COMMUTER]

They must be banning all shipping and air travel before considering banning the cars. Those two have much higher share of emissions than the passenger cars. And I am sure that most of the Americans there will be driving commercial trucks like the Freightliner SPORTCHASSIS or the Ford F750 instead of the EV provided the agenda-driven environmentalists haven't accomplished driving all the jobs and manufacturing to the chinese by then.

The Californian politician must wrap his head around the fact that the world is having only one atmosphere and that there is no separate atmosphere for Californians which I hope will get discovered by them by 2035. They can't allow the EV production and Lithium mining continue elsewhere and drive their head in to the sand.

Most of the illness, including cancer, both in America and the worldwide, is caused by their processed food industry, which removed fiber and added preservatives, and the Ancel Key's food pyramid which demonized fat intake while encouraging the white poisons(sugar, et al).

[Tucker48]

Tailpipe emissions are miniscule. Food is the biggest contributor to emissions followed distantly by industry.
California with a GDP bigger than that of India can surely make some noise but it doesn't impress me that a state that rich just can't control it's wildfires. Low income people are leaving the state due to poor water management by the state.
It's more of a feel good factor and a chance for Uber rich to make money by passing these resolutions.

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by COMMUTER

They must be banning all shipping and air travel before considering banning the cars.

Why not give some ideas of how to ban Shipping and Air travel without economic collapse, why is it wrong to target vehicular pollution which can be achieved easily without any economic problems?
Isn't the only agenda environmentalists are driven is better environment? why being an environmentalist a shame? Are we non environmentalists serving Saudi agenda?

Exactly, we share the same atmosphere that's the reason we should welcome these decisions, why lithium mining is more worse than fracking or oil extraction?

Agree on what you said on junk food, is air pollution any less a culprit, is NOx emissions excluded because we love cars?

Originally Posted by Tucker48

Tailpipe emissions are miniscule. Food is the biggest contributor to emissions followed distantly by industry.
California with a GDP bigger than that of India can surely make some noise but it doesn't impress me that a state that rich just can't control it's wildfires. Low income people are leaving the state due to poor water management by the state.
It's more of a feel good factor and a chance for Uber rich to make money by passing these resolutions.

Is everything in the world somehow has to be linked to a conspiracy benefitting the uber rich?
An uber rich guy can pay his hospital bills and can get treated from cancer or can wrap a HEPA filter around his head, aren't the poor benefitting from better lives with clean air? Yes, there are many issues, poor water management may be one of them, doing this does not mean they do not want to address others. Food is a big contributor, if California brings a law saying we will ban beef & pork in 2035, will you agree or do we say it's a agenda driven by Vegans?

I wanted to know, where do we start, when every step is given cynical twist.

[Tucker48]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

Is everything in the world somehow has to be linked to a conspiracy benefitting the uber rich?
An uber rich guy can pay his hospital bills and can get treated from cancer or can wrap a HEPA filter around his head, aren't the poor benefitting from better lives with clean air? Yes, there are many issues, poor water management may be one of them, doing this does not mean they do not want to address others. Food is a big contributor, if California brings a law saying we will ban beef & pork in 2035, will you agree or do we say it's a agenda driven by Vegans?

I wanted to know, where do we start, when every step is given cynical twist.

First get the facts right, it's not a conspiracy, it's a well documented never ending chain of events.
Beef and pork contribute no more than paddy in emissions.
Wanna start? Why not start with reducing one's carbon footprint? Why blame a poor guy who's got a negligible footprint as opposed to Uber rich.
Just like Lewis Hamilton lecturing people about effects of climate change. If he is so serious, he shall lead by example and hang up his boots. Exactly like "paap Karo Ganga m Naha lo".
My point was quite straightforward and that was if a very rich govt can't do anything about wildfires and water woes which are in present, what is the assurance that they will not rob people in the name of climate change(more taxes). Who will benefit from all this? A section of Uber rich who is invested in renewables.
And, there are literally thousands of documented cases where Uber rich have done wrong and have gotten away with it. I'm not against people whether rich or poor, I'm against govts or govt bodies who help them along the way.

[COMMUTER]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

Why not give some ideas of how to ban Shipping and Air travel without economic collapse, why is it wrong to target vehicular pollution which can be achieved easily without any economic problems?

Let's discuss a few covered-up facts here, my friend.

One container ship pollutes as much as 50 MILLION cars, one aeroplane pollutes as much or more than each of its passengers driving their own car individually to the destination. Cars' pollution is miniscule when compared to these and stopping cars will be just as taxing on the economy as stopping the other two by means of replacement costs, new infrastructure costs and the demand-based increase in electricity costs, which will run into TRILLIONS.

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

Isn't the only agenda environmentalists are driven is better environment? why being an environmentalist a shame? Are we non environmentalists serving Saudi agenda?

Environmentalists are showing a sinister trend in avoiding the 'core issues' , which are repeatedly getting debunked, and are rather consumed with anti-capitalist hate and we need to focus on 'WHO' is responsible for that to avoid leaving a bitter taste in the mouths of straight thinkers.

Saudis are not stealing what we are having, unlike the chinese who are agressively focussed on subduing nations by unethical means. They fund and have taken over many reputed institutions all over the world making the process of thinking for oneself all the more crucial than being herded by the corrupt megaphones.

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

Exactly, we share the same atmosphere that's the reason we should welcome these decisions, why lithium mining is more worse than fracking or oil extraction?

Did they say anything about banning oil extraction? NO.

They will be running shipping and airlines on oil and are planning use those to ship the EVs or the EV components to the consumers shifting the economic leverage in the favor of unethical nations, mostly Chinese, and make them the superpower they are working hard to be. How will that lower emissions as a whole? It will increase emissions.

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

Agree on what you said on junk food, is air pollution any less a culprit, is NOx emissions excluded because we love cars?

Not just junk food, the supposesly sacrosanct food pyramid is in itself flawed. NOx must be reduced, not by some commie-fed brainwashed environmentalists' hogwash but by having sustainable agriculture and changing the lifestyle in to a family-centered one which in itself will reduce stress, travel and emissions.

I, speaking for myself, am a car-user, not a car-worshipper. I am here to know how to make my car-usage more comfortable, more safe and less expensive. I don't expect my car to boost my self-respect or give me the ultimate contentment and have already started using my cycle for the intra_city chores in favor of health, convenience and the financial benefits.

[Pam81]

Seems to be the lobby of new age capitalists and entrepreneurs. While the intention may be good but unless a credible life cycle analysis taken into account, the emissions are only going to be shifted to some other means from vehicle tail pipes as of today. It is common to see research reports or many webinars are terming "green" energy which supposedly produced by renewables. However, it is very difficult to imagine, state of California will be completely self-sufficient with renewables if they are truly wanted to achieve their intent.

At the same time, as much as new innovations are getting mainstream that increases scale and reduces adoption cost for electrified vehicles, same is true with internal combustion engines as well. It will be interesting to see which one is least impactful on environment from a lifecycle perspective rather than point of use alone.

As we debate about this, there's a news release last week on Truck Diesel Engine achieving 50% Efficiency. I believe this just because of Bosch and independent testing (trust issues with the brand of engine )

https://www.automotiveworld.com/news...to-50-percent/

Daimler announced their GenH2 truck with fuel cell, first time with liquid hydrogen. First test unit for fleet customers by 2023 and serial production after 2025.

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/daimler-pr...134000749.html

Emission regulations really drove innovations for last 2 decades. For the next 2 decades it might serve the purpose of revitalizing mobility that drives investments and innovations. Only thing, it's going to be very diverse and market acceptance will drive adoptions.

Picking a single clear winner among ICE & electrification is extremely difficult. This difficultly promptly pushing serious work around both - ICE on eliminating harmful emissions and Electrification - on overcoming range anxiety at affordable costs.

[volkman10]

EPA Challenges California’s Ban On Gasoline And Diesel-Powered Vehicles.

the plan could have significant impacts for the state’s electrical grid , and added that the move could be subject to federal approval, as in 2019, the EPA issued rules barring California from requiring the sale of electric vehicles. A court challenge over the matter is still pending.

California’s record of rolling blackouts – unprecedented in size and scope – coupled with recent requests to neighboring states for power begs the question of how you expect to run an electric car fleet that will come with significant increases in electricity demand, when you can’t even keep the lights on today

Link

[landcruiser123]

Individual states in North America are taking steps to convert to EVs. Once a state follows with reasonable success, other follow.

Similar move planned by California in the USA: https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/inter...es-2035-a.html

The Canadian province of Quebec said on Monday it will ban the sale of new gasoline-powered passenger cars from 2035, joining California and others in announcing moves to shift to electric vehicles and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Canada’s second-most populous province announced the ban as part of a C$6.7 billion ($5.1 billion) plan over five years to help Quebec meet a target of reducing its greenhouses gases by 37.5% by 2030, in comparison with 1990 levels, Premier Francois Legault told reporters in Montreal.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKBN27W289

Very interesting times ahead for sure.

[RSR]

Good for Québec and Canada!

I know diesel cars don't sell well in North America (the ones that do are usually pick-ups etc.) but Québec can make a great start by banning the sale of new cars & pick-ups that run on dirty diesel by 2030, or as early as 2025 itself.

I will never agree with anyone that says CO2 is a "pollutant", but if the great zeal shown to cut down on CO2 emissions actually leads to zero-emissions vehicles, then I heartily welcome it.

I may not live that long, but one day I wish to cross the road during rush hour at a very busy junction without breathing in air laden with filthy particulate matter, SOx, NOx, HC and carcinogenic crap belched out from the exhaust pipes of all kinds of vehicles.