1ºWill Butler it was a simple comment to see if you would engage. It's pointless (an tiresome) to write an article when the target audience just ignores it altogether.
My honest opinion is this:
California has a very large economy. By most accounts the 5th largest as you have stated, although I've seen it placed as low as 7th. That really is something to brag about, but why is it so strong? Major parts of California's economy are based in sectors that the majority of Californians actively try to stop. These include plant and animal agriculture, logging, manufacturing, and construction. California is ideally situated to support these industries because of its natural soil, natural resources, and port shipping ability. All that being the case, it is the protections provided by the federal government that allow these industries to continue operating in California. Look at all the tech and manufacturing corporations that are leaving California in favor of states with a more favorable business environment. If California were to split off and become its own country, how long would the remaining companies stay here? It is my opinion that most of them would be either moved or taxed out of business within the first year. Without the political support of other states, how long do you think that the farmers and logger will continue to work the land here? Sure soil cannot be moved, but people and equipment can be. Then take the ports into account. How much of the cargo that enters California ports stays in California? I'd be willing to bet that a majority of it is bound for 47 other states. If California become its own country, would they add additional taxes to these through-port goods? Would the United States place tariffs on everything entering from California? If so, how long do you think it would take companies to move their imports up to Portland, Seattle, or Texas? That would strongly impact the California economy both in goods and jobs. Next would be energy. California does not have the electrical infrastructure to support itself, especially if the nuclear power plants and hydroelectric dams are shut down. Solar and wind power are wonderful, but not constant or reliable for a power grid the size of California's. The new country would be forced to purchase power from the United States.
I have a few other thoughts, but I'd like to know your opinion on these points before I continue.
2ºSusan Swift Susan, there is no doubt there are countries that use child labor and we should do everything possible to not buy from these companies. But, it is never that simple, as many countries hide it very well.
But, to somehow blame Democrats for looking into the future and trying find ways to get our air cleaner, well I am sure they will accept that blame.
People think we have these unlimited resources that are going to last forever and we just do not. We need to keep stepping into the future. Is it going to have its hurdles, well certainly. Look how long we have had gasoline engines and all the challenges and problems that we continue to have. There are no perfect solutions.
Change is hard, but It is intelligent to address this now, not later.
3ºSusan Swift What are you going to say when eventually the whole country, including Republican states, transition to EV's?... Not to mention the rest of the advanced industrial nations..
You see this as a partisan political issue and an excuse to blame Democrats, rather than an energy revolution that will transform the entire world into future generations.
There will be technological advances in mining rare minerals, as well as the advance of renewable energy sources to produce electricity, such as green hydrogen. Try to be positive and see the rapid advancements in technology that are taking place in our lifetime!
4ºIsmael Gonzalez
Splitting hairs once again, how weak.
Basically republicans are so scared of losing in Texas, they are going to force millions of people to use one drop off site, or stand in line for hours because republicans shut down most of the polling locations in select counties.
You are trying to debate lord, when the reality is I’ve been able to easily prove my point. Republicans have no proof of voter fraud, yet use that lie to push laws that restrict voting for mostly people who don’t vote red. They know Texas is turning purple, so they have to make it as hard as possible for people to vote.
5ºSherri Lehman Read about alternate energy sources and how Germany and France have approached the problem. The comment of mine you are replying to clearly says the calculation of carbon emissions and electricity requirements are accounted for when in studies which found that driving cars for 3+ years makes electric cars more efficient in energy and emissions. And about the energy source, currently California has 50 percent energy coming from natural gas (emission is CO2 and water vapor which is much cleaner than gasoline burning in cars which produces C02,SO2, CO and soot, and other particulates with much less efficiency of conversion to practical gas mileage), the rest comes from hydro, nuclear etc which are non renewables (upto 16 percent) while 34 percent of the rest from renewables like wind, geothermal, solar etc. Nuclear and other renewables can be increased easily. France has turned 93 percent nuclear and is the most green energy producing country now and they have proved that the traditional 'fear' of storing the nuclear waste is needless as it is much more easy to store and maintain compared to the the area and money required to build solar or wind fields and is less dangerous than the emissions coming from coal and petroleum power plants which is estimated to kill millions around the world per year. This is thousands of times the amount of people dead due any nuclear disaster combined in a century! But Ofcourse nuclear resources would be a govt maintained energy source and private companies won't benefit much so Republicans and fox news will be funded by oil companies to show you how dangerous it is while 60000 people die of air pollution every year. Here's a homework for you. Google the number of deaths in all the nuclear disasters which are few in number in the last 70 years and compare it with pollution death in a SINGLE year. Again natural gas causes CO2 emissions though but if you are a climate change believer let me know as i don't wanna write too much when you could be like a very ignorant Republican who wouldn't even believe in climate change!
6ºGary Gozer I would have to argue that they need all the help that they can get. The best decisions don't seem to originate in Sacramento.
1) They should know exactly what this will take and have a cost effective plan for achieving this (from an infrastructure perspective).
2) The state generates a lot of money with its Gas tax used for roads and improvements and infrastructure. How will they tax electric vehicles to make up for this lost revenue? Will this tax simply be added to everyone's electric bill?
3) How will 30+ million Californians charging their vehicles impact the grid infrastructure, and how does this huge increased demand impact kilowatt electricity costs for everyone in the state? Electric companies have no incentive to make this cost effective because you're literally mandating much more energy consumption so PG&E and Edison are likely to make huge profits.
4) How does mandating only eclectic impact the economy? Most eclectic vehicles are proprietary and like Apple, require repair and service through their service centers. Are there plans for creating training standards and coordinating with ASE, so we don't decimate the auto repair industry and auto parts stores which is roughly a $6.9 billion dollar industry. Same question for the auto parts industry.
5) What coal, nuclear, solar, wind power generating plants will need to be planted. If you remember, the recent law diminished the ROI for people who have solar panels installed. Before they would pay homeowners market rates for their electricity, now it seems that they are planning on leveraging home owners power generation only to turn around and charge high kilowatt rates for that same electricity. If they've done such a study the results should be transparent and have realistic cost.
I'm sure there are dozens of other factors that should be considered but what is disconcerting is that the state legislature has already moved forward and whatever is being proposed with this law is likely the product of lobbying from special interests so "Caveat Emptor"..
7ºSamantha Mattingly Fair question!
In a Tesla Model 3 Long Range model, if you leave with a full charge, you only need two stops to charge on the way from Indianapolis to Atlanta (539 miles). It’s a total of about 37 minutes of charging. Good chance to walk around and grab a bite to eat on the long trip.
Electric cars like Teslas are more expensive now, but to be fair the average price of a new car in the USA is >$47,000.
Cheaper electric cars with long range and faster charging will be coming quickly. The technology is good enough for most people today, and it’s going to be far better by 2035.
8ºElisa Collins Zinda your commute, isn’t a microcosm of the entire western worlds economy. Your battery’s have a half life of 5 years, and that in and of itself is an environmental nightmare. I have been stuck on winter roads with -15, in traffic, and I don’t want to rely on a battery to protect my life, when I’m 75. It isn’t well thought out. Is all of your power generated by wind? Because if it’s gas your utility uses, it is actually less carbon neutral than you burning natural gas in your engine. Utilities also use power, to operate and to build and maintain their distribution. It isn’t well thought out on numerous levels
9ºOk middle glass can afford 40 thousand dollar cars abs 10 thousand dollar batteries. Makes a lot of common sense. Ask those that can’t afford food or rent if they can afford electric. Oh by the way while your struggling to save the environment Russia and China is gonna be producing Oil and gas guess they don’t live on same planet as us. California can’t keep up with election grid now makes sense to add more huh ? No common sense anymore idiots running the country. God help us. I’d rather ride a mule to work than a electric car much more economical
10º"Sperling added the process of drafting the rules had received 'surprisingly little debate' and pushback from car companies, a signal that companies themselves are embracing the move to zero-emission vehicles. Several companies including Ford and GM have already announced ambitious plans to move toward zero-emission cars, trucks and SUVs."
That's the key, but still I wonder if there will be a rebound of some sort, because the limited range will be problematic. I'm surprised we're not building more hybrids to deal with that. But that's where the rebound may be. When the public balks at the range problems, hybrids may make a comeback. Of course, if we do get good advances in battery life and range and in fast charging, electric cars are more likely to be quite popular.