Senate Republicans Kill California’s Ban on Gas-Powered Cars
Senate Republicans Kill California’s Ban on Gas-Powered Cars
www.nytimes.com
Senate Republicans Kill California’s Ban on Gas-Powered Cars
25 comments
-
-
State rights?
-
Turns out it was slavery this whole time.
-
Shocker
-
-
-
The fascist-controlled Senate does not have the authority to do this and they were warned ahead of time that they did not have the authority. But that didn’t stop them, because neither law nor Constitution nor ethics will prevent an authoritarian from trying to steal power.
-
I just have to wonder how much longer California will be in the United States to be subject to these kind of actions.
-
All the the ruling class even in California are too financially invested and want to keep their high standards of living to do that, unfortunately.
-
Probably about 3 years
-
-
They should just ban the sale of spark plugs, fuel injectors, pistons, timing belts, exhaust pipes, etc. one by one each time one of these bills gets passed. You can buy an ICE vehicle if you want but you better know someone who will drive you to Nevada to get spare parts.
-
Well its a very thin state.
-
It may be long and narrow, but California is huge. It's a about a four hour drive from a major city to the NV state line.
-
Only 250 miles wide. Ez walk to get that spark plug tbh.
-
I guess it is roughly one Netherlands wide, huh...
-
-
-
Tbf cars powered by gas sounds amazing in a steam punky way.
-
As a gearhead, this is the one thing that I agree with the Republicans on this one. I like the instant torque of electric cars, but I also appreciate an Asian sports car with an LS swapped in, mated to a manual 6 speed transmission. Nothing more fun than driving a tiny, manual car with a big, angry V8 under the hood. I like both and I want to have the choice to own both.
The vast majority of pollution comes from corporations.
Stop punishing everyday people for being a raindrop in the ocean.-
That could've been an option if action was taken against big polluters decades ago, but we're now at the point that we need collective action to prevent our world from becoming an awful place to live in, and death for those living in more vulnerable areas.
The vast majority of pollution comes from corporations. Stop punishing everyday people for being a raindrop in the ocean.
It's not a raindrop, unfortunately.
Transportation is responsible for roughly 24% of global emissions, of which 18% is made up of personal cars and trucking.
Reducing car usage on a mass scale would be a massive help in stemming climate change, and the only way to do that is by each of us collectively using more efficient means of transport, whether that's public transport, ebikes, or electric cars if necessary.
Maybe it might be helpful if we start thinking about climate change as a war, and like in some wars past, it will require war rationing to win it. The corporations will never stop polluting as long as it's profitable, and many if not most governments around the world are now corporate captured, meaning we have few effective means of muzzling their emissions.
That leaves it up to us, as individuals, to make the hard choices for the sake of the planet. Reducing our usage of polluting cars, meat consumption (the alternative meats like Impossible are incredible replacements), and purchasing of non-essential high-emission luxury goods is one of the more powerful weapons we have in this war. It'd be a travesty not to use it.
-
We could probably have some sort of exception for like track vehicles. Like they could be not street legal to stop pollution for transportation but you could still have fun on a racetrack. I don't see Formula 1 or NASCAR going away but if we could get rid of most of the pollution that would be massive. At this point I'll take crumbs lol.
-
25 comments
I remember when repugnacans championed states’ rights.
I don't.
I remember when American conservatives in the '60s claimed to support states' rights. But what they actually supported was segregation and Jim Crow. They used "states' rights" as a rhetorical tool to hide their racism behind a facade of principle, just like the Confederacy had a hundred years prior.
Among the American right, only useful idiots (like libertarians) actually believed in states' rights - or small government rhetoric in general - as a principle. It was always empty rhetoric. And now that Republicans are openly supporting Trump's big government authoritarian conservatism, it's become obvious how badly the Ron Paul types were used.
red STATES RIGHTS
...that's just civil war with extra steps