7 ms·

This seems appropriate. Local governments shouldn’t be able to determine international commerce policy.

by orasis 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Keverw 8y ago
Also local governments such as Los Angeles are planning to ban Diesel and Gas by 2030. So I guess people on vacation visiting will get a huge fine, car impounded, etc for just visiting? I think local governments are overstepping their bounds. Now if it has to do with sales of gas/diesel within city limits that would make more sense, people who disagree can just go give money to the next city over if they prefer liquid over electric. However couldn't find much info on it, just a pledge right now. I think they did it to despite Trump for dropping out of the Paris agreement. So I'm hoping it's more of just trying to create PR than actually creating any new laws. Plus that's a huge area where I doubt every one can afford to go buy a electric, plus electric seems limiting for road trips or for RVs. Then you also got classic car collectors too. Just imagine being told by some city you have to buy a new car by a certain date and gas stations all closed by then too.
- phil248 8y ago
  You sound very concerned about a proposal you read about that might happen in 10 or 15 years in a city you don't live in. "...plus electric seems limiting for road trips or for RVs" You also seem to know very little about electric vehicles.
  - Keverw 8y ago
    In America we have freedom of movement. So I think a city banning certain types of cars is wrong if it's legal on the federal level, so I do very much care about this sort of topic. Electric you have to plan where to charge instead of just fueling up anywhere. Plus liquid pours faster than electric, and fast charging isn't healthy for batteries according to some articles I read. Suppose to be more for emergencies. Not every hotel or camping spot has EV chargers. Same for restaurants, tourist attractions, and other places you'd naturally stop. Orlando to Los Angeles is over 2,500 miles. Then RV people can go off the grid for weeks at a time, just visiting town to dump tanks, fill up water and fuel. Quartzite is a popular destination for snowbirds. Sure a lot of people who go off the grid has solar for like powering their lights and electronics, but not sure if the storage and solar is there yet to also worry about the engine itself and not just the house batteries. Especially since you still need to run the generator for AC. I think electric still needs more development. I feel like mandating it is limiting people's freedom of movement... Maybe the government of California would rather keep it's residents from moving to Texas and Florida which is happening according to statistics. People want to be able to afford housing and cheaper goods. I guess if it does become a mandate, you could just tote around a bunch of fuel containers and a standalone generator to charge your electric engine up if it ever did come to that... I think solar is cool but even then you don't get enough sun everyday or something acts up, so fuel for backup is always good to have too. Then Lithium ion batteries are more efficient than other batteries, but fire is a concern. Especially how cars can heat up like a oven. Personally I'm more open to a hybrid than 100% electric. I know they are coming out with a Jeep Wrangler hybrid, along with a diesel model too which sounds interesting. Electric for city driving or fuel for highway and off road driving sounds awesome. Best of both worlds. Clean for city driving or when wanting to go on a long distance trip no need to worry about range.
vkou 8y ago
But they aren't determining international commerce policy. The coal companies are free to ship it out through Texas, or Wyoming, or wherever will have them. There's a difference between "I don't want guns in my house" and "I want guns to be banned in my country." It's not Oakland's responsibility to ensure that the coal industry can make money in Oakland.
- aje403 8y ago
  If we're going to use invalid analogies, there's also a big difference between "I declare murder to be legal in the home that I own!" and "I think murder should be legalized!"
- bcheung 8y ago
  Such reasoning is detrimental to a free society. It's not a house, it's a port. And a major one at that. Should ISPs be free to discriminate and ban anything they don't like too?
  - fiter 8y ago
    The government does regulate what ISPs can host. In this case, the local government is trying to regulate what the port can host.
    - AmericanChopper 8y ago
      Should cities where fiber cables land be able to regulate what packets pass through them?
      - fiter 8y ago
        Your original statement was that ISPs should not get to ban. I noted that ISPs might not get to ban, but governments do get to ban. You are now asking me if governments should get to ban. I believe I already said that they do get to ban. If your point is that you believe specifically cities should not be able to ban, then maybe that should be the case. I'd like to hear your argument, though.
fiter 8y ago
I think local governments should be able to regulate emissions in their local area. I'm surprised they didn't take that approach as it would have allowed the economic benefit if possible without the harmful effects. After this court ruling, I expect the next step will be related to monitoring emissions and fining as appropriate. https://www.environment.co.za/environmental-issues/coal-dust-environmental-impacts-and-good-coal-dust-management-practices.html https://www.environment.co.za/environmental-issues/coal-dust...

This seems appropriate. Local governments shouldn’t be able to determine international commerce policy.

by orasis 8y ago

This seems appropriate. Local governments shouldn’t be able to determine international commerce policy.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Keverw 8y ago

Also local governments such as Los Angeles are planning to ban Diesel and Gas by 2030. So I guess people on vacation visiting will get a huge fine, car impounded, etc for just visiting? I think local governments are overstepping their bounds. Now if it has to do with sales of gas/diesel within city limits that would make more sense, people who disagree can just go give money to the next city over if they prefer liquid over electric. However couldn't find much info on it, just a pledge right now. I think they did it to despite Trump for dropping out of the Paris agreement. So I'm hoping it's more of just trying to create PR than actually creating any new laws. Plus that's a huge area where I doubt every one can afford to go buy a electric, plus electric seems limiting for road trips or for RVs. Then you also got classic car collectors too. Just imagine being told by some city you have to buy a new car by a certain date and gas stations all closed by then too.

phil248 8y ago
You sound very concerned about a proposal you read about that might happen in 10 or 15 years in a city you don't live in. "...plus electric seems limiting for road trips or for RVs" You also seem to know very little about electric vehicles.
- Keverw 8y ago
  In America we have freedom of movement. So I think a city banning certain types of cars is wrong if it's legal on the federal level, so I do very much care about this sort of topic. Electric you have to plan where to charge instead of just fueling up anywhere. Plus liquid pours faster than electric, and fast charging isn't healthy for batteries according to some articles I read. Suppose to be more for emergencies. Not every hotel or camping spot has EV chargers. Same for restaurants, tourist attractions, and other places you'd naturally stop. Orlando to Los Angeles is over 2,500 miles. Then RV people can go off the grid for weeks at a time, just visiting town to dump tanks, fill up water and fuel. Quartzite is a popular destination for snowbirds. Sure a lot of people who go off the grid has solar for like powering their lights and electronics, but not sure if the storage and solar is there yet to also worry about the engine itself and not just the house batteries. Especially since you still need to run the generator for AC. I think electric still needs more development. I feel like mandating it is limiting people's freedom of movement... Maybe the government of California would rather keep it's residents from moving to Texas and Florida which is happening according to statistics. People want to be able to afford housing and cheaper goods. I guess if it does become a mandate, you could just tote around a bunch of fuel containers and a standalone generator to charge your electric engine up if it ever did come to that... I think solar is cool but even then you don't get enough sun everyday or something acts up, so fuel for backup is always good to have too. Then Lithium ion batteries are more efficient than other batteries, but fire is a concern. Especially how cars can heat up like a oven. Personally I'm more open to a hybrid than 100% electric. I know they are coming out with a Jeep Wrangler hybrid, along with a diesel model too which sounds interesting. Electric for city driving or fuel for highway and off road driving sounds awesome. Best of both worlds. Clean for city driving or when wanting to go on a long distance trip no need to worry about range.

vkou 8y ago

But they aren't determining international commerce policy. The coal companies are free to ship it out through Texas, or Wyoming, or wherever will have them. There's a difference between "I don't want guns in my house" and "I want guns to be banned in my country." It's not Oakland's responsibility to ensure that the coal industry can make money in Oakland.

aje403 8y ago
If we're going to use invalid analogies, there's also a big difference between "I declare murder to be legal in the home that I own!" and "I think murder should be legalized!"
bcheung 8y ago
Such reasoning is detrimental to a free society. It's not a house, it's a port. And a major one at that. Should ISPs be free to discriminate and ban anything they don't like too?
- fiter 8y ago
  The government does regulate what ISPs can host. In this case, the local government is trying to regulate what the port can host.
  - AmericanChopper 8y ago
    Should cities where fiber cables land be able to regulate what packets pass through them?
    - fiter 8y ago
      Your original statement was that ISPs should not get to ban. I noted that ISPs might not get to ban, but governments do get to ban. You are now asking me if governments should get to ban. I believe I already said that they do get to ban. If your point is that you believe specifically cities should not be able to ban, then maybe that should be the case. I'd like to hear your argument, though.

fiter 8y ago

I think local governments should be able to regulate emissions in their local area. I'm surprised they didn't take that approach as it would have allowed the economic benefit if possible without the harmful effects. After this court ruling, I expect the next step will be related to monitoring emissions and fining as appropriate. https://www.environment.co.za/environmental-issues/coal-dust-environmental-impacts-and-good-coal-dust-management-practices.html https://www.environment.co.za/environmental-issues/coal-dust...