43 ms·

Pre-industrial CO2 levels were 300ppm. In my lifetime I saw us cross 400ppm of CO2; I may very well see it cross 500ppm before I die. This move feels radical,

Pre-industrial CO2 levels were 300ppm. In my lifetime I saw us cross 400ppm of CO2; I may very well see it cross 500ppm before I die. This move feels radical, but I don't see how we avert catastrophe without moves that feel radical. If we keep plodding down the course we're on we'll just sleepwalk into oblivion.

username90 6y ago
Why do it randomly in the middle of a term instead of campaign based of this so we can properly debate and discuss the details?
- tstrimple 6y ago
  Because we don't live in a direct democracy?
  - username90 6y ago
    Hiding your true intentions and then showing your 15 year plan after you get elected is not in the spirit of representative democracies. Here in Sweden we discuss these things before elections and in general have more climate measures than California, so I don't see why a politician would need to be this heavy handed.
    - natch 6y ago
      > I don't see why... The mistake here is assuming that just because you don’t see a reason, that must mean there is no reason. Maybe you should visit California next time we are in peak firestorm mode and then you might see.
      - blackflame7000 6y ago
        So this will stop the fires then? Better than say mandating forest management?
        tstrimple 6y ago
        Stop fires? No. In the long term it's meant to address the conditions to lead to the size and severity of fires we're seeing today. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46183690 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46183690 > In terms of loss of life and damage to property, the data shows the worst fires have all been in the past 10 years or so - except for one fire in 1991 in Alameda County. > And this year, there have also been unusually strong winds combined with periods of drought across parts of the western US. Six of the largest fires recorded in California have all happened this year. > Prof Doerr says a combination of drier, hotter and windy conditions is the key factor in these recent fires. > He adds that even in areas where there have been attempts to reduce flammable material in forests, it's not clear how much difference this would have made. > "The bottom line remains that the extreme meteorological conditions are the main drivers for these extreme fires."
        throwawaysea 6y ago
        But climate change is not the main driver of recent wildfires, and it at most one contributing factor among many. If old growth trees remained, if forests were cleared of dead trees, if stands were thinned, if logging companies were allowed to harvest in a timely/economical fashion, or if controlled burns were used with the frequency they used to be, most of these fires would not happen. If there are fewer fires, the smaller number of bad fires that do still happen are much easier to put out quickly, because we would not have to spread fire fighting resources too thinly. Here's a survey of articles covering the West coast fires (CA, OR, WA) that make this clear: - https://www.npr.org/2020/08/24/899422710/to-manage-wildfire-california-looks-to-what-tribes-have-known-all-along https://www.npr.org/2020/08/24/899422710/to-manage-wildfire-... mentions that before 1800, several million acres were burned every year through indigenous burning and also lightning-caused fires. In 2019, California committed to burning just half a million acres a year, but is far from reaching even that modest goal. - https://www.npr.org/2020/09/10/911592361/are-recent-wildfires-enough-to-restore-the-equilibrium-with-fire https://www.npr.org/2020/09/10/911592361/are-recent-wildfire... mentions that California needs to address 20M acres every year (through thinning or burning). In 2019, $160M was spent putting out wildfires in CA, but the economic damage was $80B - and yet preventative measures are not being taken. - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/us/california-today-100-million-dead-trees-prompt-fears-of-giant-wildfires.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/us/california-today-100-m... notes that California's focus on fire suppression has led to mass quantities of dead trees resulting from a lack of smaller fires and increased infestation (due to increased forest density enabling transmission of pests/disease) - https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2020/09/did-global-warming-play-significant.html https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2020/09/did-global-warming-pl... mentions that the wind patterns that caused recent wildfires in Oregon is unlikely to have been caused by climate change - https://katu.com/news/on-your-side/lack-of-forest-management-allowed-fuels-to-accumulate-expert-says https://katu.com/news/on-your-side/lack-of-forest-management... notes that in Oregon, a lack of forest management has led to a buildup of dense fuels - https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/to-stop-wildland-fires-forestry-not-climate-policy-is-the-priority https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/to-stop... notes various policy failures that have caused Washington forests to grow out of control, unharvested, and with high density. - Both the WA state Department of Natural Resources (https://www.dnr.wa.gov/StrategicFireProtection https://www.dnr.wa.gov/StrategicFireProtection) and WA timber industry (http://www.wfpa.org/sustainable-forestry/reduce-wildfire-risk/ http://www.wfpa.org/sustainable-forestry/reduce-wildfire-ris...) have been increased investment/assistance/regulatory support in thinning forests and conducting prescribed burns. Despite these calls being made for over a decade, despite ever increasing state budgets, and despite a consistent single-party rule, the governor and legislature have done little to respond to those calls for help. The reality is that all three West Coast governors - Newsom (CA), Brown (OR), and Inslee (WA) - are operating in states that have left-leaning legislatures, judiciaries, and executive leadership. The failure to prevent wildfires or manage them effectively is entirely their fault. It's much more convenient however, to blame an externality like climate change, than to be honest about their own failures. And at the same time, the political theater of blaming wildfires on climate change allows them to forward their political/ideological agendas through far-reaching proposals like Green New Deal, which are much broader than just environmental issues.
  - gnicholas 6y ago
    CA regularly amends its constitution via voter initiatives, so I'd say we (Californians) actually do live in a fairly direct democracy. Also, I'm not sure anyone has ever characterized representative democracy as: politicians campaign on certain issues, and then after getting elected — and with no material intervening factors — they enact sweeping regulations that they never even hinted at during their campaign (or decades-long prior political life).
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > we (Californians) actually do live in a fairly direct democracy California has direct democratic elements. It is not a direct democracy. There is a lot of writing and research on why direct democracies are probably not a good idea for all questions, from antiquity to the modern era. One field that dies with proximity to democracy is law, e.g. the ancient Athenian system of trial by popular assembly. Another is the management of commons, e.g. fisheries, forestry and, I would argue, our atmosphere. Note that such delegation doesn't mean usurpation. It just means the elected leaders negatively consent to, and constrain, rule making. This is the basis of the agency-driven civil service model, which first–to my knowledge–flourished in China before making it West by way of the Middle East.
      - throwawaysea 6y ago
        Why do you believe management of the commons would fail under direct democracies? That seems like an arbitrary claim but maybe I don't understand the reasoning. I feel like any flaw that is claimed about direct democracy can be claimed about high-turnout representative democracy as well (and therefore broadly about democracy in general). After all, we elect representatives effectively on popularity contexts, echo chambers squeezing out marginal leads, and poor/manipulable information flows. A related question: wouldn't a representative democracy always perform more poorly than a (benevolent) technocracy?
    - s17n 6y ago
      Pretty sure the original concept of representative democracy didn't involve campaigning on issues at all, it was more like "the people decide who they want to represent them by picking the wisest and most honorable citizens, and then the representatives decide what to do about the issues."
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  Debates on major topics during a campaign aren't really known for their scientific quality and attention to nuance, so I'm not really sure we should be upset if anyone's passed up on the opportunity to debate acceptable fuel emissions during campaigns. Between healthcare, immigration, criminal justice reform, etc. there isn't exactly a shortage of topics to debate and pick a side on during a campaign. And unlike (perhaps) the market, it's not like mother nature gives points for democracy either.
  - username90 6y ago
    Problem is that without debates this is likely to just get reverted and make people lose even more trust in their politicians.
    - sjy 6y ago
      In Australia, the debate was so popular that it continued after a carbon tax was successfully implemented, which resulted in the tax being repealed in 2014 and not much action on climate change since then. Maybe “debate” is not the right word for what happened, but engaging the public on climate policy seems to have had perverse effects in Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Australia
      - username90 6y ago
        Sounds like you would get better results if you created a policy people are happy with instead of just doing something that will get reversed and create more future opposition against green solutions.
- natch 6y ago
  It’s a good time right now because the fires in California have put a spotlight on environmental issues. Also you have to adapt to changing conditions and then take actions accordingly. This is true generally, and possibly even more so for politicians and governments.
  - gnicholas 6y ago
    > It’s a good time right now because the fires in California have put a spotlight on environmental issues. Some people are blaming the wildfires on global warming, but many (on the left and the right) are saying forest maintenance has been the primary cause. [1] Also, the recent rolling blackouts have shown the risk of relying too much on solar and wind power. I'm not sure that the specific timing makes too much sense, unless the goal is to have this largely overshadowed by the presidential election and recent passing of Justice Ginsburg. 1: https://www.propublica.org/article/they-know-how-to-prevent-megafires-why-wont-anybody-listen https://www.propublica.org/article/they-know-how-to-prevent-...
    - headmelted 6y ago
      I’m a bit saddened people didn’t react more positively to the Tesla battery day event. I’m not talking about stock speculators (gamblers gonna gamble, whatever) but just generally I thought it was very encouraging that Tesla’s main goal right now is to dramatically drive down the cost of energy storage while driving up the density and production capacity. Is it enough? Not on their own, but if others can adopt their methods to produce more batteries then it’s effectively printing money for those companies for the next thirty years (as even the laggards are forced to move to zero emissions across their grids). It would be nice if this creates the kind of fierce competition E.M. set out to do with Tesla originally. We need more energy storage than we have now by several orders of magnitude.
    - 0_____0 6y ago
      what makes you think the blackouts have to do with the power generation type? my understanding was that the blackouts have to do with danger to/from power distribution infrastructure
- gpm 6y ago
  It's literally announced 15 years in advance. Plenty of time for the public to elect politicians who will roll it back (indeed, the cynic in me assumes that is the whole reason it was able to be announced).
  - username90 6y ago
    You are probably right, I don't see any movement in car stocks at all. Seems like nobody thinks this matters.
    - rsynnott 6y ago
      Over the last few years, a number of mostly European countries have passed regulations to ban new petrol/diesel cars by 2030-2040, with some cities to ban then as early as 2025. So from the industry's point of view, this is more of the same, and not unexpected. It would arguably be weird if the markets moved much; this sort of thing should be priced in.
      - username90 6y ago
        > Over the last few years, a number of mostly European countries have passed regulations to ban new petrol/diesel cars by 2030-2040 They haven't, EU countries cannot do that since it is against EU law. Instead there have been several proposals for phasing out fossil fuel cars that are still discussed, but nothing is decided. That is how politics and regulations are usually done.
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  None of your assertions are backed by logic. You imply that politicians can only do things that they promise on the trail, without responding to things real time. This would be disastrous. You imply that without "debate" it is likely to be reverted, which has no basis in theory or fact.
  - username90 6y ago
    A 15 year plan isn't urgent and requires very strong support in order to survive when the next leader gets elected. Doing this without a public discussion doesn't make sense in any way. Also we have known about climate change for decades, there has been no huge revelations about it the past year, there was no reason this couldn't have been a part of his campaign.
mrfusion 6y ago
At least the plants are happy. Co2 is food for them.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Yes, and warmth is good for them.
  - redisman 6y ago
    Wrong. Most plants have a small range of extreme (and average) temperatures (low and high) they can tolerate.
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      Wrong. Freezing temperatures are by far the most challenging environments for plants to deal with and only a limited set of species are well adapted for cold climates. Meanwhile warm climates mean year round growing seasons and the widest range of species that thrive, this is why you can grow almost anything in tropical zones and get much more productivity out of that growth. See: https://www.gilmour.com/planting-zones-hardiness-map https://www.gilmour.com/planting-zones-hardiness-map
      - redisman 6y ago
        Hardiness zones are really useful for human cultivated plants. Many seeds require a certain amount of time below a low temperature to germinate and a hundred other variables. You seem to also be assuming many biomes in the northern hemisphere turns into a rainforest rather than a desert from increasing temperatures.
  - breakyerself 6y ago
    The best warmth for a given species of plant is usually the one its adapted to. At the very least warmer temperatures can lead to populations of harmful insects to go out of control. Like bark eating beetles
chrisco255 6y ago
So the levels increased from 300 to 400 ppm and in that same time frame the quality of life and length of life improved dramatically. What catastrophe? You think we can prevent periodic droughts from hitting the West Coast even though there's fossil evidence of such droughts occurring regularly over the past several thousand years? The increase from 300ppm to 400ppm saw marginal differences in temperature and dramatically improved yields in crop farming. 100 years ago millions would still regularly perish from famine. Today that's almost unheard of, even in most developing countries. Your idea of a crisis is quite different from that of your ancestors from the pre-300ppm days.
- jeromegv 6y ago
  What catastrophe? Did you miss the California fires 2 weeks ago? Improvement in farming also clearly came from improvement in agriculture, you seem to imply that the rise in climate temperature is the only explanation. And no, there is no evidence that temperature has ever increased that fast. And even if you keep denying the impact of climate change, think alone of the change in AIR QUALITY in a place with so many cars like Los Angeles. The increase in air quality alone in big urban centers is worth it on its own. It's already been improved quite a bit in recent years (at least in the west) and this can only get better. I live next to a big road here in my city and I just can't wait to have less emission vehicles on the road.
  - headmelted 6y ago
    This. Also, people should buy electric cars. FACT: a bad electric car is outright better than almost any ICE car. Source: I own a Nissan Leaf. And it’s no Tesla. Still leaps and bounds above any gas car I’ve ever driven.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      All EVs are good EVs. As long as you're displacing combustion, you're doing your part.
      - 6y ago
mempko 6y ago
It's also not clear what zero emissions mean. Is the supply chain zero emissions?
- pjscott 6y ago
  It's not clear what "zero-emissions" should mean, but in the context of California environmental regulations it refers specifically to vehicles that don't emit any pollutants from their onboard power source, e.g. electric or fuel-cell cars. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/about/glossary https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/about/glossary
- bhahn 6y ago
  I'm not sure why your comment is getting downvoted. I also had the same question.
  - dv_dt 6y ago
    FWIW, I think no one is proposing to apply a requirement of an end item decarbonization to the entire logistics chain behind a product. Most proposals want to apply regulation to many individual links up and down the chain directly.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    I downvoted because it is very clear and if you want other people to answer a question you have to put in some work. I don't care to see trivial questions so I downvoted and banned that guy from my view.
    - observr9 6y ago
      I actually thought it was a rhetorical question, with the intent of stating that the law still wouldn't save us from supply chain emissions.
      - renewiltord 6y ago
        Thank you for explaining that to me. I think I will continue filtering out that person for stating banalities.
danepowell 6y ago
> This move feels radical My understanding is that, at least depending on your goal, this isn't nearly radical enough. Some experts think we not only need to stop selling gas-powered cars _immediately_, but also actively remove existing fossil fuel cars/appliance from the economy. I found this podcast helpful in understanding the level of effort needed to decarbonize in the near future: https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2020/8/27/21403184/saul-griffith-ezra-klein-show-solve-climate-change-green-new-deal-rewiring-america https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2020/8/27/21403184/saul-griffit...
- kristopolous 6y ago
  15 years is nonsense because it's beyond the time horizon of political office. Future politicians won't feel obligated by their predecessors commitments and current ones will just kick the can on meaningful action. Unless there's actual measurable promises made by politicians that can be falsified before their next election, it's mostly puffery. Make hard, publicly verifiable 6, 12, and 18 month commitments otherwise it's just fluffy words to get votes. Also this can't be a politics-only solution. We have to dip into ye olden term of "political economy" - that second term is integrally tied to the first. The restructuring has to happen at how the politics And economy operates otherwise it doesn't work - there's no way to do anything meaningful, it's just words on paper if we only look at politics. Personally I think profit maximization for the energy sector has to go. It's not how we run our fire, parks, library, courts, postal service and it can't be how we do energy, at least not right now. Greenhouse gas minimization has to determine things. It's possible. The best universities for instance, aren't determined by the highest profits and the best police aren't the ones that hand out the largest fines and the best parents aren't the ones that extract the highest value labor from their children. We can restructure how energy is done as well.
  - Brakenshire 6y ago
    Yes, it will be interesting whether this includes any meaningful action within his term of office. In the EU and UK there are requirements for average emissions for each manufacturer, which get tougher every year, and already are requiring about 5-10% of vehicles to be electric.
njarboe 6y ago
I agree. How about the radical move of deciding not to shut down a large nuclear power plant in California in 2025[1] that could power millions of these cars, carbon free. Trying to fix climate change without nuclear power is likely impossible at this point, but very few climate change activists support it. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant
- notJim 6y ago
  I'm not saying I completely agree with closing the plant, but to be fair to the argument they make, the agreement does seem to spell out that the plant will be replaced with greenhouse gas free energy sources, including renewables + storage. IMO the biggest problem with nuclear is the cost and time to construct. I don't think the energy industry would be so keen to shut them down if they were cost effective.
  - xyzzyz 6y ago
    They are expensive and take long to construct because of political and environmental requirements on them. This is not an inherent property of nuclear, and can be solved with a single stroke of the pen. This is not going to happen, though, because people tend to think that if something is "environmental", then it must be good.
    - Spooky23 6y ago
      That’s pretty naive. Companies will always put off big capital expenses as long as possible, especially if someone else holds the risk.
      - xyzzyz 6y ago
        No, companies are extremely happy to make huge capital expenses, if they expect to make a good profit on them. For example, California's PG&E is planning to spend a whopping $40B in investment over next 5 years, because California government guarantees 10% annual return on investment.
legerdemain 6y ago
Is this policy move California's response to the federal government gutting vehicle emission reduction policies just this spring?[1] As a nation, we're not making radical moves. Most of our proposed policies are slow-walked or rolled back before they ever make a difference. https://www.npr.org/2020/03/31/824431240/trump-administration-weakens-auto-emissions-rolling-back-key-climate-policy https://www.npr.org/2020/03/31/824431240/trump-administratio...
clairity 6y ago
US EPA[0] / CA ARB[1] data on emissions shares by sector: * 28%/41% - transportation * 27%/15% - electricity * 22%/24% - industry * 12%/12% - commercial & residential * 10%/ 8% - agriculture 58% of US transportation (~16% of the US total) is passenger cars and light-duty trucks, the focus of this announcement. CA accounts for about 6-7% of US CO₂e (carbon dioxide equivalents), so this action targets roughly 1% of our national emissions, not nothing but certainly more symbolic than impactful (even considering spillover effects). electricity and industry must be tackled as well, coordinated among a majority of states. the US, ~4% of the world's population, produces about 15% of the world's emissions (2nd to china, EU together is 3rd). this is why it's even more critical that the US, china and the EU especially come together on climate change (e.g., the paris accords) rather than giving the middle finger like we americans did recently. [0]: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas... [1]: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data
- freewilly1040 6y ago
  You can't assume that CA's action will exist in a vacuum. In the optimistic case this will help drive the rest of the country / world towards electric vehicles.
  - paxys 6y ago
    This isn't just optimistic thinking. A lot of the current American consumer laws, emissions standards etc. are de facto set by California rather than the Federal government.
    - syshum 6y ago
      That is more of a cost matrix, if CA demands a label on a product it is too costly to just make a CA only package so manufacturers will inform the entire nation that to the State of CA everything under the sun causes cancer.... However if you start outlawing entire segments of a product that does not mean that Ford is going to stop making Gas powered F150 that 49 other states Love, they will just stop selling them in CA and many CA Truck owners will drive to NV to buy one. I have a feeling the border will have a Nice Big Truck Dealership in short order We already see that in some markets where for example my Tractor can not be sold in CA, but I bought it just fine in my state
dsg42 6y ago
This move isn't as radical as I'd like, but I genuinely think it might stick. Having Ford on board is a big deal. Seems like the big auto makers feel like it's a "reasonable" timeframe. Would love to see this take effect sooner, and also include an eventual ban/restriction on used gas-powered vehicles, but it looks like we may finally be making a meaningful change.
mhh__ 6y ago
This move is big, but not as radical as some imply. 15 years is a fairly long time - Al Gore had not yet released An Inconvenient Truth 15 years ago.
robomartin 6y ago
NOTE: I don't really care about downvotes and try my best not to comment on them. They are pointless without engaging the author. Please take the time to explore the simple exercise I present here and understand. If you don't, and your power is in the form of a downvote, what you are doing is becoming part of the problem and behaving in a manner that is no different from climate change deniers. Can you at least try to understand? In the years I have been talking about this I have yet to see anyone challenge the simple findings that can be had from looking at a simple graph. Interesting. > This move feels radical, but I don't see how we avert catastrophe without moves that feel radical. If we keep plodding down the course we're on we'll just sleepwalk into oblivion. One of the most frustrating things for me in the global warming debate is the total lack of interest in the scientific truth on BOTH sides of the issue. The truly odd scenario it sets-up is one where both sides are, well, to be kind, confused. It's weird, deniers don't know what they are talking about --because it is most-definitely real-- and advocates are confused because they are ignoring the most basic science on the subject. What is the truth? There is nothing whatsoever we can do about it. Plain and simple. This is a planetary-scale problem that cannot be solved in thousands of years even if the entirety of humanity and our technology left this planet at once. If we all left earth immediately, at best, it will take somewhere in the order of 50,000 to 100,000 years for atmospheric CO2 levels to come down by 100 ppm. That's the truth. And it requires everyone leaving earth right away. A consequence of this is that no partial measure anyone can cook-up can even begin to make a dent. In fact, we have years-long research findings concluding that, even if we converted the entire planet to the most optimal forms of renewable energy not only would atmospheric CO2 not go down, it would continue to grow exponentially. And yet everyone ignores the most basic of scientific analysis that confirms this reality. Scientists don't want to speak-up because it would mean losing grants and likely having their lives and careers destroyed. Nobody wants to go against something politicians and others are too happy to use to gain votes and make money. And so, the scientific truth is suppressed and lay-people believe nonsense. OK, so, what is this simple analysis that proves this idea that it would take 50,000 to 100,000 years for CO2 levels to come down by 100 ppm if we all left earth? We know EXACTLY how quickly natural processes reduce atmospheric CO2 through historical ice core sample records going back 800,000 years. In case it isn't obvious, this means we know the rate of change for a planet without humanity. Here's were you will find the 800,000 years of ice core data: https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical... https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html Here's a paper that explains why it is that atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise exponentially even if we switch the the most optimal forms of renewable energy world-wide: https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-data/pdf/43326.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-... Take that graph into your favorite image editor and fit lines to it for the decline phase in every cycle. Measure the slope for each cycle. Take the average or median, your choice. The number is in the tens of thousands of years. Not hundreds. Tens of thousands. Then read the paper and understand how a transition to clean energy is an exercise in futility. I challenge anyone to show how anything short of all of humanity leaving earth can produce a rate of change dramatically better than tens of thousands of years per 100 ppm. No magic hand-wavy stuff. Whatever anyone proposes must include analysis of energy and resources needed to execute a planetary scale solution that is able to force a change at a rate up to a thousand times faster than the natural "no humans on earth" rate. This is not to say there aren't a lot of good reasons to clean-up our act. There are. Of course. We just need to stop lying to ourselves, understand reality and start talking about how to adapt for the sake of future generations. We must also free-up our brilliant scientists so they can deal with this issue factually without fear for the destruction of their careers and loss of funding. The current path will lead nowhere. Converting California to all electric vehicles in the name of climate change is farcical at best and potentially detrimental. There isn't anyone alive who can solve a scientific problem by ignoring evidence and data.
oulu2006 6y ago
Totally agree. We can't make everyone happy and keep the world habitable for life as we know it. The time to make tough decisions was yesterday at least this is better than tomorrow.
SubiculumCode 6y ago
It may feel radical, but to me if feels "too little too late"
afrojack123 6y ago
This move is not radical. Government lags private sector. Private sector knows it can go zero-emission and have given governmnet the green light. California just likes to look like its ahead of the curve but its not.
lmilcin 6y ago
Pre industrial was actually 250ppm. 400ppm is actually a level when it starts having measurable effects on humans (generally dumbs you down slightly).
oxygenjoe 6y ago
This does not feel radical. This feels like pandering. My unborn child will be driving by the time this goes into effect. Radical would be new vehicles must be zero emissions in 2025, which still gives even the Dodges of the world enough time to get their shit together.
- aaronblohowiak 6y ago
  Cars with new drive trains being ready for sale in 5 years for legacy manufacturers, in addition to the supply chain to produce the batteries? I think that is too ambitious.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    The Manhattan Project took four years.
dillondoyle 6y ago
Doesn't eel radical enough to me. It's about on par with what a lot of Europe has already committed to. Seems like with $100 billion we could get there in 10 years or sooner, not 15.
rb666 6y ago
I really don't see how this is radical? 15 years is such a long time. It would be radical (and far more effective) to ban new gas cars in say 5 years!
hannob 6y ago
2035 isn't radical at all. Plenty of other countries already discuss bans for 2030.
lucidguppy 6y ago
We basically need to try absolutely everything and see what sticks. 0) Remote work as much as possible - redesign cities to minimize vehicle traffic. (When people go remote - you can make small communities with new layouts) 1) Electric vehicles. 2) Renewable energy as fast and far as we can go. 3) Nuclear power for baseline load. 4) Fusion power research. 5) Encourage movement away from animal based protein.
RocketOne 6y ago
At least CA is working on it. The biggest polluters, China and Russia don't see to even acknowledge that any other country sees climate change as an issue. Meanwhile, we are being pounded in Canada with extra taxes to discourage burning of fossil fuels even though we only emit 1.6% of the worlds GHG's. And a large part of that comes from home heating by natural gas, to which there is no viable alternative, so its not discouraging anything, its just another cash grab.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
They should be making it more expensive to run gas vehicles to reflect their actual environmental damage and make it cheaper to run EV, not outright banning them. California is navel gazing at their own moral superiority on this one.

username90 6y ago

Why do it randomly in the middle of a term instead of campaign based of this so we can properly debate and discuss the details?

tstrimple 6y ago
Because we don't live in a direct democracy?
- username90 6y ago
  Hiding your true intentions and then showing your 15 year plan after you get elected is not in the spirit of representative democracies. Here in Sweden we discuss these things before elections and in general have more climate measures than California, so I don't see why a politician would need to be this heavy handed.
  - natch 6y ago
    > I don't see why... The mistake here is assuming that just because you don’t see a reason, that must mean there is no reason. Maybe you should visit California next time we are in peak firestorm mode and then you might see.
    - blackflame7000 6y ago
      So this will stop the fires then? Better than say mandating forest management?
      - tstrimple 6y ago
        Stop fires? No. In the long term it's meant to address the conditions to lead to the size and severity of fires we're seeing today. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46183690 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46183690 > In terms of loss of life and damage to property, the data shows the worst fires have all been in the past 10 years or so - except for one fire in 1991 in Alameda County. > And this year, there have also been unusually strong winds combined with periods of drought across parts of the western US. Six of the largest fires recorded in California have all happened this year. > Prof Doerr says a combination of drier, hotter and windy conditions is the key factor in these recent fires. > He adds that even in areas where there have been attempts to reduce flammable material in forests, it's not clear how much difference this would have made. > "The bottom line remains that the extreme meteorological conditions are the main drivers for these extreme fires."
        throwawaysea 6y ago
        But climate change is not the main driver of recent wildfires, and it at most one contributing factor among many. If old growth trees remained, if forests were cleared of dead trees, if stands were thinned, if logging companies were allowed to harvest in a timely/economical fashion, or if controlled burns were used with the frequency they used to be, most of these fires would not happen. If there are fewer fires, the smaller number of bad fires that do still happen are much easier to put out quickly, because we would not have to spread fire fighting resources too thinly. Here's a survey of articles covering the West coast fires (CA, OR, WA) that make this clear: - https://www.npr.org/2020/08/24/899422710/to-manage-wildfire-california-looks-to-what-tribes-have-known-all-along https://www.npr.org/2020/08/24/899422710/to-manage-wildfire-... mentions that before 1800, several million acres were burned every year through indigenous burning and also lightning-caused fires. In 2019, California committed to burning just half a million acres a year, but is far from reaching even that modest goal. - https://www.npr.org/2020/09/10/911592361/are-recent-wildfires-enough-to-restore-the-equilibrium-with-fire https://www.npr.org/2020/09/10/911592361/are-recent-wildfire... mentions that California needs to address 20M acres every year (through thinning or burning). In 2019, $160M was spent putting out wildfires in CA, but the economic damage was $80B - and yet preventative measures are not being taken. - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/us/california-today-100-million-dead-trees-prompt-fears-of-giant-wildfires.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/us/california-today-100-m... notes that California's focus on fire suppression has led to mass quantities of dead trees resulting from a lack of smaller fires and increased infestation (due to increased forest density enabling transmission of pests/disease) - https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2020/09/did-global-warming-play-significant.html https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2020/09/did-global-warming-pl... mentions that the wind patterns that caused recent wildfires in Oregon is unlikely to have been caused by climate change - https://katu.com/news/on-your-side/lack-of-forest-management-allowed-fuels-to-accumulate-expert-says https://katu.com/news/on-your-side/lack-of-forest-management... notes that in Oregon, a lack of forest management has led to a buildup of dense fuels - https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/to-stop-wildland-fires-forestry-not-climate-policy-is-the-priority https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/to-stop... notes various policy failures that have caused Washington forests to grow out of control, unharvested, and with high density. - Both the WA state Department of Natural Resources (https://www.dnr.wa.gov/StrategicFireProtection https://www.dnr.wa.gov/StrategicFireProtection) and WA timber industry (http://www.wfpa.org/sustainable-forestry/reduce-wildfire-risk/ http://www.wfpa.org/sustainable-forestry/reduce-wildfire-ris...) have been increased investment/assistance/regulatory support in thinning forests and conducting prescribed burns. Despite these calls being made for over a decade, despite ever increasing state budgets, and despite a consistent single-party rule, the governor and legislature have done little to respond to those calls for help. The reality is that all three West Coast governors - Newsom (CA), Brown (OR), and Inslee (WA) - are operating in states that have left-leaning legislatures, judiciaries, and executive leadership. The failure to prevent wildfires or manage them effectively is entirely their fault. It's much more convenient however, to blame an externality like climate change, than to be honest about their own failures. And at the same time, the political theater of blaming wildfires on climate change allows them to forward their political/ideological agendas through far-reaching proposals like Green New Deal, which are much broader than just environmental issues.
- gnicholas 6y ago
  CA regularly amends its constitution via voter initiatives, so I'd say we (Californians) actually do live in a fairly direct democracy. Also, I'm not sure anyone has ever characterized representative democracy as: politicians campaign on certain issues, and then after getting elected — and with no material intervening factors — they enact sweeping regulations that they never even hinted at during their campaign (or decades-long prior political life).
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > we (Californians) actually do live in a fairly direct democracy California has direct democratic elements. It is not a direct democracy. There is a lot of writing and research on why direct democracies are probably not a good idea for all questions, from antiquity to the modern era. One field that dies with proximity to democracy is law, e.g. the ancient Athenian system of trial by popular assembly. Another is the management of commons, e.g. fisheries, forestry and, I would argue, our atmosphere. Note that such delegation doesn't mean usurpation. It just means the elected leaders negatively consent to, and constrain, rule making. This is the basis of the agency-driven civil service model, which first–to my knowledge–flourished in China before making it West by way of the Middle East.
    - throwawaysea 6y ago
      Why do you believe management of the commons would fail under direct democracies? That seems like an arbitrary claim but maybe I don't understand the reasoning. I feel like any flaw that is claimed about direct democracy can be claimed about high-turnout representative democracy as well (and therefore broadly about democracy in general). After all, we elect representatives effectively on popularity contexts, echo chambers squeezing out marginal leads, and poor/manipulable information flows. A related question: wouldn't a representative democracy always perform more poorly than a (benevolent) technocracy?
  - s17n 6y ago
    Pretty sure the original concept of representative democracy didn't involve campaigning on issues at all, it was more like "the people decide who they want to represent them by picking the wisest and most honorable citizens, and then the representatives decide what to do about the issues."
mehrdadn 6y ago
Debates on major topics during a campaign aren't really known for their scientific quality and attention to nuance, so I'm not really sure we should be upset if anyone's passed up on the opportunity to debate acceptable fuel emissions during campaigns. Between healthcare, immigration, criminal justice reform, etc. there isn't exactly a shortage of topics to debate and pick a side on during a campaign. And unlike (perhaps) the market, it's not like mother nature gives points for democracy either.
- username90 6y ago
  Problem is that without debates this is likely to just get reverted and make people lose even more trust in their politicians.
  - sjy 6y ago
    In Australia, the debate was so popular that it continued after a carbon tax was successfully implemented, which resulted in the tax being repealed in 2014 and not much action on climate change since then. Maybe “debate” is not the right word for what happened, but engaging the public on climate policy seems to have had perverse effects in Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Australia
    - username90 6y ago
      Sounds like you would get better results if you created a policy people are happy with instead of just doing something that will get reversed and create more future opposition against green solutions.
natch 6y ago
It’s a good time right now because the fires in California have put a spotlight on environmental issues. Also you have to adapt to changing conditions and then take actions accordingly. This is true generally, and possibly even more so for politicians and governments.
- gnicholas 6y ago
  > It’s a good time right now because the fires in California have put a spotlight on environmental issues. Some people are blaming the wildfires on global warming, but many (on the left and the right) are saying forest maintenance has been the primary cause. [1] Also, the recent rolling blackouts have shown the risk of relying too much on solar and wind power. I'm not sure that the specific timing makes too much sense, unless the goal is to have this largely overshadowed by the presidential election and recent passing of Justice Ginsburg. 1: https://www.propublica.org/article/they-know-how-to-prevent-megafires-why-wont-anybody-listen https://www.propublica.org/article/they-know-how-to-prevent-...
  - headmelted 6y ago
    I’m a bit saddened people didn’t react more positively to the Tesla battery day event. I’m not talking about stock speculators (gamblers gonna gamble, whatever) but just generally I thought it was very encouraging that Tesla’s main goal right now is to dramatically drive down the cost of energy storage while driving up the density and production capacity. Is it enough? Not on their own, but if others can adopt their methods to produce more batteries then it’s effectively printing money for those companies for the next thirty years (as even the laggards are forced to move to zero emissions across their grids). It would be nice if this creates the kind of fierce competition E.M. set out to do with Tesla originally. We need more energy storage than we have now by several orders of magnitude.
  - 0_____0 6y ago
    what makes you think the blackouts have to do with the power generation type? my understanding was that the blackouts have to do with danger to/from power distribution infrastructure
gpm 6y ago
It's literally announced 15 years in advance. Plenty of time for the public to elect politicians who will roll it back (indeed, the cynic in me assumes that is the whole reason it was able to be announced).
- username90 6y ago
  You are probably right, I don't see any movement in car stocks at all. Seems like nobody thinks this matters.
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    Over the last few years, a number of mostly European countries have passed regulations to ban new petrol/diesel cars by 2030-2040, with some cities to ban then as early as 2025. So from the industry's point of view, this is more of the same, and not unexpected. It would arguably be weird if the markets moved much; this sort of thing should be priced in.
    - username90 6y ago
      > Over the last few years, a number of mostly European countries have passed regulations to ban new petrol/diesel cars by 2030-2040 They haven't, EU countries cannot do that since it is against EU law. Instead there have been several proposals for phasing out fossil fuel cars that are still discussed, but nothing is decided. That is how politics and regulations are usually done.
unethical_ban 6y ago
None of your assertions are backed by logic. You imply that politicians can only do things that they promise on the trail, without responding to things real time. This would be disastrous. You imply that without "debate" it is likely to be reverted, which has no basis in theory or fact.
- username90 6y ago
  A 15 year plan isn't urgent and requires very strong support in order to survive when the next leader gets elected. Doing this without a public discussion doesn't make sense in any way. Also we have known about climate change for decades, there has been no huge revelations about it the past year, there was no reason this couldn't have been a part of his campaign.

mrfusion 6y ago

At least the plants are happy. Co2 is food for them.

chrisco255 6y ago
Yes, and warmth is good for them.
- redisman 6y ago
  Wrong. Most plants have a small range of extreme (and average) temperatures (low and high) they can tolerate.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Wrong. Freezing temperatures are by far the most challenging environments for plants to deal with and only a limited set of species are well adapted for cold climates. Meanwhile warm climates mean year round growing seasons and the widest range of species that thrive, this is why you can grow almost anything in tropical zones and get much more productivity out of that growth. See: https://www.gilmour.com/planting-zones-hardiness-map https://www.gilmour.com/planting-zones-hardiness-map
    - redisman 6y ago
      Hardiness zones are really useful for human cultivated plants. Many seeds require a certain amount of time below a low temperature to germinate and a hundred other variables. You seem to also be assuming many biomes in the northern hemisphere turns into a rainforest rather than a desert from increasing temperatures.
- breakyerself 6y ago
  The best warmth for a given species of plant is usually the one its adapted to. At the very least warmer temperatures can lead to populations of harmful insects to go out of control. Like bark eating beetles

chrisco255 6y ago

So the levels increased from 300 to 400 ppm and in that same time frame the quality of life and length of life improved dramatically. What catastrophe? You think we can prevent periodic droughts from hitting the West Coast even though there's fossil evidence of such droughts occurring regularly over the past several thousand years? The increase from 300ppm to 400ppm saw marginal differences in temperature and dramatically improved yields in crop farming. 100 years ago millions would still regularly perish from famine. Today that's almost unheard of, even in most developing countries. Your idea of a crisis is quite different from that of your ancestors from the pre-300ppm days.

jeromegv 6y ago
What catastrophe? Did you miss the California fires 2 weeks ago? Improvement in farming also clearly came from improvement in agriculture, you seem to imply that the rise in climate temperature is the only explanation. And no, there is no evidence that temperature has ever increased that fast. And even if you keep denying the impact of climate change, think alone of the change in AIR QUALITY in a place with so many cars like Los Angeles. The increase in air quality alone in big urban centers is worth it on its own. It's already been improved quite a bit in recent years (at least in the west) and this can only get better. I live next to a big road here in my city and I just can't wait to have less emission vehicles on the road.
- headmelted 6y ago
  This. Also, people should buy electric cars. FACT: a bad electric car is outright better than almost any ICE car. Source: I own a Nissan Leaf. And it’s no Tesla. Still leaps and bounds above any gas car I’ve ever driven.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    All EVs are good EVs. As long as you're displacing combustion, you're doing your part.
    - 6y ago

mempko 6y ago

It's also not clear what zero emissions mean. Is the supply chain zero emissions?

pjscott 6y ago
It's not clear what "zero-emissions" should mean, but in the context of California environmental regulations it refers specifically to vehicles that don't emit any pollutants from their onboard power source, e.g. electric or fuel-cell cars. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/about/glossary https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/about/glossary
bhahn 6y ago
I'm not sure why your comment is getting downvoted. I also had the same question.
- dv_dt 6y ago
  FWIW, I think no one is proposing to apply a requirement of an end item decarbonization to the entire logistics chain behind a product. Most proposals want to apply regulation to many individual links up and down the chain directly.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  I downvoted because it is very clear and if you want other people to answer a question you have to put in some work. I don't care to see trivial questions so I downvoted and banned that guy from my view.
  - observr9 6y ago
    I actually thought it was a rhetorical question, with the intent of stating that the law still wouldn't save us from supply chain emissions.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      Thank you for explaining that to me. I think I will continue filtering out that person for stating banalities.

danepowell 6y ago

> This move feels radical My understanding is that, at least depending on your goal, this isn't nearly radical enough. Some experts think we not only need to stop selling gas-powered cars _immediately_, but also actively remove existing fossil fuel cars/appliance from the economy. I found this podcast helpful in understanding the level of effort needed to decarbonize in the near future: https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2020/8/27/21403184/saul-griffith-ezra-klein-show-solve-climate-change-green-new-deal-rewiring-america https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2020/8/27/21403184/saul-griffit...

kristopolous 6y ago
15 years is nonsense because it's beyond the time horizon of political office. Future politicians won't feel obligated by their predecessors commitments and current ones will just kick the can on meaningful action. Unless there's actual measurable promises made by politicians that can be falsified before their next election, it's mostly puffery. Make hard, publicly verifiable 6, 12, and 18 month commitments otherwise it's just fluffy words to get votes. Also this can't be a politics-only solution. We have to dip into ye olden term of "political economy" - that second term is integrally tied to the first. The restructuring has to happen at how the politics And economy operates otherwise it doesn't work - there's no way to do anything meaningful, it's just words on paper if we only look at politics. Personally I think profit maximization for the energy sector has to go. It's not how we run our fire, parks, library, courts, postal service and it can't be how we do energy, at least not right now. Greenhouse gas minimization has to determine things. It's possible. The best universities for instance, aren't determined by the highest profits and the best police aren't the ones that hand out the largest fines and the best parents aren't the ones that extract the highest value labor from their children. We can restructure how energy is done as well.
- Brakenshire 6y ago
  Yes, it will be interesting whether this includes any meaningful action within his term of office. In the EU and UK there are requirements for average emissions for each manufacturer, which get tougher every year, and already are requiring about 5-10% of vehicles to be electric.

njarboe 6y ago

I agree. How about the radical move of deciding not to shut down a large nuclear power plant in California in 2025[1] that could power millions of these cars, carbon free. Trying to fix climate change without nuclear power is likely impossible at this point, but very few climate change activists support it. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant

notJim 6y ago
I'm not saying I completely agree with closing the plant, but to be fair to the argument they make, the agreement does seem to spell out that the plant will be replaced with greenhouse gas free energy sources, including renewables + storage. IMO the biggest problem with nuclear is the cost and time to construct. I don't think the energy industry would be so keen to shut them down if they were cost effective.
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  They are expensive and take long to construct because of political and environmental requirements on them. This is not an inherent property of nuclear, and can be solved with a single stroke of the pen. This is not going to happen, though, because people tend to think that if something is "environmental", then it must be good.
  - Spooky23 6y ago
    That’s pretty naive. Companies will always put off big capital expenses as long as possible, especially if someone else holds the risk.
    - xyzzyz 6y ago
      No, companies are extremely happy to make huge capital expenses, if they expect to make a good profit on them. For example, California's PG&E is planning to spend a whopping $40B in investment over next 5 years, because California government guarantees 10% annual return on investment.

legerdemain 6y ago

Is this policy move California's response to the federal government gutting vehicle emission reduction policies just this spring?[1] As a nation, we're not making radical moves. Most of our proposed policies are slow-walked or rolled back before they ever make a difference. https://www.npr.org/2020/03/31/824431240/trump-administration-weakens-auto-emissions-rolling-back-key-climate-policy https://www.npr.org/2020/03/31/824431240/trump-administratio...

clairity 6y ago

US EPA[0] / CA ARB[1] data on emissions shares by sector: * 28%/41% - transportation * 27%/15% - electricity * 22%/24% - industry * 12%/12% - commercial & residential * 10%/ 8% - agriculture 58% of US transportation (~16% of the US total) is passenger cars and light-duty trucks, the focus of this announcement. CA accounts for about 6-7% of US CO₂e (carbon dioxide equivalents), so this action targets roughly 1% of our national emissions, not nothing but certainly more symbolic than impactful (even considering spillover effects). electricity and industry must be tackled as well, coordinated among a majority of states. the US, ~4% of the world's population, produces about 15% of the world's emissions (2nd to china, EU together is 3rd). this is why it's even more critical that the US, china and the EU especially come together on climate change (e.g., the paris accords) rather than giving the middle finger like we americans did recently. [0]: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas... [1]: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data

freewilly1040 6y ago
You can't assume that CA's action will exist in a vacuum. In the optimistic case this will help drive the rest of the country / world towards electric vehicles.
- paxys 6y ago
  This isn't just optimistic thinking. A lot of the current American consumer laws, emissions standards etc. are de facto set by California rather than the Federal government.
  - syshum 6y ago
    That is more of a cost matrix, if CA demands a label on a product it is too costly to just make a CA only package so manufacturers will inform the entire nation that to the State of CA everything under the sun causes cancer.... However if you start outlawing entire segments of a product that does not mean that Ford is going to stop making Gas powered F150 that 49 other states Love, they will just stop selling them in CA and many CA Truck owners will drive to NV to buy one. I have a feeling the border will have a Nice Big Truck Dealership in short order We already see that in some markets where for example my Tractor can not be sold in CA, but I bought it just fine in my state

dsg42 6y ago

This move isn't as radical as I'd like, but I genuinely think it might stick. Having Ford on board is a big deal. Seems like the big auto makers feel like it's a "reasonable" timeframe. Would love to see this take effect sooner, and also include an eventual ban/restriction on used gas-powered vehicles, but it looks like we may finally be making a meaningful change.

mhh__ 6y ago

This move is big, but not as radical as some imply. 15 years is a fairly long time - Al Gore had not yet released An Inconvenient Truth 15 years ago.

robomartin 6y ago

NOTE: I don't really care about downvotes and try my best not to comment on them. They are pointless without engaging the author. Please take the time to explore the simple exercise I present here and understand. If you don't, and your power is in the form of a downvote, what you are doing is becoming part of the problem and behaving in a manner that is no different from climate change deniers. Can you at least try to understand? In the years I have been talking about this I have yet to see anyone challenge the simple findings that can be had from looking at a simple graph. Interesting. > This move feels radical, but I don't see how we avert catastrophe without moves that feel radical. If we keep plodding down the course we're on we'll just sleepwalk into oblivion. One of the most frustrating things for me in the global warming debate is the total lack of interest in the scientific truth on BOTH sides of the issue. The truly odd scenario it sets-up is one where both sides are, well, to be kind, confused. It's weird, deniers don't know what they are talking about --because it is most-definitely real-- and advocates are confused because they are ignoring the most basic science on the subject. What is the truth? There is nothing whatsoever we can do about it. Plain and simple. This is a planetary-scale problem that cannot be solved in thousands of years even if the entirety of humanity and our technology left this planet at once. If we all left earth immediately, at best, it will take somewhere in the order of 50,000 to 100,000 years for atmospheric CO2 levels to come down by 100 ppm. That's the truth. And it requires everyone leaving earth right away. A consequence of this is that no partial measure anyone can cook-up can even begin to make a dent. In fact, we have years-long research findings concluding that, even if we converted the entire planet to the most optimal forms of renewable energy not only would atmospheric CO2 not go down, it would continue to grow exponentially. And yet everyone ignores the most basic of scientific analysis that confirms this reality. Scientists don't want to speak-up because it would mean losing grants and likely having their lives and careers destroyed. Nobody wants to go against something politicians and others are too happy to use to gain votes and make money. And so, the scientific truth is suppressed and lay-people believe nonsense. OK, so, what is this simple analysis that proves this idea that it would take 50,000 to 100,000 years for CO2 levels to come down by 100 ppm if we all left earth? We know EXACTLY how quickly natural processes reduce atmospheric CO2 through historical ice core sample records going back 800,000 years. In case it isn't obvious, this means we know the rate of change for a planet without humanity. Here's were you will find the 800,000 years of ice core data: https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical... https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html Here's a paper that explains why it is that atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise exponentially even if we switch the the most optimal forms of renewable energy world-wide: https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-data/pdf/43326.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-... Take that graph into your favorite image editor and fit lines to it for the decline phase in every cycle. Measure the slope for each cycle. Take the average or median, your choice. The number is in the tens of thousands of years. Not hundreds. Tens of thousands. Then read the paper and understand how a transition to clean energy is an exercise in futility. I challenge anyone to show how anything short of all of humanity leaving earth can produce a rate of change dramatically better than tens of thousands of years per 100 ppm. No magic hand-wavy stuff. Whatever anyone proposes must include analysis of energy and resources needed to execute a planetary scale solution that is able to force a change at a rate up to a thousand times faster than the natural "no humans on earth" rate. This is not to say there aren't a lot of good reasons to clean-up our act. There are. Of course. We just need to stop lying to ourselves, understand reality and start talking about how to adapt for the sake of future generations. We must also free-up our brilliant scientists so they can deal with this issue factually without fear for the destruction of their careers and loss of funding. The current path will lead nowhere. Converting California to all electric vehicles in the name of climate change is farcical at best and potentially detrimental. There isn't anyone alive who can solve a scientific problem by ignoring evidence and data.

oulu2006 6y ago

Totally agree. We can't make everyone happy and keep the world habitable for life as we know it. The time to make tough decisions was yesterday at least this is better than tomorrow.

SubiculumCode 6y ago

It may feel radical, but to me if feels "too little too late"

afrojack123 6y ago

This move is not radical. Government lags private sector. Private sector knows it can go zero-emission and have given governmnet the green light. California just likes to look like its ahead of the curve but its not.

lmilcin 6y ago

Pre industrial was actually 250ppm. 400ppm is actually a level when it starts having measurable effects on humans (generally dumbs you down slightly).

oxygenjoe 6y ago

This does not feel radical. This feels like pandering. My unborn child will be driving by the time this goes into effect. Radical would be new vehicles must be zero emissions in 2025, which still gives even the Dodges of the world enough time to get their shit together.

aaronblohowiak 6y ago
Cars with new drive trains being ready for sale in 5 years for legacy manufacturers, in addition to the supply chain to produce the batteries? I think that is too ambitious.
- adrianN 6y ago
  The Manhattan Project took four years.

dillondoyle 6y ago

Doesn't eel radical enough to me. It's about on par with what a lot of Europe has already committed to. Seems like with $100 billion we could get there in 10 years or sooner, not 15.

rb666 6y ago

I really don't see how this is radical? 15 years is such a long time. It would be radical (and far more effective) to ban new gas cars in say 5 years!

hannob 6y ago

2035 isn't radical at all. Plenty of other countries already discuss bans for 2030.

lucidguppy 6y ago

We basically need to try absolutely everything and see what sticks. 0) Remote work as much as possible - redesign cities to minimize vehicle traffic. (When people go remote - you can make small communities with new layouts) 1) Electric vehicles. 2) Renewable energy as fast and far as we can go. 3) Nuclear power for baseline load. 4) Fusion power research. 5) Encourage movement away from animal based protein.

RocketOne 6y ago

At least CA is working on it. The biggest polluters, China and Russia don't see to even acknowledge that any other country sees climate change as an issue. Meanwhile, we are being pounded in Canada with extra taxes to discourage burning of fossil fuels even though we only emit 1.6% of the worlds GHG's. And a large part of that comes from home heating by natural gas, to which there is no viable alternative, so its not discouraging anything, its just another cash grab.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

They should be making it more expensive to run gas vehicles to reflect their actual environmental damage and make it cheaper to run EV, not outright banning them. California is navel gazing at their own moral superiority on this one.