6 ms·

This is aspirational virtue signaling and everyone knows it won't happen by the deadline. If the state government was serious about this, they would be install

• dahart 4y ago
  I guess that’s one way to label a goal. If they can’t make the deadline, should this be backed off or canceled? FWIW it does seem like chargers are showing up all over the place.
  • mimikatz 4y ago
    I'd vote that is a bad way to govern, I am not in Cali so I have no ability to affect this.
    • OccamsMirror 4y ago
      Only the impotent have the luxury of purity.
    • dahart 4y ago
      I’m not sure I understand why, can you elaborate? Laws set standards and protect us, and we know they work even when they’re a blunt instrument. Seat belts took mandated action when lawmakers recognized that safety was more important than choice. Emissions and fuel economy standards are valuable. These are all things I agree with as a citizen and I’m glad that the government demands it of car companies. History is as likely to show this new one is as good an idea as the previous laws, and future generations will have the luxury of believing it was inevitable.
      • mimikatz 4y ago
        Basically laws should be followed, they should be serious, they should be real. A law shouldn't be aspirational and people shouldn't go well that is a good goal to set.
        • dahart 4y ago
          All emissions and pollution and environmental laws are both aspirational and serious/real, so I still don’t understand your point. Why shouldn’t laws be aspirational? I disagree with that notion. Setting goals and standards is one of the biggest reasons laws exist.
• djcapelis 4y ago
  > If the state government was serious about this, they would be installing chargers all over the place. Seen the charger network in California lately? They’re… quite widespread. And the state is definitely helping with infill to keep adding more. The state is even adding them to rest stops, which is unusual in California since rest stops here are normally very nearly free of any services or amenities. So yes, they’re serious, and yes, they’re doing exactly what you suggested they’d be doing if they were, and have been for years now.
  • twblalock 4y ago
    I live in California and the charger network is barely adequate for the current number of electric cars. If everyone had them, there would be hours-long lines for chargers. Electric cars are still a luxury for people who have dedicated parking spaces with chargers at home, and the voters all know it. By the way, I am not against electric cars. I own one. I'm just being realistic about their practicality for the general population.
    • darknavi 4y ago
      I am really surprised more parking structures (Condo/Apartment/Hotels/Garages/etc) haven't hopped on board the charging train. Not only is it a nice incentive for the residents, they can also charge for it any make some money.
      • twblalock 4y ago
        It is not cheap for them to build. It requires a lot of capacity to put a charger in every space. It often requires upgrading the entire electrical system for the property, trenching across parking lots, etc. Also, many of the current residents in an HOA will oppose the project because it will cost them money but they themselves would not benefit because they don't have electric cars.
    • acejam 4y ago
      > there would be hours-long lines for chargers I think the common misconception here is that chargers are often compared to gas pumps. Do you visit the gas pump every day with your car? Most people don't. Most EV owners charge at home, often during night hours, to take advantage of cheaper TOU electricity rates. The clear difference here is that with an EV, you can wake up every morning with a "full tank". That eliminates the need to use a public charger unless you 1) forgot to charge 2) are on a road trip or 3) drive a lot. The average commute is ~15 miles the last I checked, so I think #3 will happen, but it won't be very common. tldr: You can't really leave for your destination in an ICE with a full tank. With an EV, you can.
• ParksNet 4y ago
  The technology is available now. Tesla satisfies the high-end. Leafs and Bolts satisfy the mid-range. Chinese econo-boxes for the low-end. 2035 is too far out. This could have been implemented 2025.
  • twblalock 4y ago
    We don't live in a technocratic dictatorship. The fact that a technology exists does not give government the right to shove it down everyone's throats. This is going to result in a voter backlash if they really try to force it through. And that backlash could very easily result in a backlash against climate policy in general, especially if the left follows their normal habit of responding with even more strident moralizing rather than compromising with a more incremental approach.
    • BHSPitMonkey 4y ago
      13 years isn't an incremental approach?
    • copperx 4y ago
      > The fact that a technology exists does not give government the right to shove it down everyone's throats. The government shoves its "moralistic" views down the population's throats. But doing the same with material goods is somehow wrong?
  • Someone1234 4y ago
    I'd argue that the technology isn't the problem; the costs are currently the problem. We're now starting to see affordable EVs (e.g. Bolt EV/EUV) but one of the ways they keep costs down is making a trade-off for slower charging making road trips painful (and limiting their mass appeal). And while costs are coming down, demand is also shooting up as multiple countries/areas roll out EV mandates and incentives. The high[er] demand is offsetting low[er] costs.
  • crackercrews 4y ago
    What about charging infrastructure? Seems like a state with so many electricity woes could have problems if EV adoption skyrocketed.
• slg 4y ago
  >If the state government was serious about this, they would be installing chargers all over the place. Just a reminder for everyone, the average car on the road is over a decade old. Since this ban only applies to new cars, electric cars are unlikely to be a majority on the road until the 2040s possibly even the 2050s as maintaining old gasoline cars will become more desirable the harder they are to purchase new. There is plenty of time to build out the charging infrastructure and chargers will naturally be built in larger numbers as demand for them increases.
• praestigiare 4y ago
  The first target seems reasonable, as an extension of the current ZEV percentage trend. Setting targets also helps alleviate market uncertainty around large transitions like this. The state is taking steps to develop and expand charging infrastructure, both through extensive funding of utility-side upgrades, building standards and codes, as well as grants and tax incentives. <a href="https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/laws/ELEC?state=CA">Here</a> https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/laws/ELEC?state=CA">Here</a> is an overview if you are interested.
• nonameiguess 4y ago
  I have no idea why you'd be this cynical. New cars only 13 years from now is not an ambitious goal at all and totally doable. They did pretty well with toxic emissions. When I was a kid, it was a pretty regular thing to see recess and outdoor sports canceled and children not allowed to play outside because of "smog days" where the air wasn't even safe to breathe. You don't see that kind of thing happen any more and it really didn't take that long.
• flakeoil 4y ago
  Whatever governments decide, you will not be able to buy a gasoline car after 2030 because the car manufacturers do not want to make them. A gasoline car will not be able to compete with an electric car in terms of performance and cost. The only reason electric cars are more expensive than gasoline cars is because of the lower production volumes at the moment + the car manufacturers can charge a premium for an electric car at the moment. Charging stations will be available everywhere. It's fairly easy and cheap to install and consumers will require it from the restaurants, stores, municipalities etc. It's a selling point and also a source of additional income. (I'm talking consumer cars here, not some heavy duty vehicles or other special vehicles which might still benefit from a combustion engine).
  • ltbarcly3 4y ago
    > The only reason electric cars are more expensive than gasoline cars is because of the lower production volumes at the moment This is not true, it is because the battery costs 10's of thousands of dollars. It costs Tesla around $200/kwh to build a battery, and it's batteries go between 50kwh ($10,000) and 100kwh ($20,000). This is the estimated cost to manufacture just the battery. Meanwhile you can buy a Chevy Spark for $15,000 retail. The truth is that the only reason there are any substantial sales of electric cars is huge government subsidies. In the long run this will change, battery cost will go down, but also the subsidies will go away. It is likely that if there is no fundamental cost floor to the batteries that prevents it, electric cars will end up cheaper to manufacture in the long run because they are simpler and have less parts. They are certainly going to be cheaper to maintain and more reliable. However, that is in the long run, the things you are saying are not true yet and there's no reliable way to know when they are likely to become true.
    • flakeoil 4y ago
      As the charging time for EV batteries has gone down dramatically ( currently fast charging to 80% capacity in 20-30 minutes), there is no need to have such big batteries anymore. They could be reduced in half for many use cases. In addition, the motors are often way too powerful and can be made smaller. And then if there would be further issues with cost, the size of the car could easily be reduced. It's quite ridiculous to make big SUV's which don't fit more people and load than a more traditional car. It will regulate itself, based on cost of raw materials. And hopefully governments will at least provide incentives to steer it towards smaller cars (for example more tax on big and heavy vehicles). The subsidies do not change the cost of the car for the buyer. With subsidies, it just allows the car manufacturers to charge a higher price. If the subsidies would be taken away, the car manufacturers would decrease their prices.
• JKCalhoun 4y ago
  The term "virtue signaling" has always confused me. Doing anything is better than doing nothing. I suppose you think California is doing nothing though. Regardless, I prefer seeing "virtue signaling" over "vice signaling" — for example: "Drill Baby Drill".
  • paisawalla 4y ago
    > Doing anything is better than doing nothing. Reading the history of man shows that the opposite is many times true.
  • crackercrews 4y ago
    > Doing anything is better than doing nothing Not if it distracts from accomplishing things that actually matter. Think about plastic straw madness. They take up very little room in landfills. By volume they make up very little of ocean waste. And if you get a plastic straw at a restaurant that isn't on the beach, it is hard to even imagine how it would get in the ocean. Yet society moved mountains to stop using plastic straws. What is the cost of creating these mostly-unnecessary alternatives? What could people have done with their time that would have been more productive? The costs of virtue signaling are real.
    • JKCalhoun 4y ago
      > Yet society moved mountains to stop using plastic straws I have not seen that to be the case, but how would I know mountains were moved. Was this a fad on TikTok or something? Regardless, hard to see how that somehow distracted from doing something that really matters.
    • theklr 4y ago
      That was not a virtue signal nor demand. Media picked up cute kid asking to do good, companies found away to reduce costs for their profits. Most states and cities banned plastic bags, but the straw was corporate greenwashing
  • freddybobs 4y ago
    Right. The claim of "virtue signalling" makes a pejorative from an activity that is virtuous of all things. If the point is to question the reasoning behind the act, the act is still virtuous regardless. If the problem is it won't work well or well enough, how strange that typically no plausible better path is never suggested. Well other the implied - do nothing.
• jbaczuk 4y ago
  Perhaps, but they are not banning gas stations or driving gasoline cars. So, the infrastructure does not all have to be in place for all drivers by then. Question is, will EVs actually be affordable by then. The vehicle repair market for gasoline vehicles might get a decent boost.
  • twblalock 4y ago
    > Perhaps, but they are not banning gas stations or driving gasoline cars. Don't worry, they will do that too at some point.
  • mellavora 4y ago
    It is hard to ban gas stations because this would turn most gas stations into toxic waste dumps with associated (unpayable) cleanup costs. for context (2 min google search) https://ecology.wa.gov/Blog/Posts/June-2019/Cleaning-up-In-the-footprint-of-an-old-corner-gas https://ecology.wa.gov/Blog/Posts/June-2019/Cleaning-up-In-t...
• rocket_surgeron 4y ago
  • BitwiseFool 4y ago
    What is so bad about a neologism that captures an observable behavior in fewer words than a winded description? If you were to describe what appears to be an instance of 'virtue signalling' using existing a term like 'insincerity', 'grandstanding', or 'hypocrisy', you would probably get a lot of agreement.
    • rocket_surgeron 4y ago
      >If you were to describe what appears to be an instance of 'virtue signalling' using existing a term like 'insincerity', 'grandstanding', or 'hypocrisy', you would probably get a lot of agreement. Setting goals with timelines is not insincere, grandstanding, or hypocritical. Nor is wearing clean clothes and brushing your hair. But both setting goals and wearing clean clothes can be described as "virtue signaling".
      • BitwiseFool 4y ago
        >"Setting goals with timelines is not insincere, grandstanding, or hypocritical." Having a timeline is not the main issue, the issue is that the timeline seems aggressive and the perception is that there isn't enough to enable this transition. It is like how a politician campaigns on reducing the deficit or 'reforming education' but there is little substance or viability with their stance. >"Nor is wearing clean clothes and brushing your hair." I do not know how this entered the comparison but no one would consider this virtue signalling.
        • rocket_surgeron 4y ago
          >the issue is that the timeline seems aggressive To who? There are dozens, if not hundreds, of municipalities around the world which have all set the virtually identical targets. >I do not know how this entered the comparison but no one would consider this virtue signalling. They are literally, in the literal sense of the word literal, definition-matching actions to the phrase "virtue signaling". >the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue. Clean clothes: I can afford to, have the time to, and the will to bathe and wash which are morally correct things to do and which reflect my good character when it comes to cleanliness in society. "no no no its got to be political" Clean air isn't political.
• Tiktaalik 4y ago
  > This is aspirational virtue signaling Otherwise known as "setting a goal," often considered a requirement to meeting a goal.
  • readthenotes1 4y ago
    Setting a goal virtue signaling?