Opinion of Senate Bill 350 (Californian attempt to cut emissions from vehicles)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'll find a better link, but it is the just-folded attempt to cut petrol use by 50% in the state of such auto-intensive cities as LA. Major opposition from the oil industry as you might expect, and its defeat is a stunning blow to Gov Jerry Brown.

[ElectionsGuy]

You know how some people say that government shouldn't be in the bedroom? Yeah, I don't think it should be in your vehicle either.

[pikachu]

Seems like a decent idea, though I admittidly don't know much about it.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

You know how some people say that government shouldn't be in the bedroom? Yeah, I don't think it should be in your vehicle either.

K. Was ideally looking for non-stupid responses, but eh.

Anyway here's a a WSJ write-up http://www.wsj.com/articles/californias-climate-change-push-heats-up-1441389723

Personally, I am in favour, but with some caveats. The most important thing to do with this sort of bill is ensure the burden does not fall on low-income families (juan sixpack) that cannot afford the capital needed to grab a fancy new Prius or those new Tesla machines. That's why you need effective clunker buyback schemes.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The bill isn't defeated I don't think, but the gasoline reduction part is.

In either case, the bill just sets a feel good target and escapes having to face the hard choices of any specific policy proposals by giving the California Air Resources Board the authority to enact whatever they believe is necessary to achieve them.   So on that basis I would oppose it.

[VPH]

I'm an environmentalist until it comes to cars. Keep government off my ride.

[Bigby]

You know how some people say that government shouldn't be in the bedroom? Yeah, I don't think it should be in your vehicle either.

You know liberals being pre-freedom is long gone.

[PJ]

Positive overall. I generally prefer public transit as a means of transportation to automobiles, and cars on the road ought to have strict efficiency standards. If a model fails to meet the necessary requirements to reduce carbon emissions, there is no reason for it to be on the road.

You know how some people say that government shouldn't be in the bedroom? Yeah, I don't think it should be in your vehicle either.

You know liberals being pre-freedom is long gone.

Being in favor of the 'freedom' to pollute is inane.

[Mr. Smith]

FB inherently

The people have the right to good air at any cost. And if it takes the government calling out the "free-market" here and there, and "invading" your vehicle. So be it

Better that than allowing the invasion of your air by oil barons who only seek profit.

That said, Crabby's points are valid ones I agree with.

[Intell]

Positive overall. I generally prefer public transit as a means of transportation to automobiles, and cars on the road ought to have strict efficiency standards. If a model fails to meet the necessary requirements to reduce carbon emissions, there is no reason for it to be on the road.

You know how some people say that government shouldn't be in the bedroom? Yeah, I don't think it should be in your vehicle either.

You know liberals being pre-freedom is long gone.

Being in favor of the 'freedom' to pollute is inane.

Exactly, and freedom isn't absolute anyway.

[Antonio the Sixth]

FB (not a dumbass)

You know how some people say that government shouldn't be in the bedroom? Yeah, I don't think it should be in your vehicle either.

I'm an environmentalist until it comes to cars. Keep government off my ride.

Then you're not an environmentalist.

[ElectionsGuy]

You know how some people say that government shouldn't be in the bedroom? Yeah, I don't think it should be in your vehicle either.

You know liberals being pre-freedom is long gone.

I know, I just like being consistent. I know laws limiting sex and birth control aren't effective and are statist in nature. And while laws limiting fuel emissions may be more effective in enforcement (but will have a very negligible impact on the global environment), they are still statist in nature.

But I'm a idiot because people said so, so my view should be ignored.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Halving auto pollution could save more Californians every year than the total number of people who died in the 9/11 attacks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://qz.com/135509/more-americans-die-from-car-pollution-than-car-accidents/

[Gunnar Larsson]

You know how some people say that government shouldn't be in the bedroom? Yeah, I don't think it should be in your vehicle either.

Huh? Emissions from vehicles are very good at killing people. Many more people die from health effects of particulate emissions from road vehicles than from accidents (don't know US figures, in Sweden it is about 1,300 people vs 300 people per year according to a presentation I listened to today).
It is an obvious example of someone's freedom being at the cost of someone else's freedom.
It is also an example of where you need legislation for something to happen.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

You know how some people say that government shouldn't be in the bedroom? Yeah, I don't think it should be in your vehicle either.

You know liberals being pre-freedom is long gone.

I know, I just like being consistent. I know laws limiting sex and birth control aren't effective and are statist in nature. And while laws limiting fuel emissions may be more effective in enforcement (but will have a very negligible impact on the global environment), they are still statist in nature.

But I'm a idiot because people said so, so my view should be ignored.

Not saying you're an idiot, just that your response was kind of inane and buzzwordy. Like when leftists respond to any problem with "damn neoliberal!!!" or something.

[greenforest32]

The bill isn't defeated I don't think, but the gasoline reduction part is.

Yeah, it's probably about to pass minus the oil reduction provision: http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-climate-vote-assembly-pc-20150911-story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[SWE]

You know how some people say that government shouldn't be in the bedroom? Yeah, I don't think it should be in your vehicle either.

You know liberals being pre-freedom is long gone.

I know, I just like being consistent. I know laws limiting sex and birth control aren't effective and are statist in nature. And while laws limiting fuel emissions may be more effective in enforcement (but will have a very negligible impact on the global environment), they are still statist in nature.

But I'm a idiot because people said so, so my view should be ignored.

So you oppose any action taken by the state, regardless of circumstances, in order to be "consistent?"

[DavidB.]

Another liberal policy that hurts the working class. HP.

[dead0man]

Halving auto pollution could save more Californians every year than the total number of people who died in the 9/11 attacks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://qz.com/135509/more-americans-die-from-car-pollution-than-car-accidents/

While I have no opinion of the bill (haven't looked into it yet, no good links in this thread, not sure I care enough to go find out more), dying prematurely from emissions and dying in a car accident are two very different ways to go.  People that die in car accidents lose a LOT more of their life than the people that die early because of pollution.  That's not to say cutting pollution is dumb, we should do a lot more towards that.  (again, not sure if this bill does that or not)  I'm just saying those numbers don't tell the full story.

[Figueira]

I'm not sure how I feel about this particular bill because this is the first I've heard of it.

However, comparing homophobia to trying to save the world from utter destruction is horrifying, disgusting, and insulting to LGBT people as well as future generations (including the "unborn children" that so many right wingers pretend to care about).