The fascist-controlled Senate does not have the authority to do this and they were warned ahead of time that they did not have the authority. But that didn’t stop them, because neither law nor Constitution nor ethics will prevent an authoritarian from trying to steal power.
State rights?
Turns out it was slavery this whole time.
Shocker
I remember when repugnacans championed states’ rights.
I don’t.
I remember when American conservatives in the ‘60s claimed to support states’ rights. But what they actually supported was segregation and Jim Crow. They used “states’ rights” as a rhetorical tool to hide their racism behind a facade of principle, just like the Confederacy had a hundred years prior.
Among the American right, only useful idiots (like libertarians) actually believed in states’ rights - or small government rhetoric in general - as a principle. It was always empty rhetoric. And now that Republicans are openly supporting Trump’s big government authoritarian conservatism, it’s become obvious how badly the Ron Paul types were used.
red STATES RIGHTS
…that’s just civil war with extra steps
I just have to wonder how much longer California will be in the United States to be subject to these kind of actions.
All the the ruling class even in California are too financially invested and want to keep their high standards of living to do that, unfortunately.
Probably about 3 years
They should just ban the sale of spark plugs, fuel injectors, pistons, timing belts, exhaust pipes, etc. one by one each time one of these bills gets passed. You can buy an ICE vehicle if you want but you better know someone who will drive you to Nevada to get spare parts.
Well its a very thin state.
Only 250 miles wide. Ez walk to get that spark plug tbh.
It may be long and narrow, but California is huge. It’s a about a four hour drive from a major city to the NV state line.
I guess it is roughly one Netherlands wide, huh…
As a gearhead, this is the one thing that I agree with the Republicans on this one. I like the instant torque of electric cars, but I also appreciate an Asian sports car with an LS swapped in, mated to a manual 6 speed transmission. Nothing more fun than driving a tiny, manual car with a big, angry V8 under the hood. I like both and I want to have the choice to own both.
The vast majority of pollution comes from corporations.
Stop punishing everyday people for being a raindrop in the ocean.We could probably have some sort of exception for like track vehicles. Like they could be not street legal to stop pollution for transportation but you could still have fun on a racetrack. I don’t see Formula 1 or NASCAR going away but if we could get rid of most of the pollution that would be massive. At this point I’ll take crumbs lol.
That could’ve been an option if action was taken against big polluters decades ago, but we’re now at the point that we need collective action to prevent our world from becoming an awful place to live in, and death for those living in more vulnerable areas.
The vast majority of pollution comes from corporations. Stop punishing everyday people for being a raindrop in the ocean.
It’s not a raindrop, unfortunately.
Transportation is responsible for roughly 24% of global emissions, of which 18% is made up of personal cars and trucking.
Reducing car usage on a mass scale would be a massive help in stemming climate change, and the only way to do that is by each of us collectively using more efficient means of transport, whether that’s public transport, ebikes, or electric cars if necessary.
Maybe it might be helpful if we start thinking about climate change as a war, and like in some wars past, it will require war rationing to win it. The corporations will never stop polluting as long as it’s profitable, and many if not most governments around the world are now corporate captured, meaning we have few effective means of muzzling their emissions.
That leaves it up to us, as individuals, to make the hard choices for the sake of the planet. Reducing our usage of polluting cars, meat consumption (the alternative meats like Impossible are incredible replacements), and purchasing of non-essential high-emission luxury goods is one of the more powerful weapons we have in this war. It’d be a travesty not to use it.
deleted by creator
Less cars makes public transport better, buses can run faster and to a more reliable schedule. It was cars clogging up roads that resulted in the decline of most tram systems.
Banning the chemicals that were eating a hole in the ozone layer worked pretty well, as a quick relevant example, and that ban was global.
The ban would not retroactively remove cars, it would ban the future sale of gas cars by a certain date. This would be like Reagan saying “In 10 years we will be drug free, and drugs will be illegal then.”, then providing a pathway for people who are struggling with addiction (in the car case I’m not sure how much ‘treatment’ would be necessary, electric cars are getting cheaper and car companies are making more electric ones anyway).
Obviously a person addicted to opiates has little choice in their addiction, it isn’t as if they make a clear headed decision every time they use, and there isn’t an alternative that is the same but legal. Like the ozone eating chemicals, on the other hand, the type of car you buy and drive is absolutely a choice, and for the vast majority of miles traveled, you do not need one type of car over another. For the specific scenarios you do, gas cars sold before the target year and ones sold in other states are still available.
The argument you made is far more accurate if all cars were banned under the law, but that simply isn’t the case. It was banning the future sale of them in the state. The eventual death of the gasoline automobile is both necessary and inevitable (to personal electric vehicles, or some other transportation), and the timeline is all we are arguing over here. California wanted to speed the timeline up to help the climate, the extinction speed runners felt like that would hurt Exxon mobile, so they blocked it.
You just got the data above that proves that banning gasoline cars will indeed help to combat climate change, and anyways slipped back to generic “banning things doesn’t solve anything”.
In most cases - probably. In the context of gasoline car, you see the data that transition must happen fast, otherwise we are cooked.
I dearly wish we had better public transport as well.
But in the event that it does not improve, either due to lack of political will or other reasons, that’d pretty much leave us with making collective personal choices as the only viable option again, whether or not internal combustion vehicles are banned.
Tbf cars powered by gas sounds amazing in a steam punky way.
