California is being a climate leader and people are constantly naysaying and seem like almost like they hope CA fails.
What should we do? sit back and let the world burn or make an effort to prevent it?
Far better to provide incentives to switch to green sources and let people make their own decisions.
Like so many people, the nations of the EU thought they still had time.
Now, belatedly, European governments see it as a direct national security imperative to switch to non-fossil sources as quickly as possible.
If as many people as possible switch, the price of fuel goes down (due to people not using it), and the cost of replacement systems also goes down (due to increased efficiencies of scale in production). This is thus also the best way to mitigate the consequences for the poor.
It's still going to be an interesting winter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_p...
Fissile fuels are definitely starting to look better and better by the month.
What should we do? We should build nuclear plants, at least a hundred of them.
> almost like they hope CA fails.
The California Air Resources Board (CARBS) is responsible for forcing everyone to use special gas nozzles that spill tons of gasoline, while pretending to prevent spills. See: https://fee.org/articles/the-epic-failure-of-the-government-... and https://fee.org/articles/how-government-wrecked-the-gas-can/
The do not exactly have a reputation for intelligent decision making, rather they have a reputation for emotional decision making.
Finally, it's important to get these processes started immediately. It's still going to take decades for this policy to result in the millions of houses updating their equipment, and we might be down to a far smaller percent of grid power coming from fossil fuels by then.
And also don't work in most of the United States. They are very slow, and only work in places with warm climates - in cold places they are dumping their cold into the living area, which then has to heat it.
On top of that the incoming water is cold, and they don't do a good job heating it.
I've looking into buying one, and they just don't work in cold climates. They could work in California, true, but are they mandating that? Nope. They are just eliminating gas.
I have the same personal experience with those horrible CARB gas cans. You can google it if you need other experiences.
I spilled so much gas using one of those CARB gas cans I couldn't believe it. I then went online and bought a normal spout and have not spilled anything since.
Every since then I assume anything from CARB is going to be bad.
Omg my toilet doesn’t use several gallons of water any more, it’s the horrible regs!!! I remember toilets from the 80s/90s. The ones I saw clogged easier than modern toilets and even better, they used so much water that when they clogged there was a significant chance they’d over flow. Yay poop water!
There you go, one incident that shows the libertarian principle on regulations is terrible. If I use the logic from your comment that means all regulations are good, even although the example was niche. I’m not going to make that claim about all regs, there’s some bad ones but don’t get info from libertarians on what regs are good or not.
Okay throw the baby out with the bath water if you will. Carb as a whole is terrible because of gas cans, one of a large number of things they’ve done?? And because of that all regs they are now proposing are bad?
And for what it’s worth I used a new 5 gal gas can from CA recently and it was a little fiddly for sure but didn’t seem that bad … and I’ll admit it’s the first one I’ve used so I dunno. Maybe it is that bad and I had a good one but I’ll take a few missteps by Ronald Reagan’s regulatory agency since it means I can breath in LA. Where’s all that smog go?