EPA approves California rules phasing out diesel trucks
apnews.com
apnews.com
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
So it's famously wrong, not just suddenly discovered to be wrong.
Why would it be? Cash for clunkers was taking old vehicles off the road, this is mandating a different mix for new vehicles.
> Interestingly, green policy of late has been promoting the opposite of the Reduce, Reuse, Recycle ethos.
The Reduce, Reuse, Recycle mantra (1) isn’t about climate policy, and (2) was largely a manufacturer-backed propaganda effort to shift blame and policy response for waste stream volume to consumers rather than manufacturers.
Congratulations, you’ve now significantly increased the cost of all the goods going into California. You’ve only moderately reduced the climate burden and likely increased the amount of traffic via container ships that pollute significantly more.
Plus in this case the Port of Long Beach exists.
Also, what is the alternative? Just keep burning the oil until it's gone?
1. “to require truck manufacturers to sell an increasing number of zero-emission trucks over the next couple of decades”
This is a multi-decade effort for manufacturers, not freight companies
2. “eight other states plan to adopt California’s truck standards”
It’s a catalyst for other states to adopt this same standard. California is using its market power to influence national emission standards.
Now that those have been banned, companies will work to meet the market demand that you are noting, they will develop alternatives that are good, but also not poisoning us, and sell that. It will only be a minor inconvenience for you.
This is the exact same thing that happened with whale oil, leaded gas, leaded glass, sulfur diesel, ddt, on and on.
In each of those cases people were complaining like you, in each of those cases life went on and we figured out how to cope with the new, safer, less toxic, reality.
Edited to correct 2 spelling errors
You don't know what you're talking about, but you feel like you do. Methanol, ethanol, and isopropyl alcohol are all legitimate ingredients for the examples I gave. You're making equivalence between burning leaded gas, and a desire to spray my windows with volatile alcohol.
Are you planning on banning isopropyl alcohol for medical use? Removing my ability to by vodka? Stopping my ability to use my camp stove?
One day it's stopping toxic waste getting poured into the watershed, the next it's a desire to stop research on safe nuclear power, and ban gas stoves for interior cooking use.
Blind environmentalism is its own worst enemy.
Just because Isopropyl is an ingredient in some product that is banned for other ingredients doesn't mean they will ban Isopropyl, your argument makes no sense
Actually you can buy and use that stuff in California, you just can't buy it in the valleys (which are warmer BTW) because the emissions cause smog. But in the sierras, where it's a safety issue and the topographic features are different, its available in every service station and car parts store. It's in in my gf's car right now.
The same sensible attitude works in reverse: some states ban studded winter tires because they rip up the roads. California allows them from November-April (longer in very snowy years) because they are safer in snow (and annoying as hell, especially in dry conditions, so you never encounter them at low altitude).
What do I do with the windshield wiper fluid that is in my car, before I go to a freezing area? Do I waste it all by overusing it on the drive up? Do I set calendars to make sure I cycle my windshield wiper fluid, so that I'm low enough by the time I get to the mountains, I can buy sub freezing fluid, that my remaining fluid won't freeze?
What I end up doing is making my own blend on the coast because (thankfully) I know how, but it's a ridiculous limitation of California environmentalism.
And I benefit from the clear skies down in the valley when I am here. In the 60s you couldn’t see the mountains from Mountain View. Now you can again, and people have fewer breathing problems.
If that’s “California Environmentalism” well, it seems pretty good to me.
Do you think sub-zero windshield wiper fluid banning did that, or catalytic converters and efficient engine management? Hint: it was the latter.
But that witches’ brew of smog was (is) a mixture of all sorts of volatiles from many sources (e.g. paint shops and factories).
There’s by definition no one solution to diffuse fugitive emissions, and I’m glad the various AQMDs and CARB are working on it. I’m also glad they are organized in a decentralized fashion, so that different districts can have different rules and programs.
Oh and the ECUs (and their O2 sensors) came in after a lot of the work had been accomplished back in the carburetor days, but things are a lot cleaner today because they continued.
Building boom for giant warehouses/transfer stations?
Sentiment affects pricing and whenever some disaster or other event happens, the market is pretty efficient at capitalizing on it. This goes for all kinds of things like ukraine and natural gas, chickens and eggs, EVs and electricity pricing, etc...
Yes, it is.
> Diesel has lower carbon emissions than gasoline.
It is not being phased out in trucks in favor of gasoline trucks, so, even if true, that would be irrelevant.
But it’s also not true, diesel releases more CO2 for the same energy than gasoline does. [0]
[0] https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php
That article makes the assumption that the ethanol component of finished motor gasoline has net zero carbon emissions.
https://theconversation.com/fact-check-are-diesel-cars-reall...
"So, while diesel fuel contains slightly more carbon (2.68kg CO₂/litre) than petrol (2.31kg CO₂/litre), overall CO₂ emissions of a diesel car tend to be lower. In use, on average, this equates to around 200g CO₂/km for petrol and 120g CO₂/km for diesel."