mountainbiker2

You got to be kidding.
http://www.californiadriversalliance.org

Varmit

Im trying to get out of this libreal infested place as fast as I can

MTPZ06

Been here nearly my whole life...and I've seriously begun to think that way as well.

Paul Van Nest

I'm out of here in the beginning of November........

Brandon619

This is a load of crap, I'm sure this is what the State/Government wants but it's a far fetched plan. It would be like probation days but with gas instead people will still drive where and when they want too.

Wildmanht

California is a joke and the politicians that are voted in are even more of a joke. Cant wait to get out of this state!! The illegals are already taking over California.

skyavonee

The full text of the bill can be found here: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...201520160SB350

I don't see anything at all about limiting how much individuals can use their own vehicle, or monitoring our driving habits. If anyone else does, please point it out to me. It seems kinda obvious to me that the link in the OP is a one-sided analysis by a pro-oil special interest group.

Now, I'm not saying that SB-350 would be a good thing. Rather, I'm just saying that that website alone isn't a sufficient resource to allow someone to form an educated opinion, one way or the other.

whalepirot

(2) Existing law requires the State Air Resources Board to adopt and implement various standards related to emissions from motor vehicles.
This bill would require those standards to be in furtherance of achieving a reduction in petroleum use in motor vehicles by 50% by January 1, 2030. The bill would require the state board, by January 1, 2017, to prepare a strategy and implementation plan to achieve this reduction.
Existing law requires the State Air Resources Board to adopt greenhouse gas emission limits and emissions reduction measures, by regulations, to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in furtherance of achieving the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit. Existing law requires the state board, in adoption regulations, to, among other things, design the regulations to include distribution of emissions allowance, where appropriate, to minimize the costs and maximize total benefits to California.
The Charge Ahead California Initiative states goals of, among other things, placing in service at least 1,000,000 zero-emission and near-zero-emission vehicles by January 1, 2023, and increasing access for disadvantaged, low-income, and moderate-income communities and consumers to zero-emission and near-zero-emission vehicles.
This bill would require the state board to identify and adopt appropriate policies to remove regulatory disincentives facing retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities from facilitating the achievement of greenhouse gas emissions reduction in other sectors through increased investments in transportation and building electrification that includes allocation of greenhouse gas emissions allowances to retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities to account for increased greenhouse gas emissions in the electric sector from transportation electrification.

Mistrezz 06

That's not gonna happen any time soon !!!!

Lpe403

I'm on my dealer's waiting list for my PZEV Corvette.

Also, free Prius's for all MediCal and Welfare recipients

SDVette

Read the bill?

But it's so much easier to let someone with an agenda slice it up and feed me bits and 1/2 truths that push my emotional hot-buttons...

Read the bill.... Ha!

Varmit

redvette ron

Libs fluck up everything they touch

tbirdsps

Who dreams this sh** up?

strand rider

I posted what I thought was a considered reaction to this news, but then realized the starting post might have been another effort from the circle jerks who hang in the political section , trying to infect their selected poisonous hate to other forums. So I took it down, not wanting to give attention to people who choose to argue from ignorance.

But I have a big mouth and some free time as I consume my oatmeal, so I reconsidered.

BMW has press releases saying they will be selling all electric and hybrid in ten years, covering some of the time frame of this proposed legislation. I guess that company would have to be filled with people only driven by liberal animosity against the world to make the world view of the objectors posting here work, in reality.

Global warming is real. California once led the way with smog controls and it worked out ok. If the science states this kind of stuff in required , I am all in . I have a kid I would walk across hot coals for. If I have to make changes so he can have a glimpse of the old world I leave behind me, instead of a world consumed in unmitigated storms and fire, I am in.

The world has some real wildfire and water problems, it is not just California, and storms are floating 100 year old trees past peoples porches. When science and your own eyes gives a clear warning, even if you don't agree on all points, doing nothing is seldom a good idea.

This bill could be a poor approach to the problem, it could be a lever to move another agenda, I don't know and haven't read it. But, to take a position after selecting only the viewpoint that makes you comfortable and then arguing this one sided position is willful ignorance. Yet some here do it, and expect you to fall in line , or they will attack you. But not with facts that might give insight into other's thinking and perhaps give you a reason to reconsider yours , the rejoinder is just name calling or rarely, reposts of other's paid thinking that again supports the same biased viewpoint.

I used to sail into Valdez Alaska, on the supertanker SS Worth. One of the most memorable sights of the trip was the view of the Columbia glacier in the far distance, a giant cliff of bright electric blue ice shining n the sun, believe me it was a sight never to be forgotten. One of many wonders of the world provided for me. Now that spectacular sight is gone, melted away in my short lifetime. They say experience and intelligence makes wisdom. If I were to reject drawing on the experiences god provided me, that would not be wise.

Yet some here would want me to be otherwise and toe the line for non thinkers like them.

Olitho

I think you just became guilty of your accusations in your own post. You haven't read the law, yet you are criticizing others for being "non-thinkers." That is arrogant and narcissistic of you.

Other people have different opinions from different research and different experiences, but don't worry, we will all step aside and let you lecture us. I for one take a very questioning view of what our "experts" tell us because all too often they are wrong, or the reasons they point to for a situation are misdiagnosed. It happens all the time. Nobody made you right. Let's all exercise the wonderful past time of our nation and argue policy and politics. Don't label others as "non-thinkers" and we won't label you. Let's argue the points of the bill you have not read.

As for the original poster, he is not a rabbler from the political section of this forum. He is one of the finest drivers on this entire forum and somebody whose driving I admire. That does not make him a scientist or and expert, but he has as much right to share his thoughts as you do. He did not lend a vitriolic opinion. His post struck me more as a "Hey, what do you guys know about this I can't believe another law... exasperation?" There is certainly much precedent for questioning laws in our great state.

Olitho

PS. If you are so concerned, what are you doing owning a Corvette?

artinist

these people are fanatics. must vote them out. this is crazy

skyavonee

We're all pawns to varying degrees, but some people just make it way too easy for the puppet masters.

strand rider

Thanks for the reply, Olitho , and the chance to explain the points you criticize. I regret I am so wordy and that my posts read like a lecture a lot of the time.

The fact that you enter your conversation about objections to my post with name calling, rather than facts that could be discussed, shows me my reply was poorly crafted, the point was missed. (Of course I didn't read the law, I feel it a waste of time at this point) To be clear, my point was not about a law I didn't read, rather the attempt to inform opinion with biased information. Perhaps my attempts to provide another side led you to think I was arguing this proposed legislation.

My attempt was to express that a discussion crafted only from facts one agrees with is only repeating propaganda. And my purpose is never to argue, rather to avoid argument with those I don't know and have nothing against, save for a normal difference in thinking. Those that don't think should avoid adult conversation and stick to name calling, for easy dismissal.

Intentionally limiting information to that which you agree and feel comfortable with is willful ignorance. I usually object when people try to argue from a position of willful ignorance, but know it is a waste of time, the choice has been made.

I have no interest in criticizing the original poster, rather the information he posts. Posting one side of a political view is a tactic often used to mislead , and I was attempting to object to highly biased information, funded by the oil industry to sway public opinion. Climate degradation is not for childish considerations or the vanity of political victory . It must be considered factually, when results are essential facts are required , opinions and philosophy don't cut it.

In reading a posted reply by another , misleading falsehoods in the posted information were found and objected to, not a surprise, rather , an expected result, in my opinion. And it does support my opinion of the worth of the oil industries attempt to influence honest discussion .

I criticize non truths as a basis for a man to form opinions, and have heard the radio commercials on this proposed legislation. I learned early on when I was a salesman, building imagined fear to promote your agenda is the mark of a scoundrel. Ask any successful salesperson, you needn't relay on my opinion on this. Then you might form another opinion from a more detailed insight, provided by one who is not arrogant and narcissistic, as you call me.

PLease note I did not include the original poster in my slam against the non thinkers, stating only my fear that this post was a part of another one sided agenda, and that he might be a part of this ongoing willful ignorance. His post is a repeat of opinions generated from the folks at big oil, one might reasonably expect valid objections . I sailed the world for big oil , this doesn't make me an expert in the oil trade, but did give me enough insight to form useful opinions about the industry.

I really think you are on the wrong track in your second paragraph, this approach won't be very productive down at the doctors office , to cite one easy failure with this logic. The informed majority scientific opinion of the entire world is not equivalent to people often in error, as you suppose. I think this is a flaw in logic that undermines the sense of your presentation.

Additionally it is known that some of the same folks who used science to cloud the discussion about the health concerns of cigarette smoking are now doing the same to cloud the climate change discussion, in the pay of big oil. I feel discussing a proposed law without considering the reasons behind the agenda will avoid understanding what is best for me when I do have a vote in things down the line.

I hope this better explains my position.

I was pleased that you said the original poster was a good driver with good intentions that I misunderstood. I always learn a lot from people with high driving ability and hope you have better luck trying to keep up with your friends driving ability than I did with my friend of high bodysurfing ability. Almost got killed a couple of times , trying to hang with the guy. It does make a guy very based in the reality of decisions, and the worth of actions, after a few times on the live or die wheel.