All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Thursday, September 22, 2022

A crisis so urgent, liberals will act in 18 years

The world is in peril, my friend. For 50 years liberals have told us we must act now. If we wait for proof of global cooling/global warming/climate change, it will be too late.

California is taking the lead.

The LA Times reported, "Saying they had a 'moral obligation,' California regulators could soon ban the sale of diesel big rigs by 2040, ending a long reliance on the polluting vehicles that are the backbone of the American economy.

"The proposal by staff of the California Air Resources Board would further require that, by 2035, medium- and heavy-duty trucks entering ports and railyards must be zero emission and that state and local government fleets be so by 2027.

"The new regulations would likely demand a radical buildup of electric charging infrastructure, placing new stresses on California’s already fragile power grid and force the trucking industry to reshape how it does business. Regulators and activists say any disruption would ultimately be outweighed by lives and money saved."

It is so urgent -- such a big moral obligation -- that they will do something about it in 18 years.

Hmm.

What do I know about trucking? Nothing.

But Tri-State Trucking does and it says, "An average car lasts about 200,000 miles or so. A typical semi truck can last up to around 750,000 miles or more. There have even been trucks to hit the one million mile mark! On average, a semi truck drives about 45,000 miles per year. This means that you can probably expect to get about 15 years of use out of your truck."

15 years.

So that means an entire generation of big rigs will be built and retired before this ban on new rigs is in place. This also means the state won't run out of big rigs until 2055.Instead of acting now, California is acting in 33 years.

The planet is in peril, they say. We must act, they say.

Ah, I remember all those science fiction movies from the 1950s, in particular, The Day The Earth Stood Still. The United Nations would convene to confront the alien invaders by passing a tax and banning trucks in 18 years.

Every Godzilla movie ended with Raymond Burr buying an electric car, which was odd since Godzilla really liked to pull those high tension wires down.

This is goofball political science and theater. The politicians know it is nonsense. If the problem were urgent, they would ban the big rigs now, not beginning in 2040. 

Then there are hydrofluorocarbons, which are used as refrigerants. The Senate passed a treaty that will ban HFCs in 20 or so years.

HFCs replaced chlorofluorocarbons, which were deemed a threat to the ozone layer.

Since then, the EPA approved three alternatives to HFCs. Enviro-socialists will find fault with the alternatives and demand they be replaced.

Banning big rigs 18 years from now shows climate change (or whatever they will call it in 18 years) is not a threat to our planet.

A government that can ban cars is the real threat. Life without liberty is a prison term.

40 comments:

  1. How many Senate RINO's voted for the treaty banning HFC's?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would have to double check - but I recall that the original "save the ozone" conincided with the expiration of patents on said chemicals - which were, with environmental fevor, replaced with new freshly on-patent chemicals. Rinse, repeat.

      Delete
    2. Google easily works and Google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a university student and I work on my part time just 3 to 4 hours a day easily from home. Now everyone can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions
      on this web.. Www.Profit97.Com

      Delete
  2. Randy says: The government regulators in California know that not a single one of them will be around in 2040, so they don’t have to worry about the backlash. The question is whether California itself will be inhabitable in 2040. I suggest not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I was a governor in one of the abutting states, my citizens would love me. Selling electricity to Cali would cost them 10 times the cost to my fellow citizens. Cali would be paying enough so my citizens wouldn't be paying very much at all.
      If Cali wants to outsource their pollution, then they can pay dearly for doing so.

      Delete
  3. Ignore this. Not one of their ridiculous predictions has come true yet. Virtue signalling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hard to ignore when these are actual laws and not resolutions. And many states follow California's lawmaking.

      Delete
    2. Laws? CARB is an appointed panel. Did they go through the legislature? While the ABC posits I must keep a 15' perimeter around my bar clear of loiterers, the cops won't enforce this administrative law, due to a 1997 SCOCA decision saying otherwise. I'm not holding my breath, but I doubt this dictate will stand, same as the EV only rule post-2035. Lawfare will happen first.

      Delete
    3. Saying it won't happen may be true. But it won't stop the car makers to join in the insanity (see Chevrolet, Chrysler, Volvo for starters) who say they will cease production of ICE vehicles in 2030. Just like the nuke plants in CA, they take action first before the oh cr@p! moment hits, then they are screwed. They meaning the residents.

      Delete
  4. Johnny from ClevelandSeptember 22, 2022 at 3:56 PM

    Can anybody help me understand the goal of “zero emissions” or “carbon reduction”? Seems that all the climate cultists say is that we must reduce carbon emissions. Toward what end?? CO2 is .004% of the atmosphere today. What “should” it be?? Does anyone have a scientific conclusion?

    The world cannot exist without CO2, so I just want to know what level is acceptable to prevent the end of the world. Conversely, I’d like to know how high it can go before the end of life is assured.

    Somehow, I think no one in the climate change cult gives a damn about either level, they just want to demand a behavioral change which may or may not be beneficial, but will definitely be disruptive and costly. Seems like we should all start demanding some answers from these cultists and, absent some compelling, coherent answers we need to call bullshit on the entire crew of nitwits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah the climate change idiots have basically declared CO2 a poison. Doesn't matter it is plant food. Doesn't matter that there was more of it in the middle ages than there is now. It is crazy. They were mad as hornets when Trump administration planted a million trees while deregulating to kick our energy industry into high gear.

      Additionally they don't care that our natural gas and oil are cleaner than most foreign oil. They also don't care that China has until 2050 before they need to start - yes START - lowering emissions.

      It's a grift. They don't care about the plant or they would be worried about all the first Gen electric cars and the 95 % batteries that are not/can't be recycled. Those are more toxic than nuclear waste. The solar panels and wind mill arms or is it wings? are the same.

      Check out americanthinker.com. there are several authors that cover this and more. There are also articles regarding the sun cycles which actually do more has more to do with the temperatures of the earth then most of the man made stuff. They actually back up thier articles with reason and counter arguments. So it's not just opinion but based in real science .
      ~TJ

      Delete
    2. The cultists say that a CO2 level of 0.035% is the best and 0.04% (or 400ppm) is bad and deadly even though we are that level right now. And we've been there many times in the past.
      According to all health agencies, the upper limit is about 30,000-40,000ppm (contrasted against current 400ppm) for a short period of time, or 10,000ppm for 8 hour period. So, I'd say 5,000 on a constant basis is not healthy, tho not deadly.

      Delete
    3. H2O has a much larger impact on temperature, but even these grifters know there are not (yet) enough gullible citizens to ban water.

      jr

      Delete

    4. New Element Isolated: The Chemistry of Governmentium:


      The new element is Governmentium (Gv). It has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

      These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of Teflon-like particles called peons.

      Since Governmentium has no electrons or protons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.

      A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction normally taking less than a second to take from four days to four years to complete.

      Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2- 6 years. It does not decay but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.
      Check out the Top Trending post on the blog right now…
      The Complete Guide to Personal Habits: 158 Positive Reflections in 7 Categories to Be The Best Version of Yourself

      In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

      This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

      When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons. All of the money is consumed in the exchange, and no other by-products are produced.

      When compounded with CO2, Govermentium becomes hyperactive, extremely predictable, and extremely caustic and dangerous. There is no known cure to the disease caused by this relatively new compound. Insanity, death and destruction are imminent results of exposure to it.

      Delete
    5. This is brilliant!

      Delete
  5. I see this more about the ability to squeeze all these industries for endless donations and favors. The light bulb ban and toilet ban comes to mind. You bend the knee to the managerial elite or go out of business.

    "It would be a big shame if something were to happen to your business. With a 'small' donation to select campaigns and parties, I am sure we can push the ban out another year."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Climate Change...
    And like all Hollywood productions, the sequels keep getting worse and worse and worse.
    -lg

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just let CA go ahead and ban diesel trucks then watch them suffer while the rest of us continue to enjoy our lives.
    -dch

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except too many states are following them. There were 17 that are heading the way of banning cars. It's stupid. This is like cutting off your right hand just to see if you can. Ca is known to do that. The 4 billion dollar train to no where? The banning of gas cars when your electric grid can't keep the ac on in a heat wave in the dessert? The refusal to build desalination plants or build new reservoirs when your state relies on water from 2-3 states away and your population has quadrupled?

      Sorry hot button for me
      ~TJ

      Delete
    2. Then The hell with California and the other 17. 18 years to build other ports. Trucks can roam the country and ignore the Stupid 18.

      Delete
    3. I think it was 7 or 17 states have laws that follow whatever California does. Currently we have 3-6 that are also banning cars after 2035.

      Delete
    4. I agree Mr Lardmaster. Red States need to start thinking about how to live without the blue states. Build more ports. Develop more pipelines, mines, nuclear power, horticulture, refinery capacity, etc.

      Delete
    5. EN2 SS says;
      Correct, Capt., with no infrastructure to distribute ANY of those things to the stupid states. Texas has a lot of coastline and is mostly electrical grid independent now.

      Delete
    6. "4 billion dollar train to no where"
      You left some digit2 off. That's $105 Billion and climbing.

      Delete
  8. Last time I was driving large cars, our bonus paid out at about 11 k miles per month. I bonused 3 out of four quarters. Call it 130k per year in miles. Stuff starts breaking around 400k, alternators, compressors, etc. Depreciation gets you about 80 percent off in 3 years, so most fleets dump tractors after 3 years, and definitely at 500k when everything attached to engine starts going bad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EN2 SS says;
      My last long haul job was driving Ryder tractors. Many of their fleet, Freightliner and Volvo mostly for me, were used close to 900,000 miles before being retired. But yes, problems started showing up as you posted.

      Delete
  9. Well, that shoul;d depopulate CA just dandy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. We are dealing with evil liars. Carbon Dioxide has NOTHING to do with climate. We are seeing the deadly cancer of POLITICAL science. Do not believe the government rats!

    ReplyDelete
  11. You are the carbon they want to reduce.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why not move to electric trains? Think how much diesel fuel is used by the engines.

    Trains are already electric. Diesel engines run generators that power electric motors at the wheels. Seems to me like it would be simple to add overhead cables to provide external power and bypass the diesels.

    Leave the diesels in place on existing trains and run them on unpowered sections of track until power cables are built out. Then replace the diesel engines with batteries. Or perhaps just battery cars that could be shunted i and out of the train at need.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is still the problem of where the power comes from, same as battery cars.

      Nuclear? Satellite space solar? (Musk)

      Delete
  13. An interesting article today from AmericanThinker.com.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/09/when_did_global_warming_become_climate_change.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right after it failed to warm.

      Delete
  14. "Randy says: The government regulators in California know that not a single one of them will be around in 2040, so they don’t have to worry about the backlash."

    That's the classic MO of Democrats-they take credit for what started (like Obamacare) then have nothing to do with the fallout of their bad ideas down the road...
    ~DP in MI~

    ReplyDelete
  15. 18 years? We were told that all we have left is less than 12 years now before the end of the world due to uncontrolled climate change. Of course if we were to dig through the well aged manure of past prophesies and warnings regarding climate Armageddon, charitably we could accurately state they didn't come close. In fact they are close to 100% wrong. However they are undeterred. In the good ole days false prophets were put to death. No worries today just keep on predicting. More nightmares for Gretta

    ReplyDelete
  16. You know' if only they had the same concern for the budget deficit, something we know will affect present and future generations.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Time to just sell or give California to the Taliban (as Brenda the trans Brandon gave away Afghanistan in August 2021). Thanks to Hairdoo Newsome, it's already in process of total decay. Let's just speed it up and write it off as a loss - like all those lives, military equipment and years of effort were just written off in Afghanistan.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It's painful to watch people ingest this BS and believe it lock, stock and barrel. So cringeworthy!

    ReplyDelete