Menu

Home › Forums › Other › OT: Californa SB 350

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 51 total)
1 2 3 4
  • Author
    Posts
  • August 24, 2015 at 12:56 PM #21660
    no_such_reality
    Participant

    California senate bill 350 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB350
    [quote](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.[/quote]

    Wow, I thought the ad was a distortion, but it petty clearly calls for it in the bill text

    August 24, 2015 at 12:58 PM #788894
    spdrun
    Participant

    Good, about time the world (starting with CA) was weaned off oil use for energy.

    Nuclear/hydro/renewable FTW.

    August 24, 2015 at 2:43 PM #788897
    livinincali
    Participant

    [quote=spdrun]Good, about time the world (starting with CA) was weaned off oil use for energy.

    Nuclear/hydro/renewable FTW.[/quote]

    Yeah except that it’s rather hard to substitute the energy density of a gallon of gas for transportation purposes. It’s almost impossible that you’d ever be able to design an airplane that can run on electric via battery storage. I suppose with a large enough investment you could change your infrastructure around to do long ground transportation without petroleum but it’s not necessarily going to be more efficient or convenient.

    August 24, 2015 at 2:55 PM #788898
    spdrun
    Participant

    If you can power it using nuke, hydro, or renewables (ground transport), then it may not be more efficient, but it will spew less CO2 into the air.

    And of course, there’s electrolysis. You can run turbofan engines on hydrogen fuel.

    August 24, 2015 at 2:56 PM #788899
    barnaby33
    Participant

    Implicit in the bill is people driving less. Most people probably don’t think along those lines, but that will be the net effect. Instead of a plan, you could just raise gas taxes till electric cars makes sense.
    1) People will drive less.
    2) Electric cars will make more sense.
    3) Living in out lying areas will become much more difficult.

    Josh

    August 24, 2015 at 4:51 PM #788901
    The-Shoveler
    Participant

    This has very little chance of working even if passed (unless EV’s become much cheaper and more practical)

    1) People will not be driving less because they can’t.
    (there is no room, they MUST expand/sprawl).

    2) There will be more mass transit so that will help a little but driving your own car will always be more convenient and desirable for most.

    3) there will be about 15-20 million more people living in Socal over the next 50 years, they are going to live where?

    August 24, 2015 at 7:46 PM #788902
    paramount
    Participant

    SB350 is nothing less than an attack on the red burbs/suburbs.

    August 24, 2015 at 8:58 PM #788903
    moneymaker
    Participant

    It really is crazy to lug around a 3000lb.+ vehicle every where you go. Even my motorcycle is over 600lbs. and only gets 47 mpg.Smaller/lighter vehicles that get better mileage just make more sense.Nothing to do with SB350, just saying!

    August 24, 2015 at 9:08 PM #788904
    paramount
    Participant

    [quote=moneymaker]It really is crazy to lug around a 3000lb.+ vehicle every where you go. Even my motorcycle is over 600lbs. and only gets 47 mpg.Smaller/lighter vehicles that get better mileage just make more sense.Nothing to do with SB350, just saying![/quote]

    My vehicles are more in the 6000lb range and burns lots of fuel. Call it survival of the fittest-that’s what makes sense to me.

    Lot’s of aggression and anger on the roads.

    To many neanderthals driving around in jacked up trucks.

    August 24, 2015 at 10:04 PM #788907
    bearishgurl
    Participant

    [quote=The-Shoveler]This has very little chance of working even if passed (unless EV’s become much cheaper and more practical)

    1) People will not be driving less because they can’t.
    (there is no room, they MUST expand/sprawl).

    2) There will be more mass transit so that will help a little but driving your own car will always be more convenient and desirable for most.

    3) there will be about 15-20 million more people living in Socal over the next 50 years, they are going to live where?[/quote]

    Shoveler, I don’t know how you can claim 15-20 million people can fit into the available housing in SoCal. Newcomers won’t come if they can’t find housing in the area. That’s the way it works all over the west coast. Your city/county governments don’t owe newcomers anything and never have. If they can roll into town and find an existing home they want to buy and get their offer accepted on it or find an acceptable rental to move into, fine … more power to them. The six-county urbanized So-Cal area (4 coastal counties) is pretty much built out and it’s not in anyone’s best interest to create more sprawl … assuming there was actually somewhere available to build subdivisions. Most existing residents don’t want any more people, nor do we need any more.

    Cities and counties aren’t obligated to issue ANY more building permits if it will financially break them to service any more outlying areas, as has happened repeatedly in the past. The outlying areas left in SD County are mostly full of very heavy rock and as such, these hilltops cannot possibly be graded properly for roads and home pads (or it would be too cost-prohibitive to do so). Face the fact that land available for subdivisions is long gone. Even major US developers have been quoted to corroborate this fact on national TV in recent years and have packed up their trailers and split SD for good. Sorry to have to break it to you, but LA County is not going to suddenly start issuing building permits for its hundreds of acres of coveted and environmentally-sensitive open space. And that is as it should be (LA is the only SoCal County that was smart enough NOT to sell out to Big Development in the past 25-30 years.)

    So Cal is running out of water and we’re done. Newcomers and everyone else must accept existing housing if they want a single family home. High rise condos MAY be able to be built as infill, after something else is razed. It all depends on zoning and ability to get something like that permitted. A project like this will be an uphill battle for a spec builder all over SoCal on a case-by-case basis. Good Luck with getting 15-20 million more people in SoCal …. won’t happen.

    August 24, 2015 at 10:15 PM #788908
    bearishgurl
    Participant

    Oh, and people CAN drive less, Shoveler. Uhhh, it’s very simple. They can move closer to work! Novel suggestion if I do say so myself! No one … and I mean NO ONE is “trapped” in exurban hell. Everybody has choices in life and can vote with their feet if they don’t like the length of their daily commute.

    August 24, 2015 at 10:47 PM #788909
    paramount
    Participant

    [quote=bearishgurl] No one … and I mean NO ONE is “trapped” in exurban hell. [/quote]

    Can you please elaborate on what you mean by “exurban hell”?

    August 25, 2015 at 5:48 AM #788911
    The-Shoveler
    Participant

    [quote=bearishgurl]Oh, and people CAN drive less, Shoveler. Uhhh, it’s very simple. They can move closer to work! Novel suggestion if I do say so myself! No one … and I mean NO ONE is “trapped” in exurban hell. Everybody has choices in life and can vote with their feet if they don’t like the length of their daily commute.[/quote]

    Easier said than done, What it your spouse works close and you just got laid off and your next job is 45-50 miles the other direction?

    Happens all the time.

    August 25, 2015 at 11:28 AM #788916
    bearishgurl
    Participant

    [quote=paramount][quote=bearishgurl] No one … and I mean NO ONE is “trapped” in exurban hell. [/quote]

    Can you please elaborate on what you mean by “exurban hell”?[/quote]

    “Exurban hell” refers to areas where there is a dearth of jobs that pay well enough to support a household …. or even half of a household in comparison with its population. That said, many families choose to move to exurban hell all the while knowing that their commute(s) to work will be an hour-plus each way. These people made the bed they’re sleeping in and continue to sleep in it every day they choose to remain where they are living.

    I have nothing against anyone’s housing choices, paramount (including yours or mine). But I am in the camp of those who firmly believe that every single able-bodied adult of sound mind needs to take responsibility for themselves and own their own sh!t (choices they made). In my experience, too many adults (boomers and seniors included) are of the “victim” mentality where they incessantly complain about having been a “victim” (of someone else) their entire lives and this is the reason they weren’t able to accomplish xxx or are in a compromising or seemingly untenable position today.

    It’s akin to buying a home directly under an airport landing path and then claiming the noise is ruining your hearing (and quality of life).

    August 25, 2015 at 11:37 AM #788917
    The-Shoveler
    Participant

    You realize Ventura, Westlake, Irvine and Newberry park used to be exurb’s right?

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 51 total)
1 2 3 4
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.