The Next Step For Solving ‘Climate Change’ Is Forcing People Into EVs

I love when you have college students, who haven’t hit the real world, who don’t know what’s actually going on, dictating how things should work

Opinion: Our next step in solving climate change

st greta carWhen it comes to climate change, Connecticut has set ambitious goals. In 2008, we passed the Global Warming Solutions Act, which sets goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 45 percent below 2001 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 2001 levels by 2050. The state is also a signatory of the United States Climate Alliance, which adheres to the goals set by the Paris Agreement, meaning our ultimate goal is net zero emissions by 2050.

We have already made significant progress towards that goal. As of 2018, statewide emissions were down 17.8 percent from 2001. However, one area where emissions have remained stubbornly high is the transportation sector. It has been the biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses in Connecticut every year since 1990. In 2018, the transportation sector emitted 15.8 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide equivalent, more than 50 percent of what the entire economy can emit if we are to reach our 2030 goal.

Senate Bill 4, which is currently awaiting a vote in the Connecticut State Senate, aims to address these emissions. The bill would expand funding for the Connecticut Hydrogen and Electric Automobile Purchase Rebate program, which helps people buy new and used electric vehicles. This is critically needed, because there were only just over 17,000 passenger electric vehicles on the road in June 2021, estimates say that we will need 500,000 by 2030 to achieve our emissions goals.

That’s not small feet, 17k to 500k. You don’t get there in under 8 years without forcing people to purchase EVs. Rebates and such be damned, they’re still mostly not affordable. And, where is this money for the rebates, charging stations, etc, coming from? Expect taxes to go way up.

Senate Bill 4 will not solve all the environmental challenges facing Connecticut. But it is a meaningful step in the right direction, and one that we must take now. Climate change will be the defining challenge of the 21st century. We will either rise to the occasion and meet it within the next 30 or so years, or we will be remembered for centuries as the people who failed to prevent environmental catastrophe. Having only just come of age myself, I sometimes find it daunting to look ahead to a future shrouded under the specter of climate change. It is measures like Senate Bill 4 that give me hope for the future and convince me that we are, in fact, on the right path.

Let me know when you actually have to live in the real world. Especially when someone is getting a BA in Drama and Dramatics/Theater art.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

15 Responses to “The Next Step For Solving ‘Climate Change’ Is Forcing People Into EVs”

  1. Professor Hale says:

    Communism. So good you have to force people to do it.

  2. Greg Bacon says:

    How can CO2 be so abundant in the atmosphere that it is causing a greenhouse effect? Gases are weighed according to their “Vapor Density.”

    The relative weight of a gas or vapor compared to air, which has an arbitrary value of one. If a gas has a vapor density of less than one it will generally rise in air. If the vapor density is greater than one the gas will generally sink in air. And this: At standard temperature and pressure, the density of carbon dioxide is around 1.98 kg/m3, about 1.5 times that of air.

    CO2 has a vapor density of 1.53, which means its quite a bit heavier than air. So the CO2 that is generated on the planet’s surface stays down low & the CO2 produced in the skies will drift down to the planet, so where’s the greenhouse effect coming from?

    Or did they rewrite the laws of chemistry like the did the laws of Thermo-Dynamics on 9/11?

  3. drowningpuppies says:

    The Brandon administration on Monday reversed a Trump administration plan that would have allowed the government to lease more than two-thirds of the country’s largest swath of public land to oil and gas drilling.

    Reasons: Trump, polar bears, and caribou.
    But mostly Trump.

    Bwaha! Lolgf

  4. Jl says:

    Just like they were forced to transition from horse-powered to fossil fuel powered…oh, wait, they weren’t

  5. James Lewis says:

    The wind blows.

    So how can they measure “reducing greenhouse gas emissions 45 percent” in the state???

  6. The cited article said:

    This is critically needed, because there were only just over 17,000 passenger electric vehicles on the road in June 2021, estimates say that we will need 500,000 by 2030 to achieve our emissions goals.

    It’s surprisingly difficult to find out how many total vehicles are registered in Connecticut; this site claimed that there were 1,352,381 in 2016, while the FHA put it at 1,879,958 in 2010.

    Connecticut has the nation’s highest per-capita income, and thus ought to be the state in which people have the greatest ability to afford an electric car. Yet, if the number of EVs registered, 17,000 as given in the article, is compared to even the lower figure of 1,352,381, it works out to a whopping 1.26%. If the higher figure of 1,879,958 is used, it’s down to 0.90%.

    Whatever the number is, it’s a very small percentage of Nutmeg Staters who have chosen to buy electric vehicles, and Connecticut is a very liberal, very Democratic state.

    More, Connecticut is a smaller state, our third smallest, behind Rhode Island and Delaware. Connecticut is only 70 miles long, and 110 miles wide, so it would be difficult to find an in-state drive which would be beyond a charged electric vehicle’s range.

    Connecticut is one of the most practical states in which to have an electric vehicle; the highest percentage of people there can afford one, and drives there are generally shorter, even considering that a lot of people there commute to New York City.

    So why are they buying so few Teslas and Chevy Dolts?

  7. Hairy says:

    Teach forcing people into EVs? 200000 are on a 2 year long waiting list yo buy a Ford Lightning pick up. Every car manufacturer is investing billions in new EV factories. Tesla sales have been increasing quite steadily in the US at around 50% per year. In the US luxury market Tesla dominate selling 50% more than 2nd place BMW. Even Honda which lagged in EVs is now aiming for 2/3s global production by 2030 to be EVs.
    It’s not the lefties that are forcing EVs down the throats of Americans, it is accountants for car manufacturers doing it they know where the profits are going to come from

    • The Hirsute One wrote:

      Every car manufacturer is investing billions in new EV factories.

      Given that its government policy to require all new vehicles sold in the United States after 2035 to be zero-emission, they’re trying to stay ahead of the game. If you believe that Americans are just lining up to buy EVs, why would the government need to try to force them on the public after a given year?

      I have absolutely no problem with people who choose to buy an electric car; their money, their choice. I do have a problem with the government trying to force people into the things. But we know how the left really are: they are pro-choice on exactly one thing.

    • Jl says:

      Johnny-according to this study, a EV driven for 50,000 miles will cause more emissions than a fossil fuel powered car. How will you live…?

  8. L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

    Hey Hairy, Teach can’t force people into anything lest wise a car of any sort, brand or propulsion. He can however, keep you off this blog but he choses not to because unlike you, QdOwd and the democrats Teach believes in free speech.

    So you ridicule Teach when he’s posts against EV’s. You ridicule Teach when he posts for EV’s at what point does the light bulb come on and you realize Teach is only posting against forcing people to do something or forbidding people from doing something?

    Teach doesn’t care if you buy a car that runs on electric or if you buy one that runs on leftist tears (preferably the latter) as long as it’s voluntary and does not require the wholesale destruction of the US energy sector.

    I don’t think a person can get much fairer than that.


    • Dana says:

      The Hirsute One has already told us that he drives a fossil-fueled vehicle and that he has no intention of buying an EV for himself. He has said it’s due to his advanced age, and he plans on keeping his current vehicle until he goes to his eternal reward, which is an understandable reason, but it still means that he is not reducing his carbon footprint.

      • UnkleC says:

        I am also of an ‘advanced age’ and recently bought a brand new car, looked at EV’s and bought a conventional, mid price luxury model. More practical.

  9. L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

    I’m beginning to think these hypocrites should be snuffed out with a My Pillow.


Pirate's Cove