NY Times Notes Four Ways Government Can Force You To Comply With Climate Cult

Of course, this is nothing that Warmists will voluntarily do. Is the NY Times giving up their own use of fossil fuels? How about hyper-Warmist Coral Davenport? For all the articles I’ve seen her write I’ve never seen her mention the changes she’s made in her own life. She’s happy to recommend the changes government can force on you

Four Ways the United States Can Still Fight Climate Change

With the largest and most powerful tools that President Biden had hoped to use to fight climate change now stripped away, the White House is assembling smaller, less potent policies that could still help the nation reduce its planet-warming pollution, though not at the levels that Mr. Biden once promised.

The evident death in the Senate of Democrats’ climate change legislation, which was to have been the centerpiece of Mr. Biden’s plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions, comes just weeks after the Supreme Court handed down a decision that sharply limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, the nation’s second-largest source of greenhouse gases.

Supreme Court decision? Let’s go to number one on her list

Regulate cars and trucks

Vehicles are the nation’s largest source of planet-warming pollution, and experts say that rapidly ending the use of gasoline-powered cars is crucial to avoiding the worst impacts of climate change. Mr. Biden has directed the Environmental Protection Agency and Transportation Department to write a transformative new regulation to rein in tailpipe pollution and accelerate the nation’s transition to electric vehicles.

In its most ambitious form, the new regulation, which would most likely not be completed until 2023 or 2024, would compel automakers to double down on selling enough electric vehicles to meet Mr. Biden’s target that half of all vehicles sold in the United States would be all-electric by 2030. But after the Supreme Court decision limiting the E.P.A’s authority to regulate greenhouse emissions, the agency may scale back its ambitions out of fear that such a bold new move could also be struck down by the courts.

Yeah, they’d have to scale it back hugely, because this is exactly the kind of thing the Supreme Court was talking about. It’s nice that the Biden admin is looking to significantly increase the price of vehicles when they’re already high. Who does this hurt? The lower and middle class. If they do pass a new regulation, the next Republican president can kill it.

Then they want to regulate methane. I’d agree, but, it still needs to go through Congress, and a was, bipartisan, targeted, specific piece of legislation could work to do so without serious economic and energy pain.

And, of course, they want to go after energy plants, because Americans are not feeling enough pain right now. And, the minute they pass a regulation they’ll be sued, just like has already happened. It’s just the same in different clothes.

Absent federal action on climate change, state-level climate policies will play a more important role. Just under half the states have already enacted significant climate policies. The leader is California, which in the coming weeks is expected to finalize a first-in-the-nation regulation requiring that all new cars sold in the state must be electric or zero-emission by 2035. Seventeen other states are in line to adopt the same rule when it passes in Sacramento.

That’s where this stuff should be. The States. And, all the citizens who vote for the politicians who implement this stuff should be required to stay in those states and suck it up. Have fun when you cannot afford a vehicle or electricity, and your food and housing and everything else is unaffordable.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “NY Times Notes Four Ways Government Can Force You To Comply With Climate Cult”

  1. Dana says:

    Carol Davenport wrote:

    In its most ambitious form, the new regulation, which would most likely not be completed until 2023 or 2024, would compel automakers to double down on selling enough electric vehicles to meet Mr. Biden’s target that half of all vehicles sold in the United States would be all-electric by 2030.

    So, what happens if car buyers do not choose to buy plug-in electric cars in the volume that the Democrats want? As our most gracious host pointed out just the other day, the primary reason people don’t want electric vehicles is the logistics of charging the silly things. People want to be able to pull into a station, and then be on their way in ten minutes, not have to sit there for an hour while their Chevy Dolt recharges. It’s more than simply building more charging stations; it’s the length of time it takes to recharge that’s an issue.

    Charging at home is available, for some people, but for many, it simply is not. And we’ve just seen the Lone Star State, where summers are very hot, worrying about the grid possibly overloading due to heavy demand for air conditioning; if there isn’t quite enough sparktricity to keep the AC running during the summer, how will Texas be able to keep the AC running and recharge five million more electric cars?

    The same question could be asked in Massachusetts, where air conditioning needs are much lower, but winters are very cold: how can the Commonwealth expect people to convert over to more electric heating, and have the additional power to recharge all of their Teslas? Remember: solar power generation during a New England winter will be significantly restricted, and electric cars have significant range reduction during cold weather!

    Scientific reality does not care about political demands: the sun will rise and set and be lower on the horizon during New England winters just as it always has been, regardless of what laws or regulations are imposed!

  2. If it takes an hour to recharge your Tesla at a 440-volt, three phase charging station — and yes, I have worked with 440 3 phase systems to run concrete plants — there’s a certain point at which you cannot force more power into a battery any faster: it has to do with both the security of the connection, and the speed at which the chemical reaction inside the battery can safely be done. It’s not a matter of simply increasing amperage — and no one in his right mind would increase the voltage! — but developing a battery which can take the charge both faster and safely. There is always the possibility that we are already near the limits of that charging speed already.

  3. ST says:

    This kid is awesome! One-Armed Baseball Prodigy Inspires America (Video)

  4. UnkleC says:

    I was just reminded of another pitfall with EV’s, battery life. The current warranties are around 8 years and 100k. With the average age of vehicles in the US being about 12 years, some folks will wind up with a vehicle that needs a battery replacement that may exceed the value of the vehicle.
    When you toss in the lack of sparktricity for charging, limited range, no recycling of the batteries, and negative resale value, EV’s sound like a lefty democrat’s wet dream.

  5. Professor hale says:

    Socialism: ideas so good you have to be forced to do them.

    Solialism means never being held accountable for your dumb ideas that sounded so good when you were stoned.

  6. Jl says:

    “To compel automakers to double down on selling enough electric vehicles….”. So they won’t sell enough on their own? Must be really great if they government must compel people to buy them. Don’t you remember that happening when we switched from horses to fossil fueled cars?….

Pirate's Cove