We definitely need cleaner vehicles on the road. Large cities around here are so hazy people feel uncomfortable outdoors on non-windy days. This could add years to people’s lives and cut down on healthcare costs when enough vehicles are replaced.
Seems like robbing from Peter to pay Paul, From Scientific American: Cars and trucks are responsible for roughly 24 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas pollution—nearly 1.7 billion metric tons per year. Because those emissions come from hundreds of millions of tailpipes, this source of pollution seems difficult to control. Shifting it to hundreds of smokestacks at power plants that supply electricity to charge electric cars therefore seems like a more effective way to clean up the fleet.
But those smokestacks, many attached to coal-fired power plants, are the single-largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in the U.S., at two billion metric tons of CO2 per year. That source would grow as electric cars demand more and more electricity, unless tighter pollution controls are placed on power plants or electric utilities shift to less polluting sources such as solar. As it stands, a conventional Toyota Prius hybrid vehicle, which burns gasoline when its batteries are not engaged, and the all-electric Nissan Leaf produce roughly the same amount of greenhouse gas pollution: 200 grams per mile, according to data from the U.S. Department of Energy.
The “long tailpipe” argument doesn’t really hold up. If, hypothetically, every single vehicle was made to run on electricity it would decrease greenhouse gas emissions drastically for multiple reasons:
1) As additional electric cars are added, additional power capacity is needed. New capacity being added to the grid is almost always non-coal (almost exclusively natural gas, wind, and solar) which is less impactful upon the environment than gasoline engines.
2) Even if all electric cars added to the road were coal, central station power generation is generally more efficient than thousands of gasoline engines. There is also the added benefit that improvements in efficiency or pollution capture need only be applied to power plants rather than trying to apply it to each vehicle (at greater cost).
3) Lastly, if all these vehicles run off electricity, the power mix can be adjusted to account for prevailing opinions on how much pollution is acceptable and what kind of price point per watt we need. That would help to stabilize the cost of driving and give us the possibility to improve the amount of pollution per mile by introducing more clean energy.
Gov.Brown is a moron!!!!!! has Mexico using South San Diego and ocean as their toilet. Yet he is pissing our taxes away on this BS!!!!!! and a stupid bullet train to no where.
Mark, that was happening anyway. The idea of Cap & Trade is to constrain it and means that the total can’t increase and should actually slowly decrease over time. Even though environmentalists would like it to go away overnight, it’s recognized that this is impractical and some way of scaling it down slowly (like C&T) is the best way to go.
Counterpoint, I know what cap and trade is supposed to do but her is what it does. While it is designed to keep industrial companies from spewing greenhouse gasses all over the place it has not. Companies have set emission allowances but can buy extra permits from other companies or auctions. With the hope of declining permits every year creating an incentive for companies to clean up as of latest data of 2015 gas emissions in California have only fell by 1.5 percent and the prices for permits have remained low. Because companies have had to purchase the permits this has caused 11 cents per gallon of gasoline increase and could add another 20 cents by 2030. The cost is being passed on to the pump. And not only can companies continue to purchase permits but they can offset their carbon emission by investing in forestry projects and programs like that. And I won’t even get into the fact that most smokestack industries are clustered in poorer communities so good luck to them in helping with pollution. This is a big sham to con the people into thinking we will have a greener economy while all the time Californians are being screwed in taxes, at the pump, hurting the poor and continuing the wreck the environment. And like a bunch of idiots we all say thank you, do it some more.
I consider that comment to be enlightening to those too young to know when it was first used, what it implies, and what it implies for the future of Calibfornia.
Why do you want to censor criticism of that old hippy flake?
1976 was the first year I was elligible to vote in California. Linda Ronstadt (his girlfriend at the time) hung the “moonbeam” handle on him and Mike Royko picked it up and referred to him as “Gov Moonbeam” after the election. Brown’s ideas included one that the State of California should have its own satellite for emergency communications. That was a far out idea in 1976. Looking back, not so far out.
Great!; one reasonable idea taken in light of hindsight. Got anything else that he’s done TO FIX THE HYUUUUGE MESS that Calibfornia has become? I thought not.
For those of you who did not grow up in The Golden State, you would not recognize it then as it is now. I remember staying inside for recess and helicopters flying around announcing 3rd stage smog alerts. Having your lungs burn the next day after playing outside was also a nice treat. It is so much better today than before, but they know that more is needed. Kudos to CA for leading the way!!
Psst; the smog was hovering around every urban area back then, not just in Calibfornia. IT is largely gone in every urban area now, not just Calibfornia. CA is only leading the way down the road to fiscal, moral, and social decay.
We definitely need cleaner vehicles on the road. Large cities around here are so hazy people feel uncomfortable outdoors on non-windy days. This could add years to people’s lives and cut down on healthcare costs when enough vehicles are replaced.
Seems like robbing from Peter to pay Paul, From Scientific American: Cars and trucks are responsible for roughly 24 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas pollution—nearly 1.7 billion metric tons per year. Because those emissions come from hundreds of millions of tailpipes, this source of pollution seems difficult to control. Shifting it to hundreds of smokestacks at power plants that supply electricity to charge electric cars therefore seems like a more effective way to clean up the fleet.
But those smokestacks, many attached to coal-fired power plants, are the single-largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in the U.S., at two billion metric tons of CO2 per year. That source would grow as electric cars demand more and more electricity, unless tighter pollution controls are placed on power plants or electric utilities shift to less polluting sources such as solar. As it stands, a conventional Toyota Prius hybrid vehicle, which burns gasoline when its batteries are not engaged, and the all-electric Nissan Leaf produce roughly the same amount of greenhouse gas pollution: 200 grams per mile, according to data from the U.S. Department of Energy.
The “long tailpipe” argument doesn’t really hold up. If, hypothetically, every single vehicle was made to run on electricity it would decrease greenhouse gas emissions drastically for multiple reasons:
1) As additional electric cars are added, additional power capacity is needed. New capacity being added to the grid is almost always non-coal (almost exclusively natural gas, wind, and solar) which is less impactful upon the environment than gasoline engines.
2) Even if all electric cars added to the road were coal, central station power generation is generally more efficient than thousands of gasoline engines. There is also the added benefit that improvements in efficiency or pollution capture need only be applied to power plants rather than trying to apply it to each vehicle (at greater cost).
3) Lastly, if all these vehicles run off electricity, the power mix can be adjusted to account for prevailing opinions on how much pollution is acceptable and what kind of price point per watt we need. That would help to stabilize the cost of driving and give us the possibility to improve the amount of pollution per mile by introducing more clean energy.
Gov.Brown is a moron!!!!!! has Mexico using South San Diego and ocean as their toilet. Yet he is pissing our taxes away on this BS!!!!!! and a stupid bullet train to no where.
And you know this additional money from the cap and trade just allowed the energy companies to throw more crap in the air.
Mark, that was happening anyway. The idea of Cap & Trade is to constrain it and means that the total can’t increase and should actually slowly decrease over time. Even though environmentalists would like it to go away overnight, it’s recognized that this is impractical and some way of scaling it down slowly (like C&T) is the best way to go.
Counterpoint, I know what cap and trade is supposed to do but her is what it does. While it is designed to keep industrial companies from spewing greenhouse gasses all over the place it has not. Companies have set emission allowances but can buy extra permits from other companies or auctions. With the hope of declining permits every year creating an incentive for companies to clean up as of latest data of 2015 gas emissions in California have only fell by 1.5 percent and the prices for permits have remained low. Because companies have had to purchase the permits this has caused 11 cents per gallon of gasoline increase and could add another 20 cents by 2030. The cost is being passed on to the pump. And not only can companies continue to purchase permits but they can offset their carbon emission by investing in forestry projects and programs like that. And I won’t even get into the fact that most smokestack industries are clustered in poorer communities so good luck to them in helping with pollution. This is a big sham to con the people into thinking we will have a greener economy while all the time Californians are being screwed in taxes, at the pump, hurting the poor and continuing the wreck the environment. And like a bunch of idiots we all say thank you, do it some more.
If your neighbor’s leaves blow onto your lawn that’s no reason to stop cleaning up yours.
And you wonder why he’s referred to as Gov. Moonbeam
Do you have some thoughtful insight to offer or is your “Gov. Moonbeam” remark just a weak attempt at an insult?
I consider that comment to be enlightening to those too young to know when it was first used, what it implies, and what it implies for the future of Calibfornia.
Why do you want to censor criticism of that old hippy flake?
1976 was the first year I was elligible to vote in California. Linda Ronstadt (his girlfriend at the time) hung the “moonbeam” handle on him and Mike Royko picked it up and referred to him as “Gov Moonbeam” after the election. Brown’s ideas included one that the State of California should have its own satellite for emergency communications. That was a far out idea in 1976. Looking back, not so far out.
Great!; one reasonable idea taken in light of hindsight. Got anything else that he’s done TO FIX THE HYUUUUGE MESS that Calibfornia has become? I thought not.
For those of you who did not grow up in The Golden State, you would not recognize it then as it is now. I remember staying inside for recess and helicopters flying around announcing 3rd stage smog alerts. Having your lungs burn the next day after playing outside was also a nice treat. It is so much better today than before, but they know that more is needed. Kudos to CA for leading the way!!
Psst; the smog was hovering around every urban area back then, not just in Calibfornia. IT is largely gone in every urban area now, not just Calibfornia. CA is only leading the way down the road to fiscal, moral, and social decay.