It’s not like the Democrats haven’t tried. Biden has signed executive orders, and proposed regulations to try to help reduce carbon emissions. But when you have a turncoat coal baron like Joe Manchin in a 50-50 Senate, and a runaway far right Supreme Court willing to strip the EPA of its legitimate oversight tools, there’s only so much you can do.
But fortunately there’s another way out. And that is the states themselves. It can be effective simply because as long as states don’t buck federal law, they have free rein to regulate how they like in their own state. And if there’s one state that has been a world class pain in the ass to the fossil fuel industry, it’s California.
California was pioneering ways to control vehicle emissions and carbon emissions long before it became a national issue. And because they’re smart, they win. As the most populous state in the nation, they have natural clout in the marketplace.
Here’s a perfect example. It’s the US government that sets MPG and emissions standards for the automotive industry. And that’s fine by California. But California wanted more. And so California set their own emission and MPG standards for vehicles being sold in the state, and set a time limit for compliance.
Which turned the automotive industry globally on its ear. The automakers had two choices, meet the US federal standard for emissions and MPG ratings, and lose the ability to sell their cars in California, or upgrade their vehicles to meet the stricter California standards. The auto industry sensibly chose the latter.
Well, now California has gone and done it again. Earlier today, California regulators approved a sweeping portfolio of new rules that will change driving in California forever. Starting in 2035, the sale of new, gasoline powered vehicles in the state of California will be forbidden. From what I’ve seen, there is no prohibition for driving a gas powered vehicle. If you have a gas powered vehicle, you can still drive it to your hearts content. But when it wears out, you can’t replace it with another gas powered California vehicle. You’ll have to go electric, or catch public transportation.
This is a true gamechanger. And in this case, the SCOTUS is a toothless tiger. They have no jurisdiction. These are California regulations, enforceable only in California. And like their earlier MPG and emissions standards, it is going to turn not only the automotive industry, but the petroleum industry on their ears.
For the automotive industry it means one thing, and one thing only. They have to up their game on the production of electric vehicles, and do it pronto. And not just some piece of shit vehicle to satisfy some useless federal regulation. They’re going to have to make electric cars that people can afford, and actually want to buy! And with the younger generation going green, they may as well start selling them all over.
And for the petroleum industry, it’s a death knell. If California has the most cars, it only stands to reason that California uses more gas than anybody else. Also, if California is going full bore electric cars starting in 2035, does anybody really think that everybody in California will wait until 2035 to fo electric? Or, in the next 13 years, as people start to look to buy new cars, will they begin to morph over to electric cars to meet the upcoming standards? And what about under 40 drivers nationwide transitioning over to electric vehicles out of social conscience? Gasoline consumption is going to take a noticeable dive sometime in the next 5 years.
This is how you defeat the and beat the fossil fuel industry. Congress may be too gridlocked to make any significant progress, but the largest state in the country can force a change in the national conversation, and there’s nothing that the automakers, the petroleum industry, or the SCOTUS can do about it. It’s a brave new world.
All of the GOP should burn in hell
Given that places like TX, MS, AL, etc. are hell on earth, I’d say they already are and apparently enjoy it.
Good for them. Because it will be good for all of us over the long-term. I’ve wished for a very, very long time they’d force another change and it’s related to the dumbing down of America which has played a role in the climate change crisis. Texas has outsized influence in K-12 education throughout the country because they have the most companies producing textbooks. They happen to be the second largest state by population. Huge but still well behind California. It would be nice if the govt. in California would push through something to incentivize developing a major textbook publishing industry, one bigger than TX has. That way more kids could learn with quality textbooks instead of the increasingly conservative influenced crap that TX leads the country in producing and distributing – even in blue states!
I hole-heartedly agree, Denis. I heard on the TV news that there are a total of 17 states that are considering or working on similar rules. One in particular is New York. Textbooks would be an excellent way to counter the horrid conservative narrative they are trying to force on all of us.
Actually, it’s not that Texas has “the most companies producing textbooks” but rather the sheer number of public school systems in the state. From the state’s own Education Agency website, “As of August 2014, the Texas Education Agency oversees 1,247 public school districts, open enrollment charter schools, juvenile justice districts, Texas School For the Blind and Visually Impaired, and Texas School For the Deaf.” By comparison, California, with a larger overall population than Texas (and roughly 25% more total students than Texas) only has 1181 school districts (information from Ballotpedia–which also indicates that Texas has 1254 school districts).
I know in Alabama that each school district operates its own specific curricula (there are mandatory standards for graduation but one district might offer Spanish and French as elective foreign languages while another district might offer Spanish and Mandarin; one district might allow a student to graduate with four years of just basic math while another might require at least one year of algebra or geometry to be among the math courses for graduation) and transferring from one school district to another might lead to a student having to go to summer school because an elective that counted in his prior district might not count towards graduation in the new district. Even if the class would count towards the state’s overall requirement, if the new district doesn’t have that particular course offering, it can’t count towards graduation (since you don’t graduate from “the state” but rather “the school district”).
At any rate, with the numbers of school systems in Texas, that means they buy more books (*when* they buy books) than other states and if Texas rejects a book (for ANY reason, no matter how brain-dead it might be), the publisher is NOT likely to present it to any other state.
I’m proud to be a Californian. We’ve been mocked for decades but we’ve been ahead of the curve on conservation and environmental protections and it has made a difference. Where I live, and in most largely Dem sections of the state, we’ve been recycling since 1971, back when you had to separate everything, even colored glass. Yes, it was initially a pain in the ass but now it’s a way of life. With emission controls, our air quality improved. Being at the forefront of organic farming, our water quality and health have improved. Profits for big corporations is low on the scale of what’s important. Mock on. We can handle it.
I’m also proud to be Californian!
One thing to note Murf: you write SCOTUS can do nothing. Perhaps. On the other hand what if this is considered an interstate matter (interstate trade, is that the legal term?)? You cannot forbid for instance, trucks carrying things you don’t like, from traveling across your state nor across the country. It is interstate trade. I could see this SCOTUS applying that the any damned thing they please but this instance might be an easy call since auto companies sell their products across the nation. They’ve already proven the Constitution is merely toilet paper to them-at least six have done so.
I’m not a lawyer but I’ve had to take enough business, contract, etc. classes to know this could be a stumbling block to CA’s plans. I hope I am wrong and horribly wrong at that but with a scotus such as we have here, that has a majority put there by the federalist society, I don’t think I am. State’s rights with this court only applies to matters that take away civil rights from women, P.O.C., etc. If it’s about bidness, I fear they’re going to tell CA to pack sand.
Um, well, the Courts haven’t done much to interfere with states that ban mail order sales of porn or sex toys to consenting adults. If you attempt to buy “adult merchandise” from a website (or old-fashioned mail order catalog), most of the sellers will have lists of ZIP codes that they will NOT ship to because the state or local jurisdiction bans the sales of such items.
Same thing with tobacco and alcohol mail order sales. If you live in a “dry” county in a state, you can’t legally order any kind of alcoholic beverages through mail order (there aren’t as many places that have such bans on tobacco products but you do have to prove that you’re of legal age and that a legal adult will be on the premises when the order arrives). And marijuana? If it’s legal in Colorado, but illegal in Alabama, you’ll get arrested upon receipt of the merchandise (the Postal Service, FedEx and UPS are still largely coming to grips with the legal marijuana matter; they still prefer not to “participate” in the distribution but they do generally abide by local laws so if you ship from one place it’s legal to another, there’s a kind of laissez-faire attitude but, ship from where it’s legal to a place it’s not, and they’ll intercept as needed).
As long as California is setting standards for within ITS state borders, it’s not much different from the other car standards the state mandates. Consider this point, too: California laws require the notification that a product may contain a component or ingredient that California considers to be a carcinogen or may contain chemicals that should be avoided by children and/or pregnant women. Because of these laws, companies that sell stuff in California are required to post the warnings on their products. And since most of these companies also sell those same products in other states, and it’s easier to produce a single packaging rather than distinct packaging just for California, people in Alabama or Pennsylvania or North Dakota will get these products with these warning labels. (I was shopping earlier for balsamic vinegar and several of the bottles–from a couple of different labels–had a notice that basically said the product met California standards to be called vinegar.)
California can refuse to allow registration of ICE vehicles MY-2035 or later in the state.
Plus as fewer “suck-squeeze-bang-blow” vehicles are driving in the state, gas stations will go out of business, at least the gasoline portion of it, and buying fossil fuel will be more difficult than finding an EV charging station was a few years ago.
I don’t live in Cali, but I haven’t had to buy gasoline in over five years and would never go back.
Score another point for Gavin Newsom who may run for POTUS in 2024.
California dreamin is becoming a reality. The Mamas & Papas