I pit plans that involve no planning

[adaher]

That plan is equivalent to “First we’ll take Basra, then we’ll take Baghdad, then we’ll get Saddam, then we’ll install democracy.”

You don’t seem to recognize the difference between a goal and a plan to achieve a goal. California is long on goals, short on plans to achieve them.

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

That plan is equivalent to “First we’ll take Basra, then we’ll take Baghdad, then we’ll get Saddam, then we’ll install democracy.”

You don’t seem to recognize the difference between a goal and a plan to achieve a goal. California is long on goals, short on plans to achieve them.

Nope, you seem to not recognize that there are real actions behind those plans.

Zero-Emission Vehicle Program | California Air Resources Board

Market Support & ZEV Collaboration

Implementation of the ACC program requires a variety of government actions beyond regulatory development in order to encourage ZEV sales and usage, remove market barriers and establish necessary charging/refueling infrastructure. As outlined in California’s ZEV Action Plan state agencies and legislation play an important role in promoting growth in the ZEV market, such as through incentives like the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project or single-occupant access to carpool lanes as well as investments in hydrogen fueling stations and fast-charging stations. Collaborating with state, national and international partners is a key program strategy as well that helps address challenges to ZEV market expansion in California and beyond, including technology development and cost reduction.

The efforts to support Zero emision vehicles and the infrastructure to service them is part of it.

Face it, you are more like Elmer Fudd still running on air and not wanting to see that you are not on the ground.

And it is still noticeable that you are not capable of admitting that you also got wrong the idea about who actually used and continue to use politics to prevent change.

[adaher]

These plans do not come close to meeting California’s goals. If they are lucky, they might get them to their near term goal of 25% reduction. It’s not even close to sufficient.

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

These plans do not come close to meeting California’s goals. If they are lucky, they might get them to their near term goal of 25% reduction. It’s not even close to sufficient.

Based on what you have ignored so far your point here is just crap. (not just for the knee jerk contrariarism, but for the pedantic reason that you seem to not notice what is what I’m citing there, those plans are what California is doing (after babbling about how there was no plan) and clearly show the levels of your ignorance.

[running_coach]

@adaher

These plans do not come close to meeting California’s goals. If they are lucky, they might get them to their near term goal of 25% reduction. It’s not even close to sufficient.

So rather than get at least the 25%, just give up, right?

[adaher]

No. You do whatever you can do that doesn’t damage the economy until you can do something better. Damaging the economy to get from 8 degrees warming by 2100 to 7 degrees warming doesn’t make any difference. That’s what I mean about politics being a poor way to fight climate change. “We reduced emissions by 25%! 50%!” Politicians love to be able to cite numbers like that and voters like to hear them. The Earth? Doesn’t care so much. Kills us anyway. We either get to net zero or we die.

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

No. You do whatever you can do that doesn’t damage the economy until you can do something better. Damaging the economy to get from 8 degrees warming by 2100 to 7 degrees warming doesn’t make any difference. That’s what I mean about politics being a poor way to fight climate change. “We reduced emissions by 25%! 50%!” Politicians love to be able to cite numbers like that and voters like to hear them. The Earth? Doesn’t care so much. Kills us anyway. We either get to net zero or we die.

:rolleyes:

The time to do a lot was yesterday, (and again one had to thank republicans line Inhofe for the failure to start earlier. I remember reading a lot of reports that right now there is no way to prevent some changes, but the reason to act is to prevent us running into even worse scenarios.

And once again your point about the economy is poppycock. And worse of all, old and stale.

https://thinkprogress.org/would-limiting-carbon-emissions-destroy-the-economy-ac7c36e89872

This is the perennial response when lawmakers try to clean up the environment, cut pollution, or reduce greenhouse gas emissions: you can do it, but only if you’re prepared to wreck the economy.

People or the environment. Jobs or the planet. That is the tradeoff.

There’s just one problem: the historical record provides scant evidence this tradeoff exists. America entered the environmental regulation businesses in earnest in 1970, with the creation of the EPA and the passage of major legislation like the Clean Air Act. Since then, a reliable pattern has emerged: new regulations are proposed, warnings of crushing costs and job losses ensue, and then — if the regulation survives — little of the prophesied destruction comes to pass.

“Most of the time,” according to Brian McLean, a nearly four-decade EPA veteran, “the cost is lower than what people thought.”