New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

There's a big difference between signing a paper and actually doing something.

If that is the case then there would have been no reason for Trump to have pulled the US from the Paris Accords before Biden reversed that executive order.

The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. It was adopted by 196 Parties at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris, France, on 12 December 2015. It entered into force on 4 November 2016.

https://unfccc.int/process-and-meeti...aris-agreement

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

electric to their main buildings, yes. but all the farmers i know are renting farmland without power/water sometimes 45 minutes away from their property with the barn.

“Farmers” or growers. Tell the truth.

[soundman98]

my brothers wife's family is 2nd generation farmers. mostly onions, corn, and potatos i believe.

the people i hang out with don't do anything with weeds except spray with weed killer.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

If that is the case then there would have been no reason for Trump to have pulled the US from the Paris Accords before Biden reversed that executive order.


https://unfccc.int/process-and-meeti...aris-agreement

Lol, it was an entirely perception-based decision, yes.

Who enforces the Paris accords? What penalties does it impose for not abiding by it? It's pretty much a tsktsk shame on you thing. That's why the US was even able to just pull out of it. No ramifications therefore not really legally binding.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Lol, it was an entirely perception-based decision, yes.

Who enforces the Paris accords? What penalties does it impose for not abiding by it? It's pretty much a tsktsk shame on you thing. That's why the US was even able to just pull out of it. No ramifications therefore not really legally binding.

It’s a treaty, and like all treaties , it is governed by international law, but yes, it is a loose verbal contract.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

It’s a treaty, and like all treaties , it is governed by international law, but yes, it is a loose verbal contract.

More like a good faith arrangement, but sure.

[Capt Spaulding]

The pull-out from Paris as well as the re-entry were largely symbolic. Trump’s move intended to resonate with his base and Biden’s to fulfill a promise to environmentalists.

The major problem is treaties are only as good as the signatories’ word. If they confront a conflict between the promises they make in the treaty and political expediency? You have 1 guess.

[Irace86.2.0]

This systematic review and meta-analysis showed treaties have been mostly ineffective with a note and discussion that international trade and finance treaties have been successful. There is talk about what would make an effective treaty.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2122854119

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Don’t have political sway? I think you would be surprised how much political sway the ag industry has. They get massive subsidies already. Oprah got sued by the meet industry and nearly lost gor just saying she wouldn’t eat a burger.

But you know, they are going EV and autonomous. They do have electricity running to farms, but for sure hydrogen will be a future option along with renewable fuels.

https://www.farmanddairy.com/news/oh...er/738621.html

Interview with John Deere discussing moving to green technology.

https://www.agweb.com/news/machinery...ohn-deeres-cto

But are they doing anything about sourcing their fertilizers another way? The modern farming industry is entirely dependent upon artificially synthesized fertilizers, a process done with fossil fuel.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Well there is the UN, and all but a few countries didn’t sign the Paris Climate Agreement, so it isn’t like “rich” countries are the only ones on board with reducing their carbon footprint.

The UN has close to no actual authority. It's just an illusion, maintained by countries backing them up. If those countries (primarily the US) decide not to, really not much they can do.

The Paris Accords, an unenforceable piece of paper, meant little.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

If that is the case then there would have been no reason for Trump to have pulled the US from the Paris Accords before Biden reversed that executive order.


https://unfccc.int/process-and-meeti...aris-agreement

Treaties in the US mean nothing without the ratification of such by the Senate.

[Lantanafrs2]

For the most part, today's affordable evs are a great place to throw your covid masks and bud light cans.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

But are they doing anything about sourcing their fertilizers another way? The modern farming industry is entirely dependent upon artificially synthesized fertilizers, a process done with fossil fuel.

Green ammonia is possible. Energy is used to extract nitrogen from air, and hydrogen is added, except the energy and hydrogen come from green sources. In fact, green ammonia is being considered for more than just a fossil-fuel, fertilizer replacement, but as a means of transporting and storing energy better than hydrogen.

https://www.freethink.com/transporta...red-semi-truck

https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show...&postcount=714

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

The UN has close to no actual authority. It's just an illusion, maintained by countries backing them up. If those countries (primarily the US) decide not to, really not much they can do.

The Paris Accords, an unenforceable piece of paper, meant little.

My response was in reference to Soundman's statements that there is no single global governing body, and it didn't describe the extent to which the UN governs. I wasn't trying to say it was the same as traditional governments, but it is a global body that does govern in its own way. Does the UN have powers over countries like the US has over its states, or even like the EU has over its countries? No, but it is as close as we have to an international central government. If we ever have a global governing body then it will probably arise from the UN.

https://www.un.org/un70/en/content/70ways/index.html

https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/peace-and-security

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Treaties in the US mean nothing without the ratification of such by the Senate.

The US has a history of executive agreements/treaties that have components that are internationally binding and non-binging. The extent to which they are binding is what determines if they require ratification. The US has failed to comply or meet agreements in treaties that were ratified, and there is little recourse if the US or anyone decides to not follow a treaty besides war or sanctions, so in general, as stated earlier, treaties don't mean much anyways without agreement and cooperation, which is true of lots of things about how societies govern themselves, but I regress.

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-...tional-1563552

https://www.govexec.com/oversight/20...omises/148179/

[Lantanafrs2]

https://www.foxnews.com/auto/electri...garages-report

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

https://www.foxnews.com/auto/electri...garages-report

Cars in general are heavier these days, although EVs definitely up the stakes.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Cars in general are heavier these days, although EVs definitely up the stakes.

The car landscape has been *heavily* tilted towards ginormous trucks and SUVs because they have gotten huge breaks in CAFE standards. More recently CAFE regs were tweaked to give larger cars a break, encouraging automakers to make bigger/heavier cars.

"Average" vehicle weights now are thus MUCH higher than they were 30 years ago. And it's not "safety standards" that caused all the weight gain, advancements in materials, fabrication techniques, and analysis have allowed great advancements in safety without large impact on vehicle weight (see MX-5 and FT86 weight now vs. Miata and 240SX weights 30 years ago).

Those CAFE breaks should never have existed, should be removed.

Going forward with all vehicles, electric or no, I would not be opposed to having a tax imposed on vehicles weighing more than, say, 3600 lb. if heavier vehicles is a concern. Or outright limits on "normal" personal/family vehicle weights, beyond which additional fees and taxes and possibly licensing requirements are imposed.