New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[brzlegend]

It's not a joke they believed the witches caused the mini ice age so it was true just like everything that people believe now and I'm sure people were screaming from the roof tops just like today.


If we only had some weather changing witches left, California wouldn't be complete covered in water like predicted in the 1990s, trust the science, from what year I am not sure

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I don't really get the joke

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Stonehorsw

Most, not all. Also driver behaviour, engine swaps, tires, tire pressure, lack of maintenance, vehicle age, traffic jam, bad roads, lower temperatures…

By the way. How it works for engine swap?

Yep lots of things. The exceptions might be for features like launch control or rev match, but unfortunately there isn’t a way to see if the tune adds features to a factory tune or if it is altering emission components.

In California, someone is allowed to swap the same year or newer engine into any chassis, as long as they use the factory tune and don’t modify any emission components. Then you have to go make an appointment and get signed off on your swap.

California has areas of exemption for annual renewals, and they have an eight year exemption on new vehicles before they start testing, so someone could find ways of avoiding testing if they wanted, but they take the risk of having their hood pooped and then getting sent to the state referee. Overall, the state could be far more anal than people make it out to be, but they typically try to cast their nets on the worst offenders and largest areas. If they really were anal about it then they also wouldn’t have exemptions for older vehicles like classic cars.

This legislation is mostly after people who are annoying. We live next to an intersection on the edge of town where people like to do donuts in the middle of the intersection in the middle of the day, or they like to race from the light, or you hear them fly by with super loud pops n bangs or with cat and muffler deletes. First they made the exhaust law and now they are going after pops n bangs n coal rollers. Emissions is a component, but it is probably rich people just tired of the noise pollution at 1am.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by brzlegend

It's not a joke they believed the witches caused the mini ice age so it was true just like everything that people believe now and I'm sure people were screaming from the roof tops just like today.


If we only had some weather changing witches left, California wouldn't be complete covered in water like predicted in the 1990s, trust the science, from what year I am not sure

Well, I just posted something refuting that theory because not all areas were feeling the same effects of the little ice age, yet they were still have witch trials suggesting weather wasn’t the chief or only cause.

Regardless of what you believe about average global temperatures or changes in weather phenomenon. Do you think these numbers and trends are sustainable and will have no impact if left unchecked?







Remember when the world was burning a giant hole in our ozone? That was a big problem. We worked globally to stop the trend by reducing chlorofluorocarbon emissions. I don’t really get why people seemed to understand then what they refuse to accept now.





https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbc...amp/ncna835971

The data, from NASA's Earth-orbiting Aura satellite, indicate that depletion of the protective ozone layer over Antarctica was about 20 percent lower during the 2016 Antarctic winter (early July to mid-September) than during the same period in 2005.

Experts say the mending of the hole is attributable to series of international regulations on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) — the manmade chemicals known to promote the breakdown of ozone molecules (O3) — that were adopted beginning in 1987. CFCs were once found in aerosol sprays, refrigerants, solvents, and other products.

"We may have turned the corner on O3 depletion," Dr. Susan Strahan, an atmospheric scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and the lead author of a paper about the satellite data, told MACH in an email. "But it's important that all the nations of the world continue to abide by the Montreal Protocol (and its amendments) that ban CFC production."

Strahan said the recovery would continue at a slow pace because CFCs are long-lived molecules that persist in the atmosphere for decades. "We hope to see the O3 hole gone between 2060 and 2080," she added.

https://www.sciencediplomacy.org/art...treal-protocol

Here is a good history on the politics of the ozone layer. There are parallels and distinct differences offering explanations as to why climate science on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions has garnered more resistance.

[pgranberg11]

the sad part behind this climate change is that it isn't even the cars. have you guys seen how much pollution BOATS produce??? and EPA doesn't say shit about that.

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by pgranberg11

the sad part behind this climate change is that it isn't even the cars. have you guys seen how much pollution BOATS produce??? and EPA doesn't say shit about that.

How many people have boats vs how many people have cars?
Gotta go after the bigger fish!


hm....sounds somewhat familiar.....

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by pgranberg11

the sad part behind this climate change is that it isn't even the cars. have you guys seen how much pollution BOATS produce??? and EPA doesn't say shit about that.

not just any boats, but international-flagged shipping vessels.. we really need better global epa laws...

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by pgranberg11

the sad part behind this climate change is that it isn't even the cars. have you guys seen how much pollution BOATS produce??? and EPA doesn't say shit about that.

It is going to take every industry including personal transportation vehicles, which are much more than shipping at 2-3%, but sure, we can improve shipping too. Some will take longer and require different considerations. We won’t be able to go to electric jumbo jets anytime soon. Maybe biofuels or hydrogen. That is what the shipping industry might do or just change their behavior.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mar...o-go-green/amp

The IMO calculated that a speed reduction of just 10 percent across the global fleet by 2010 would result in a 23.3 percent reduction in emissions. Hapag-Lloyd found that slowing some of their ships by just five knots, or 20 percent, resulted in savings of around 50 percent on fuel costs. Restrictions on vessel speed would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, black carbon, nitrogen oxides, and nitrous oxide.

https://europe.oceana.org/en/shipping-pollution-1

[brzlegend]

Didnt I read that plants need CO2 or has the science changed on that also.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

It is going to take every industry including personal











transportation vehicles, which are much more than shipping at 2-3%, but sure, we can improve shipping too. Some will take longer and require different considerations. We won’t be able to go to electric jumbo jets anytime soon. Maybe biofuels or hydrogen. That is what the shipping industry might do or just change their behavior.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mar...o-go-green/amp



https://europe.oceana.org/en/shipping-pollution-1

[NARFALICIOUS]

Originally Posted by brzlegend

Didnt I read that plants need CO2 or has the science changed on that also.

Yes, they do need it.
And people need food and water, but I'm not going to eat 100 burgers in one day.

[brzlegend]

Originally Posted by NARFALICIOUS

Yes, they do need it.
And people need food and water, but I'm not going to eat 100 burgers in one day.

But you could feed more people or in this case feed more plants.








A forest is always cooler than a parking lot.

[ZDan]

Plants are fine with 250 ppm CO2, they don't need "more CO2".
Of course we should be planting the bezeezus out of plants/trees etc. One of the biggest things we could do would be to stop deforesting and begin reforesting.

[soundman98]

LESS CONCRETE JUNGLE MORE JUNGLE BOOK

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by brzlegend

Didnt I read that plants need CO2 or has the science changed on that also.

Well, plants do, but everything has a toxicity limit. Oxygen for us can be over-prescribed. CO2 can’t go up indefinitely, or we would die. Our hemoglobin has a higher affinity for CO2, so we would literally suffocate. This happens when fermenting tanks get a leak and someone gets too close. We would see other health problems before that time though.

Even if someone says that the CO2 levels now aren’t enough to cause many problems for the planet, most would agree that we can’t continue to add millions of tons of CO2 and methane to the atmosphere indefinitely. A reasonable person would concede that eventually there would be an environmental impact. We really only differ on whether there is an effect now, not on the eventuality of things to come without change.

This article talks about how higher levels of CO2 could be bad for global warming because high CO2 leads to thick leaves and that seems to be a problem.

https://www.washington.edu/news/2018...aves-high-co2/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/yalecli...than-it-helps/

[WolfpackS2k]

I'd argue that deforestation and habitat destruction is far worse for the planet that the increase of CO2 from 0.00025 to 0.00050 percent. Not even sure how you can argue that with a straight face.