New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by 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.

0.025% to 0.041%
Quite significant in fact...

[Stonehorsw]

Hey, open a %#}]+ topic for that, this one is to bash California for hassling everyone that likes a good old burning dinosaur car.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by 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.

Those are also bad things, and those things can have an affect on global temperatures. For instance, it has been suggested that the Little Ice Age was partially caused by deforestation in snow areas, which caused the exposed ice to act as a mirror, reflecting heat that would have been normally absorbed, and that caused a cooling effect.

The percentage is not really that important, depending on the reference range, so in this case, it is the delta that is more import. For instance, say you were to lay out in the grass on a sunny day. Your body would have a certain surface area, and we could say there was a certain column of air sitting on top of that surface area going up for miles. Now, we could put a blanket on top of you, and that volume on top of you is such a small fraction of the volume compared to the air on top of you that if we just took that volume relative to the volume of air above you then it would be so small that it wouldn't seem to matter. That blanket might be feeling hot on a warm day, but now say we decided to add a second blanket. Well, now you could start burning up. The analogy works for adding double the leaves to a tree when talking about shade. The analogy works for doubling the shade of tint.

I think you are looking at it like the CO2 is just there in such small amounts that it doesn't matter. Spit on a raging fire once, and you won't be doing anything. Spit on it twice, and you still haven't gotten any closer to putting out the fire. But we know small things can have profound effects on a system. I could put the smallest volume by percentage of a neurotoxin in someone's veins, and it would be enough to kill them, and I could put half that volume, and nothing would happen.

If we took all the CO2 in the 300 miles of atmosphere and compressed it into a 1mm layer, how dense would that layer be? I don't know. Like laying in the sun with a blanket on your body, the blanket is blocking the sun's rays, but it is also trapping heat, so what would be the effect of doubling the thickness of the blanket or doubling the density of this 1mm layer? So yes, the CO2 is only 0.04%, but it is 300 miles of stratified density of CO2, which adds up.

Water vapor is much more prevalent than CO2, making up anywhere between 0.01% to 4% of the atmosphere, and it a larger contributor to greenhouse gases, but this effect has natural and anthropic sources, yet the idea is that water vapor can have huge impacts around the world when it condenses and falls to the earth or as a greenhouse gas, even if it is a small percentage.

Acid rain is another example of something that has natural and anthropic sources, and it is also an example of something that has real, noticeable effects, yet smog, or rather, excess NO and SO2, make up a relatively small percentage of the atmosphere. It is another case where the small percentage is less important than the delta. For smog, this delta was 10-20x the levels of natural air, and it had the effect of lowering pH from 5.4 to 1.8, and if you know you pH scale, this is a logarithmic scale, so that is why it says there is a 1000x difference in acidity.

Again, it is less important to talk about the parts per million or percentage. If you start with the supposition that the historical effects of CO2 are nothing or close to nothing then zero times any small increase just doesn't matter like spitting on a forest fire, but if there are effects already, even if the quantities are small, then doubling those values could be the difference of life or death like the difference of one bee sting versus two bee stings to a person who is allergic to bee stings: allergic reaction/mild-anaphylaxis versus severe-anaphylaxis/death.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Stonehorsw

Hey, open a %#}]+ topic for that, this one is to bash California for hassling everyone that likes a good old burning dinosaur car.

I got you bro:

https://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143867


You are from Michigan. Why do you care?

California allows for classic cars to be on the road. California has a path for people to do legal engine swaps. California allows for aftermarket parts like turbochargers kits that have EO#s (the 86 has like half a dozen FI kits to choose from like Harrop, Edelbrock, JR, Works, etc). California has huge areas of the state that are exempt from smogging their car. California has exempt new cars from needing to be smogged for eight years. A person could flash their car and uninstall parts before smog and then flash it back and be good for two more years. Yes, people wouldn't be running legal just like people have illegal levels of tint; a person takes a chance on getting caught, but it isn't that big of a deal, and I think it is odd that other states bash on California.

There is this idea that whatever California does will eventually be passed on to other states. Sometimes this is true because California has such a huge car market that they influence manufactures to meet their standards, and these manufactures sometimes make California and Federal cars, and sometimes they just change to meet California's standard, so they only have to produce one car. It is also often the case that California's standards are just a few years ahead of the federal standards, so it isn't that California is influencing the rest of the market, but rather, that the market is inherently delayed behind California, so even if California didn't exist, the federal standards would move cars to tighter emission standards.

In some ways, modifications that allow for coal rolling are federally illegal and many states have made these modifications more illegal or illegal at the state level or harsher. California was not listed at the time of this article:

https://www.motorbiscuit.com/rolling...pickup-trucks/

[Stonehorsw]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I got you bro:

https://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143867


You are from Michigan. Why do you care?

California allows for classic cars to be on the road. California has a path for people to do legal engine swaps. California allows for aftermarket parts like turbochargers kits that have EO#s (the 86 has like half a dozen FI kits to choose from like Harrop, Edelbrock, JR, Works, etc). California has huge areas of the state that are exempt from smogging their car. California has exempt new cars from needing to be smogged for eight years. A person could flash their car and uninstall parts before smog and then flash it back and be good for two more years. Yes, people wouldn't be running legal just like people have illegal levels of tint; a person takes a chance on getting caught, but it isn't that big of a deal, and I think it is odd that other states bash on California.

There is this idea that whatever California does will eventually be passed on to other states. Sometimes this is true because California has such a huge car market that they influence manufactures to meet their standards, and these manufactures sometimes make California and Federal cars, and sometimes they just change to meet California's standard, so they only have to produce one car. It is also often the case that California's standards are just a few years ahead of the federal standards, so it isn't that California is influencing the rest of the market, but rather, that the market is inherently delayed behind California, so even if California didn't exist, the federal standards would move cars to tighter emission standards.

In some ways, modifications that allow for coal rolling are federally illegal and many states have made these modifications more illegal or illegal at the state level or harsher. California was not listed at the time of this article:

https://www.motorbiscuit.com/rolling...pickup-trucks/

I care for the topic because then info like this can be brought up, which clarifies questions.
Also, I care because this influences on my work, as you mentioned, it influences the whole country trend for changes due to its market size. Your state can bring good changes (and for sure did several times) or changes driven by snobs that had their own private jets and chauffeurs (not that those conditions makes someone to be a snob).
Vehicle design also has a trend for automation, which can move the OEM’s design houses to California.

And last but not least, because it’s fun.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Stonehorsw

I care for the topic because then info like this can be brought up, which clarifies questions.
Also, I care because this influences on my work, as you mentioned, it influences the whole country trend for changes due to its market size. Your state can bring good changes (and for sure did several times) or changes driven by snobs that had their own private jets and chauffeurs (not that those conditions makes someone to be a snob).
Vehicle design also has a trend for automation, which can move the OEM’s design houses to California.

And last but not least, because it’s fun.

On the topic of the thread, the synopsis is there was an executive order from the governor, but it isn’t likely to mean much as is because the mandate is so far into the future. It was only an order made to encourage the industry to consider such a mandate could and like will exist soon enough that they should start making adjustments now. Also, there isn’t any specifics about bringing cars into California from other states; it is only about new car sales. It doesn’t mention (unless I missed it) exemptions based on vehicle class or size, so in short, we know nothing and anything can change.

Irregardless of California, manufacturers have already made claims that they will go completely electric and be moving to carbon neutral manufacturing on their own, so changes are coming, but there will likely still be options for people driving ICEs for a long time, yet they may not have as many options.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by ZDan

0.025% to 0.041%
Quite significant in fact...

But it's not significant, because a CO2 molecule's warming effect is logarithmic, not linear, and each molecule added to the atmosphere has exactly half the warming effect of the previous molecule. After around 500 ppm, it's effect is maxed out - adding more won't change anything.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

But it's not significant, because a CO2 molecule's warming effect is logarithmic, not linear, and each molecule added to the atmosphere has exactly half the warming effect of the previous molecule. After around 500 ppm, it's effect is maxed out - adding more won't change anything.

??? "Warming effect is logarithmic" doesn't mean that every molecule added has "exactly half the warming effect of the previous molecule", it doesn't take much thinking to realize how ridiculous that claim is. I mean, do you really think that the 2nd additional molecule had half the effect of the 1st? If so then by the 10th molecule the effect was less than 0.1%.

You can be on a technically "logarithmic" curve and still have a nearly linear relationship. For *sure* on a "molecule by molecule" scale, it's linear.
https://skepticalscience.com/why-glo...ccelerate.html

[Irace86.2.0]

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

[url]Are EVs the Problem? video

Interesting, but no real surprises there, for me at least.

I'll be honest though, this plays almost 0% into my purchase of a vehicle, and I suspect it is true for a lot of the buying product. Should it, yes, does it, no.

I liked that he addressed the "yea, but my car is still being used" scenario. I did think that immediately. I'm not sure his answer was sufficient but to some extent he was correct, you really can't know.

[Irace86.2.0]

I like that he provides a basic breakdown that shows that for most people, a new EV is still better than keeping an existing car.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I like that he provides a basic breakdown that shows that for most people, a new EV is still better than keeping an existing car.

Well, not really. He shows its more environmentally sound to do so, but doesn't really show that overall its a better solution. Buying a new/different car is rarely an overall "better" solution for most folks, even if you take into account the cost of repairs. At least, not unless you keep the new car a very long time.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Well, not really. He shows its more environmentally sound to do so, but doesn't really show that overall its a better solution. Buying a new/different car is rarely an overall "better" solution for most folks, even if you take into account the cost of repairs. At least, not unless you keep the new car a very long time.

Of course. That was the point: to tackle the argument that an old car is greener than a new EV because the carbon footprint of something new is inherently higher than something that is old, but in fact, old cars will likely burn through so much fossil fuels that it offsets the carbon footprint of a new EV.

[Arthur-A]

Finally some wise words being said.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/42399/...ion-engine-ban

"We will not agree with the ban on selling fossil fuel-powered cars. It's not possible. We can't dictate here what green fanatics devised in the European Parliament."

Bravo! Hopefully other countries will drop that "carbon footprint" bullshit soon.