backtop


Print 65 comment(s) - last by Mint.. on Dec 17 at 2:29 PM

CARB is taking public comment on proposed standards now

California has been working with the federal government on the CAFE fuel economy standards while at the same time working inside the state government to improve the air quality. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has now confirmed more plans to help improve the air quality in the state and that plan involves mandates to get more electric vehicles onto the market. The plan calls for 1.4 million more electric and plug-in vehicles as well as hydrogen powered cars to hit the roads. 
 
The new standards are expected to cover 2017 to 2025 model year vehicles. The plan wants to reduce greenhouse gas emission from vehicles by 34% compared with the levels set for 2016 and to drive more purchases of EVs. CARB says that the new rules will add $1,900 to the price of a new vehicle by 2025, but the efficiency will save $6,000 in fuel costs over the vehicles life.
 

Tesla Model S [Source: Tesla Motors]
 
If the 1.4 million zero emission or plug-in hybrid vehicle number is reached that would mean one in seven or 15% of all new vehicles sold would be that type of vehicle. Automakers selling cars in California would need to make 15.4% of their entire fleets ZEVs to meet the proposed standards. The rules would also force all passenger cars and light trucks sold in California to reach the state super-ultra-low emission vehicle standards by 2025. If approved by the California Office of Administrative Law, the regulations would become law in 2012.
 
The proposed rules by the State of California aren't good enough for the Union of Concerned Scientists reports the NYT. This union wants to increase the proposed standard by 30% and put 1.8 million zero emission vehicles on the roads by 2025. A public comment period on CARBs proposal is going until December 12.
 
The full CARB proposal is here in PDF form.

Sources: NYT, Energy Efficiency News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Awesome
By FITCamaro on 12/15/2011 1:55:52 PM , Rating: 5
I can't wait to pay for it.




RE: Awesome
By abzillah on 12/15/11, Rating: -1
RE: Awesome
By Spuke on 12/15/2011 2:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
Air quality is an order of magnitude better than it ever was. If you don't remember the air quality alerts we used to have then you have no idea how bad it was. At least now you can go outside everyday of the year. Improvements are always desired but it's not life threatening anymore.


RE: Awesome
By sigmatau on 12/15/11, Rating: 0
RE: Awesome
By tastyratz on 12/16/2011 9:12:44 AM , Rating: 4
It doesn't matter, they are barking up the wrong tailpipe.
Modern vehicles put out such minimal emissions now compared to their predecessors that it almost doesn't matter. Old cars put out SIGNIFICANTLY more, hell 2012 civic vs 1991 pits out 36% less ghg. But even more so commercial vehicles like tractor trailers are the worst offenders with the least regulation. Cars have become blood from a stone.

Let's step out of that realm again because it is STILL minute in comparison to other sources like with industry and power generation. California still has 10 operational coal power plants (2005 source, might not be up to date). Why not work to shutting them down and becoming a coal free state?

According to the epa statistics (src http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ind_roa... ) , vehicles are still only 1/3 of emission totals. Where is your crackdown california on the other 2/3rds if you are so concerned?


RE: Awesome
By Mint on 12/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: Awesome
By FITCamaro on 12/15/2011 2:21:43 PM , Rating: 1
Fine then you pay for it. If the people of Commifornia want it, they can pay for it. I shouldn't have to.


RE: Awesome
By retrospooty on 12/15/2011 4:32:58 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty sure you dont have to. CA puts more money into the US economy than any other state and more money into the Fed than any other state, both by a large margin.

Granted they mismanage the hell out of what they have, but they arent a burden on the other states.


RE: Awesome
By Paj on 12/16/2011 7:42:17 AM , Rating: 1
This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on DOT roads, to my house which has not bumed down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the Internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALlSMin medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.


RE: Awesome
By Dr of crap on 12/16/2011 8:39:19 AM , Rating: 3
Priceless !


RE: Awesome
By KoS on 12/16/2011 10:39:37 AM , Rating: 3
And you just proved how much "control" a govt has or rather can have over the people. Just put in the "right" people.

I just can't wait for a "government agency" to help me chose my clothes to wear, what car I can drive, what food I can or can't eat, what time I can go to bed and get up, what type of employment I'm able to do....

All the good government does now, more would be even better!


RE: Awesome
By tng on 12/16/2011 12:57:27 PM , Rating: 3
Yep.

The really funny thing about his post is that he thinks that his food and medicines are safe because of the FDA. Also I guess he doesn't know that the Federal Reserve Bank is not a government agency, and the EPA approved fuel he puts in his tank is less efficient due to EPA meddling.


RE: Awesome
By Ringold on 12/16/2011 1:32:01 PM , Rating: 3
He probably thinks it was logical and, overall, absolute gold. He lists a bunch of smaller government operations, like NOAA (compared to the size of budgetary monsters like Social Security) and the safety-mandating FDA, which basically sets minimum standards and once in a blue moon performs an inspection but otherwise leaves the free market totally alone, and then closes it out trying to connect those things to total government control of a vast portion of the economy - medicine. Control complete with price controls, etc.

And no mention of colossal government failures when price controls and market domination has been attempted before, both by the US and other nations throughout history. That'd require education and critical analysis, though.

Not even a mention of how the FDA is downright lethargic and still occasionally screws up compared to other regulators in the rich world! Government can do no wrong.


RE: Awesome
By tng on 12/16/2011 3:44:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He probably thinks it was logical and, overall, absolute gold.
He also mentions the USPO that is also loosing money, and public schools who never seem to have enough money either, although here in CA it is the largest single budget item for the state. Not to mention that for the most part private schools beat out public in testing.


RE: Awesome
By tanjali on 12/15/2011 2:23:43 PM , Rating: 2
I am confident price of batteries are high politically the same like quality of them, can’t understand paying so much for quality EV, just because you have to pay half of it for a battery. I won’t even go about charging time, miles per charge and durability of cells.


RE: Awesome
By MeesterNid on 12/15/2011 2:25:12 PM , Rating: 3
How are they going to be 0 emissions? Are they generating electricity exclusively from solar power to power these cars? Because just because the vehicle itself doesn't emit any harmful bi-products doesn't mean the process to generate electricity to fuel it didn't.

So if you're okay with the man behind the curtain telling you it's 0 emissions you're set to go on living in your emerald city.


RE: Awesome
By Shig on 12/15/2011 3:10:31 PM , Rating: 3
California

47% - Gas

20% - Hydro

18% - Nuclear

7% - Geothermal

3% - Biomass

2% - Wind

1% - Oil

<1% - Coal

<1% - Solar

<1% - Other

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story...


RE: Awesome
By autoboy on 12/15/2011 3:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, California has pretty clean energy compared to the rest of the country. In some states new clean gas cars are better for the environment than electric. But, the fact that California is mostly gas is also why the energy prices are high.

Thanks for that list.


RE: Awesome
By TSS on 12/15/2011 4:15:11 PM , Rating: 2
Great, clear the air but Frack up the ground.

Clean energy my foot.


RE: Awesome
By Ringold on 12/16/2011 1:35:19 PM , Rating: 1
Feel free to suggest another way to get that 47% reliably, relatively cheaply, around the clock, and for an installation price that doesn't destroy an already weak state economy.


RE: Awesome
By JediJeb on 12/15/2011 6:10:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yes but they are wanting to eliminate Green House Gasses and those natural gas power plants still emit CO2, just no way around that. If CO2 is considered a pollutant then the natural gas plants are not as clean as the make them out to be. Also the Hydrogen cars should not be considered in this program since it is proven that Water vapor is a green house gas, so those cars would be polluting also. Then of course there is the proposal to outlaw all nuclear plants in California that they are trying to put on the ballot which would knock out a good percentage of their power production, I wonder what will take it's place to help charge all these new EVs?

Of course I am being cynical but it just goes to show that someone can find something bad in just about anything. Is switching to more efficient power and products a good thing, sure, but is it always worth the cost associated with the switch, not always.


RE: Awesome
By tng on 12/16/2011 3:40:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course I am being cynical but it just goes to show that someone can find something bad in just about anything.
Since I exhale CO2 can I be fined by the EPA? I must be the cause of global warming...


RE: Awesome
By amanojaku on 12/15/2011 3:20:57 PM , Rating: 1
Both of you should read the proposal. Nowhere did I see a mention of taxes. Instead, this program will raise the purchase prices of cars, as manufacturers will be forced to increase the number of non-ICE cars in their fleets. The expectation is that the non-ICE cars will be cheaper to own over time because of lower operating costs. Note that the document occasionally uses words like "can" and "could"...

I really wanted to address the issue of the environment. You need to rid yourself of the fallacy that non-ICE cars are "better" for the environment. All cars need a power source, and most, if not all, of the cars will be powered by electricity. Since we don't have a significant nuclear power infrastructure, that means coal and gas. After all, solar, tidal, and wind farms are rare, too. It's been proven that coal and gas plants are worse than tail pipe emissions: those plants produce radioactive ash, among other things.


RE: Awesome
By Shig on 12/15/2011 3:35:31 PM , Rating: 1
@amanojaku - http://www.evdl.org/docs/powerplant.pdf

That is a paper written to refute most of your claims.

You also left out of the most important points, foreign oil addiction. The vast majority of Americans believe reducing our dependance on foreign oil is a top priority, which this program will do.


RE: Awesome
By kattanna on 12/15/2011 3:19:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I can't wait to pay for it.


LOL when i was out visiting the parents over thanksgiving they showed me the new solar install on the roof, and i turned to my dad and said "glad i could help you buy it"


RE: Awesome
By idiot77 on 12/15/11, Rating: 0
Right....
By tng on 12/15/2011 3:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Automakers selling cars in California would need to make 15.4% of their entire fleets ZEVs to meet the proposed standards.
Any bets this will work as well as the last time CARB tried to tell automakers that by Y2K, 10% of the cars they sold in California had to be EV's or they would not be allowed to sell any cars in the state?

That worked out really well for them. None of them understand technology and the time frames it would take to make a really feasible EV possible. They also did not understand the public demand for such vehicles or more probably didn't care. Seems they still don't understand anything.

They want Zero Emissions Vehicles only? In other words pure EV's, not the Volt, not a Prius or Insight. By the deadline pure EV's will still not have the range to make them practical for even 15% of the CA population.




RE: Right....
By kattanna on 12/15/2011 3:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
if you look over the linked PDF they have a chart in which they think by 2050 over 50% of all vehicles will be hydrogen fuel cell powered, with pure EV's being about 30%

while 38 years is a long time, im still not buying it


RE: Right....
By tng on 12/15/2011 3:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, Hydrogen I think has more promise than pure electric, but also has issues, although I think that in the next decade we will see at least 1 or 2 Hydrogen fuel cell cars show up for limited sale in SoCal maybe.

Hydrogen has different problems such as where do you fill up, and mass produced Hydrogen is really not energy efficient. However I love the concept.


RE: Right....
By kattanna on 12/16/2011 9:52:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hydrogen has different problems such as where do you fill up, and mass produced Hydrogen is really not energy efficient. However I love the concept.


yep, its a sexy idea, expect for the fact that hydrogen has a really crappy energy density.

when they can build a hybrid battery/capacitor that can store a charge to take a vehicle 300+ miles and then quickly recharge like filling up your tank, then that will be game over for most other passenger vehicle types, except for collectors LOL


RE: Right....
By Natch on 12/15/2011 4:10:38 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I'm quite certain that when that point during the year, their state government declares that all further auto sales for the year MUST BE zero emission vehicles, the people of California will happily queue up to buy something other than what they really wanted to buy.

The lawmakers are well intentioned.....but primarily, STUPID.


RE: Right....
By JediJeb on 12/15/2011 6:14:35 PM , Rating: 2
If is says 15% "Sold in California" and not "Registered in California" what would stop people from going to Nevada to buy their cars?


RE: Right....
By Spuke on 12/15/2011 8:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If is says 15% "Sold in California" and not "Registered in California" what would stop people from going to Nevada to buy their cars?
Nothing as far as I know.


RE: Right....
By Natch on 12/16/2011 10:01:58 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure about these days, but back in the 80's and early 90's, when I was stationed there (Navy), if you brought a car into the state, from another state, and could not prove to the state of California that your vehicle had California emissions, you paid a smog "fee" (fine) to the state. They felt that this would discourage people from doing the whole "buy in Oregon, Nevada or Arizona" thing.


RE: Right....
By Spuke on 12/16/2011 6:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and could not prove to the state of California that your vehicle had California emissions, you paid a smog "fee" (fine) to the state
That was declared unconstitutional and some of those fees were paid back to individuals.


RE: Right....
By tng on 12/16/2011 12:46:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I know a few people here in the North end of the state that have vacation homes in Tahoe on the Nevada side and register their vehicles at that address, even though they only use them in CA. This is really popular with high end cars where registration fees in CA are based on a percentage of the cars value and states like NV and OR are just a $40 fee for 2 years.


RE: Right....
By vincestone on 12/16/2011 2:01:40 PM , Rating: 2
The registration fee her in Nevada is around 40 dollars, but they add other fees that are directly based on how much your car is worth. It costs me about 60 dollars to register my 89 ford truck but my wifes 2005 Toyota costs about 200 dollars.


RE: Right....
By jimbojimbo on 12/16/2011 3:26:42 PM , Rating: 1
So basically middle to lower income families with one home in California have to register it in California but the rich who may have a second home in another state can register it there. Excellent!! The rich continue to get richer and the poor and middle class get bent over like usual.


RE: Right....
By tng on 12/16/2011 3:38:50 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I can't call it a Rich-vs-Poor thing really. However as more and more successful businesses leave CA for other states with lower taxes/fees and less regulation, everybody left behind just pays more and more, cause you know the politicians will not stop increasing their spending.

I personally know of four people who have moved their small businesses out of CA for other more friendly states because of the costs of having any business in CA. One in particular was able to move to Florida where he got a 10K square foot facility with a house on property (5 acres) for the same price as 1500sf was costing him in CA. He moved all the employees that wanted to go there on his dime.


RE: Right....
By Solandri on 12/15/2011 5:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Any bets this will work as well as the last time CARB tried to tell automakers that by Y2K, 10% of the cars they sold in California had to be EV's or they would not be allowed to sell any cars in the state?

This leaves CARB with a huge credibility problem with auto manufacturers too. The first time it happened, GM was the only company which actually built an electric vehicle (the EV1). Just as they were on the cusp of cornering the California automobile market, CARB pulled the rug out from under them and rescinded the requirement. GM destroyed all the EV1s in response (and ended up being blamed for killing the electric car by people who were unwilling to blame government).

With that kind of track record, my bet is on all the automakers doing absolutely nothing to comply with CARB's requirements. And when the deadline approaches, they'll all say the technology just isn't ready, and please extend the deadline or rescind the requirement.


RE: Right....
By JediJeb on 12/15/2011 6:18:14 PM , Rating: 2
Funny thing would be if CARB holds them to it and they just stop selling cars in California. That would pretty much stagnate the percentage of efficient vehicles in the state and foil CARB's plans as well as make most Californians rather upset.


RE: Right....
By aspade on 12/16/2011 10:38:35 AM , Rating: 2
On the verge of cornering the market? Please. GM built 1100 cars in 4 years and lost in the order of a million dollars on each of them.

Nobody killed the electric car because it was never alive as a remotely viable product.


RE: Right....
By tng on 12/16/2011 12:50:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
On the verge of cornering the market? Please. GM built 1100 cars in 4 years and lost in the order of a million dollars on each of them.
Nobody said it was a large market.

I think that Honda had a EV out at that time as well, basically did the same thing as GM did when CARB retracted it's edict...


RE: Right....
By Concillian on 12/15/2011 9:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
It's time to lay off some people in CARB.

I have seen the LA basin on smoggy days in the 80s. It was bad. CARB made it better. Much better. I fully understand that CARB has dramatically improved my quality of life and that of my children.

But it's time to say enough is enough. The regs are starting to get overwhelming. CARB needs to go into "sustain the current regs" mode and stop trying to justify it's existence by forcing (or attempting for force) rather ridiculous regulations.


It would be far better to get 1.4 million...
By Beenthere on 12/15/2011 2:38:17 PM , Rating: 2
...illegal aliens per year off the roads and shipped back to Mexico. Ignoring reality will not fix the problems. EVs are not the answer.




RE: It would be far better to get 1.4 million...
By retrospooty on 12/16/2011 6:31:05 AM , Rating: 1
I hate to break it to you, but illegal aliens are not "the problem". They are a problem way down on the list of problems we face. There are far more important things to worry about today than sending away the guy who washes the dishes at your favorite restaurants.


RE: It would be far better to get 1.4 million...
By KoS on 12/16/2011 10:44:15 AM , Rating: 2
Ya it's not a problem, when our society is being split between spanish and english speaking. It won't be a problem, no balkinize country at all! Won't it be grand when parts of the US can't to speak to the other part!


RE: It would be far better to get 1.4 million...
By retrospooty on 12/16/2011 5:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
Nice delusion. What on earth makes you think that would ever happen? If you think that irrationally, there is no helping you, maybe you should find a country that suits you better, like Germany.

Do I need to remind you how this county was founded and the principals it was founded on? It was pretty much English, Irish, French, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, German, and many many other cultures coming together under one united ideal. So, if we weren't split then, we wont split now. Get a grip and open your mind just a crack, it may help.


RE: It would be far better to get 1.4 million...
By Spuke on 12/16/2011 6:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What on earth makes you think that would ever happen? If you think that irrationally
What's irrational about a class of people with birth rates dwarfing the legal citizens? If we continue this path, they'll outnumber us eventually. These people are largely uneducated and mostly perform menial labor at bend over pay. Sorry but this reeks of indentured servitude at best. If they were educated, they could choose but we're taking advantage of their ignorance (and their culture). I want action on illegal immigration simply because it's not fair to them.


By retrospooty on 12/17/2011 7:51:54 AM , Rating: 2
Do you even hear yourself? "a class of people" - birth rates" - "uneducated" - "menial labor" - "I want action on illegal immigration simply because it's not fair to them."

Do you realize how uneducated and narrow minded you sound, all while thinking you are somehow superior to these people?

I think you need an American history lesson as badly as KOS does. Not just history, but what this country is all about and what it means to be an American (hint, its not about being afraid of brown people that have a higher birth rate than you do).


How to solve pollution.
By quiksilvr on 12/15/2011 2:26:17 PM , Rating: 2
Set up a system of telework schedules to decrease the number of cars on the road.

For example, lets say you have four sections in a city. At any day of the week, only TWO of those sections would have people driving to work, and rotate those sections. Make sure those sections aren't close to each other, because that would defeat the purpose.

Doing this will not only save BILLIONS in electric and gas cost, but will:
1) Decrease stress and tension in the office
2) Increase efficiency of work done in the office and allows people to run important errands that require the need to be home
3) Decrease the amount of traffic accidents and maintenance needed on roads.




RE: How to solve pollution.
By JediJeb on 12/15/2011 6:23:46 PM , Rating: 2
I bet you that 2) would counteract 3) as those people would be out running around driving even farther than they would have driving to work.

Also I can see cashiers, mechanics, assembly line workers, farmers, ect working from home instead of driving to work. This only works if the majority of people are office workers, which really isn't true, and I bet office workers don't top 50% of the workforce even in the middle of Los Angeles.


hmmm
By KoS on 12/15/2011 5:39:42 PM , Rating: 2
Can Cal's power grid handle this? From memory, doesn't Cal have more brown-outs/black-outs than any other state? And they want to add to the problem.




RE: hmmm
By Concillian on 12/15/2011 9:50:10 PM , Rating: 2
We had a lot of issues several years ago. I haven't seen much issue since the dot-com bust. That bust seemed to have curbed power usage long enough to shore up the grid.

The residual effects are still being felt though, as CA locked itself into rather high priced power contracts when it was in panic mode due to the summer power issues during the dot-com boom.

Also, I think the tiered pricing they adopted, coupled with already high power costs, has pushed people into installing solar panels. I personally know 5 people with solar on their house that didn't when the state was having power issues. Anyone else here from a state other than California personally know 5 people who have installed solar in the last 5 years?

Those solar installations have to help the grid quite a bit. Especially since it's typically the ones with high usage who are living in the highest priced electricity Tier who are installing the panels. It's pushing the biggest users to upgrade the grid for them.


Only $1900 additional cost per vehicle?
By Schrag4 on 12/15/2011 5:53:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
CARB says that the new rules will add $1,900 to the price of a new vehicle by 2025 , but the efficiency will save $6,000 in fuel costs over the vehicles life.


I'd love for this to become reality, but I'm not holding my breath.




By Spuke on 12/15/2011 8:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
Count on that to be grossly underestimated. The CA gov damn near lies when there's a price tag attached. I figure at least 3 times that in reality.


By Concillian on 12/15/2011 9:41:34 PM , Rating: 4
I live in California and the last thing I'll do is buy an EV.

Not because I'm a green hating redneck, or anything like that, just because it doesn't make financial sense in California.

I looked into it, even EV conversions, but in the end it came down to the cost structure of electricity in California and the tiered pricing of electricity.

If usage is moderate, electricity cost is moderate. I average I think around 13 or 14 cents a kWh. Higher than most other places in the US, but CA made some bad long term contracts deal when it's grid was overtaxed, and we're stuck with that. However any additional energy used is priced 30-40 cents a kWh because of how the tiers are structured
Tier 1 ~11 cents
Tier 2 ~13 cents
Tier 3 *30+ cents*
Tier 4 close to 40 cents.

For the average household that watches TV and doesn't use AC and such, they'll push into the 30 cent tier, but barely.

Adding an EV, all the extra energy used comes from the high tiers. So what may make financial sense compared to gasoline in a state where you are paying 9 cents a kWh, can easily make no sense at all in California where that EV may cost 3-4 times as much to use as any other state.

So how exactly are they going to push an EV on me? Initial cost is higher, "fuel" cost is higher than a 25 MPG car that costs half as much, convenience is lower... umm why would I want to pay for this?

The only way to run an EV economically in CA is to add solar panels to your house to offset the power consumed by the vehicle... so now your upfront costs for an EV increase another $~20k or so? Sign me up.




LOL
By kattanna on 12/15/2011 3:17:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A public comment period on CARBs proposal is going until December 12.


thats awesome considering its already the 15th




It won't fly
By autoboy on 12/15/2011 3:32:57 PM , Rating: 2
California tried this before and it didn't work. They had to relax their rules because there was nothing the public would buy.

I can't wait till the rest of the country has to bail out California. It's gonna be great when we go bankrupt as all our companies move out of state. And since nobody pays any attention to local issues here in California we go around electing morons like Governor Moonbeam and the Governator.




The emissions...
By JonnyDough on 12/15/2011 7:17:00 PM , Rating: 2
from cars are so miniscule now. They should focus on large trucks and recycling. Maybe they could clean up that Texas size island of plastic bags and other garbage off their coast...




Soooo
By Dr of crap on 12/16/2011 8:37:48 AM , Rating: 2
Since the Volt, and Leaf, and others like these aren't selling very well, HOW is the state going to get to that number????
Will they GIVE THEM AWAY!???!




Goofy stuff
By desertrat200 on 12/15/11, Rating: -1
RE: Goofy stuff
By jRaskell on 12/15/2011 4:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just over 11 months of this nonsense to go. Hang in there.

I feel sorry for you if you really think the nonsense will end in 11 months.


RE: Goofy stuff
By Spuke on 12/15/2011 4:28:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just over 11 months of this nonsense to go. Hang in there.
You really think this stuff just started 11 months ago?


RE: Goofy stuff
By Dr of crap on 12/16/2011 12:40:19 PM , Rating: 2
Nope been many,many years, and both sides are equally bad,and equally to blame.

Do you think that a elected offical will be able to fix this mess????

If so I have some GREAT stock tips for you to give me money to invest FOR you!


"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki