No new DPs in California or 6 other states

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yet another wrinkle - Yesterday (January 14) CA withdrew it's request for an EPA waiver to allow it to impose stricter emission requirements on trucks, which is what caused manufacturers to stop selling diesel motorhome chassis in the state. State officials thought the new administration would revoke the waiver or otherwise penalize the state for it. The elimination of the waiver should allow the sale of diesel motorhomes in CA until at least 2030.

 
All I can say is, all the well-intentioned, but grossly out-of-touch with reality politicians, who think that, with a wave of their wands, fossil-fueled vehicles can be imagined out of existence in the near future, have a rude shock awaiting them.

Their premise is that fossil-fueled vehicles are making our environment uninhabitable, when the reality is that they aren't, to any measurable extent. The other fatal flaw in their agenda is their belief that all the "renewable energy" sources are viable substitutes to fossil fuel, and they're not, by long shot, given technology now and in the foreseeable future.

Wind doesn't always blow, sun doesn't always shine. And HUGE amounts of fossil fuels are being consumed to even produce the batteries available for EVs, which are usable only in very light-duty applications. Over-the-road trucks? Transport aircraft? Seagoing ships? RVs? Ain't happenin'.

Ask yourself, why do the major manufacturers now have acres of EVs parked that their dealers can't sell? The answer is that people recognize they're not usable and no one wants them except those who want to make a statement that they're "saving the planet".

It's all smoke and mirrors, but such is the left, in its euphemistic agenda to create their utopia.
 
All I can say is, all the well-intentioned, but grossly out-of-touch with reality politicians, who think that, with a wave of their wands, fossil-fueled vehicles can be imagined out of existence in the near future, have a rude shock awaiting them.

Their premise is that fossil-fueled vehicles are making our environment uninhabitable, when the reality is that they aren't, to any measurable extent. The other fatal flaw in their agenda is their belief that all the "renewable energy" sources are viable substitutes to fossil fuel, and they're not, by long shot, given technology now and in the foreseeable future.

Wind doesn't always blow, sun doesn't always shine. And HUGE amounts of fossil fuels are being consumed to even produce the batteries available for EVs, which are usable only in very light-duty applications. Over-the-road trucks? Transport aircraft? Seagoing ships? RVs? Ain't happenin'.

Ask yourself, why do the major manufacturers now have acres of EVs parked that their dealers can't sell? The answer is that people recognize they're not usable and no one wants them except those who want to make a statement that they're "saving the planet".

It's all smoke and mirrors, but such is the left, in its euphemistic agenda to create their utopia.
Whatever anyone chooses to believe it is hard to imagine that burning close to 100 million barrels of crude oil every day doesnt have an impact.
 
All I can say is, all the well-intentioned, but grossly out-of-touch with reality politicians, who think that, with a wave of their wands, fossil-fueled vehicles can be imagined out of existence in the near future, have a rude shock awaiting them.

Their premise is that fossil-fueled vehicles are making our environment uninhabitable, when the reality is that they aren't, to any measurable extent. The other fatal flaw in their agenda is their belief that all the "renewable energy" sources are viable substitutes to fossil fuel, and they're not, by long shot, given technology now and in the foreseeable future.

Wind doesn't always blow, sun doesn't always shine. And HUGE amounts of fossil fuels are being consumed to even produce the batteries available for EVs, which are usable only in very light-duty applications. Over-the-road trucks? Transport aircraft? Seagoing ships? RVs? Ain't happenin'.

Ask yourself, why do the major manufacturers now have acres of EVs parked that their dealers can't sell? The answer is that people recognize they're not usable and no one wants them except those who want to make a statement that they're "saving the planet".

It's all smoke and mirrors, but such is the left, in its euphemistic agenda to create their utopia.

Uh oh. Gird your loins and prepare for the onslaught. :ROFLMAO:
 
I recall reading somewhere that China has discovered as they increased the "green" stuff, it was paying for itself with the reduced health costs.
that might well be the case for a communist country, never going to help in the US.. too much greed in the health system
 
They estimate that the canadian wildfires this past year was the equivalent of 1 years worth of the worlds fossil fuel usage. We were back east during that and it was like a heavy fog. Everyone probably saw pictures of NYC or other areas and how bad that was.

When you see that and think about how long we have bern burning fossil fuels it is hard to understand how someone can believe there isnt any impact.
 
that might well be the case for a communist country, never going to help in the US.. too much greed in the health system
When I were a younger man I spent four years patrolling the border separating communism from capitalism. The 10' chainlink fence topped with barbed wire, the anti-personnel mines on the fence and in the ground, the dogs, the guard towers with armed guards, the work parties with armed guards, weren't there to keep the greedy capitalists out, but to keep the the citizens of the worker's paradise from leaving. I wondered, if the concept were so great, why do you have to shoot people to keep them from leaving?
 
that might well be the case for a communist country, never going to help in the US.. too much greed in the health system
I have read in the Wall Street Journal the comparison to what some political groups have pushed on us such as wind power, solar, electric vehicles, and who knows what else( especially in California) before they can replace fossil fuels would be like ending Chemo Therapy and Radiation treatments for cancer and giving the patient an aspirin.
 
But capitalism works because of greed. The very worst system, save for all the others that have been tried from time to time. :)

-Don- Auburn, CA
Capitalism works best when the middle class is strong. Ours has been losing ground for many years and if the GREAT part of MAGA applies to the average working man maybe things will change. Don't hold your breath.
 
I dont see why it has to be either/or..
Use of EV's could very well suite many people's day to day transportation needs.
But it seems that the "all or nothing" extreme crowd doesn't want to acknowledge that there is also a place for IC vehicles. Going to extremes just seems to result in a backlash.
It seems to me that any improvement should be welcomed and encouraged, not demanded.

Safe travels and all the best.
 
I dont see why it has to be either/or..
Use of EV's could very well suite many people's day to day transportation needs.
But it seems that the "all or nothing" extreme crowd doesn't want to acknowledge that there is also a place for IC vehicles. Going to extremes just seems to result in a backlash.
It seems to me that any improvement should be welcomed and encouraged, not demanded.

Safe travels and all the best.
That's a two way street. It's more than likely the ones objecting to an all or nothing approach to renewable energy and transition to electrical vehicles are advocates for drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, tearing down wind and solar infrastructure, building more coal burning power plants, and banning EV's.
There is a middle ground, trending to become the Alabama of the G7 isn't it.
 
That is exactly an extremist point of view. And, No one is advocating any of that B.S., even the new POTUS.
energy and transition to electrical vehicles are advocates for drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, tearing down wind and solar infrastructure, building more coal burning power plants, and banning EV's.
Again, see my prior post #93.

Modern technology will eventually move us away from fossil fuels. My guess is more and more use of AI will quicken invention and development and we may see new technologies created or vast improvements to current standards that took decades to develop may now only take years, or less. But you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater because the baby and the water are dirty. Take out the baby, nurture it, and throw out the dirty water.
 
Like California, a person making $100K a year can be considered poor.
Depends on what part of CA. Get far from the main cities and you can live like a king on 100K$.

For an example, in Alturas, CA the average income is less than 50K$.

But in Silicon Valley, the average income is $138,000.00.

And I would rather live in Alturas than in Silicon Valley!

But I will take Auburn over Alturas. Here in Auburn, CA the average one-man income is just below 75K$, and I am more than double that as retired, so I can live much like a king right here.

Reno, NV average income is 88K$ for one person, so even Reno, NV is higher income average than many parts of CA.

-Don- Auburn, CA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom