Auto Alliance Kills Aggressive California Gas Bill
California’s ambitious climate change bill was stripped Wednesday night of its toughest provision that would have cut the state’s gasoline consumption 50 percent by 2030, Automotive News is reporting.
A pared down version of California’s wide-rangning transportation bill will reach Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk, but won’t include the gas target nor a plan to fix California’s roads.
The controversial bill was met last month by an automotive lobby that flooded the state with advertisements and money to combat the provisions.
“Oil has won the skirmish. But they’ve lost the bigger battle,” Brown said, according to the LA Times. “Because I am more determined than ever.”
Brown said that he would fight for the plan to cut gas consumption later during his term. He also called for a special session to address California’s roads after his plan to raise $3.6 billion through increased fees and gas taxes failed to advance.
“The roads are going to get fixed,” Brown said, according to the LA Times.
More by Aaron Cole
Comments
Join the conversation
This boils down to, in my opinion, legislators forgetting to bridge the gap between practical realities and lofty goals. The right way to do this would be a positive cultivation of electronic vehicle industry within the state. Having tesla isn't enough, they should be courting all stripes of battery and motor producers, concurrent with the current focus on attracting r&d centers. Foreign makes should be offered ridiculous incentives to open up shop, baic for instance just opened an r&d lab in silicon valley, California should be bent over courting actual manufacturing investment to follow. The state would gain the leverage and the knowledge needed to move the industry forward, regulatory control of the operations side to ensure a favorable set of industry rules, while also bringing private investment to bear on the local marketing push needed to sell these range challenged vehicles in any kind of meaningful numbers. I don't think this will happen because it is messy. California has a great deal of influence as a large purchaser, but in order to make the kinds of industry shaking moves it wants to it needs to also be a major part of the industry, and that involves sharing in the environmental costs.
If climate change is going to be catastrophic, CA's contribution will be insignificant compared to that of China and the developing world. And CA's political class can't pressure either because China has nuclear missiles and developing nation criticism equals racism.
I'm all for improving the environment, reducing emissions, and using less oil. I believe you have to set big goals that sometimes you won't hit. But you have to be able to hit it, and there's no way CA can cut their gas consumption in half by 2030. Even if every vehicle sold in the state from 2025 on was gasoline-free, they still wouldn't hit that goal.
I've been watching the TV show Veep. Last night I watched a relevant episode: Adviser: "We should do the cock-thumb." Veep: "What's a cock-thumb?" Adviser: "We propose a radical cut to the military, cutting off the cock; the Joint Chiefs in turn propose their own more reasonable cut, cutting off the thumb." Veep: "You mean, 'negotiating'?" Maybe 50% was the cock intended to secure a 15% thumb.