I agree. How about the radical move of deciding not to shut down a large nuclear power plant in California in 2025[1] that could power millions of these cars, carbon free. Trying to fix climate change without nuclear power is likely impossible at this point, but very few climate change activists support it.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant

> This move feels radical

My understanding is that, at least depending on your goal, this isn't nearly radical enough. Some experts think we not only need to stop selling gas-powered cars _immediately_, but also actively remove existing fossil fuel cars/appliance from the economy.

I found this podcast helpful in understanding the level of effort needed to decarbonize in the near future: https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2020/8/27/21403184/saul-griffit...

US EPA[0] / CA ARB[1] data on emissions shares by sector:

* 28%/41% - transportation

* 27%/15% - electricity

* 22%/24% - industry

* 12%/12% - commercial & residential

* 10%/ 8% - agriculture

58% of US transportation (~16% of the US total) is passenger cars and light-duty trucks, the focus of this announcement. CA accounts for about 6-7% of US CO₂e (carbon dioxide equivalents), so this action targets roughly 1% of our national emissions, not nothing but certainly more symbolic than impactful (even considering spillover effects). electricity and industry must be tackled as well, coordinated among a majority of states.

the US, ~4% of the world's population, produces about 15% of the world's emissions (2nd to china, EU together is 3rd). this is why it's even more critical that the US, china and the EU especially come together on climate change (e.g., the paris accords) rather than giving the middle finger like we americans did recently.

[0]: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas... [1]: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data

This move isn't as radical as I'd like, but I genuinely think it might stick. Having Ford on board is a big deal. Seems like the big auto makers feel like it's a "reasonable" timeframe. Would love to see this take effect sooner, and also include an eventual ban/restriction on used gas-powered vehicles, but it looks like we may finally be making a meaningful change.

I really don't see how this is radical? 15 years is such a long time. It would be radical (and far more effective) to ban new gas cars in say 5 years!

This move is big, but not as radical as some imply. 15 years is a fairly long time - Al Gore had not yet released An Inconvenient Truth 15 years ago.

It may feel radical, but to me if feels "too little too late"

Is this policy move California's response to the federal government gutting vehicle emission reduction policies just this spring?[1]

As a nation, we're not making radical moves. Most of our proposed policies are slow-walked or rolled back before they ever make a difference.

https://www.npr.org/2020/03/31/824431240/trump-administratio...

We basically need to try absolutely everything and see what sticks. 0) Remote work as much as possible - redesign cities to minimize vehicle traffic. (When people go remote - you can make small communities with new layouts) 1) Electric vehicles. 2) Renewable energy as fast and far as we can go. 3) Nuclear power for baseline load. 4) Fusion power research. 5) Encourage movement away from animal based protein.

Pre industrial was actually 250ppm.

400ppm is actually a level when it starts having measurable effects on humans (generally dumbs you down slightly).

This does not feel radical. This feels like pandering. My unborn child will be driving by the time this goes into effect. Radical would be new vehicles must be zero emissions in 2025, which still gives even the Dodges of the world enough time to get their shit together.

Doesn't eel radical enough to me. It's about on par with what a lot of Europe has already committed to. Seems like with $100 billion we could get there in 10 years or sooner, not 15.

At least CA is working on it. The biggest polluters, China and Russia don't see to even acknowledge that any other country sees climate change as an issue.

Meanwhile, we are being pounded in Canada with extra taxes to discourage burning of fossil fuels even though we only emit 1.6% of the worlds GHG's. And a large part of that comes from home heating by natural gas, to which there is no viable alternative, so its not discouraging anything, its just another cash grab.

Totally agree.

We can't make everyone happy and keep the world habitable for life as we know it.

The time to make tough decisions was yesterday at least this is better than tomorrow.

They should be making it more expensive to run gas vehicles to reflect their actual environmental damage and make it cheaper to run EV, not outright banning them. California is navel gazing at their own moral superiority on this one.

2035 isn't radical at all.

Plenty of other countries already discuss bans for 2030.

NOTE: I don't really care about downvotes and try my best not to comment on them. They are pointless without engaging the author. Please take the time to explore the simple exercise I present here and understand. If you don't, and your power is in the form of a downvote, what you are doing is becoming part of the problem and behaving in a manner that is no different from climate change deniers. Can you at least try to understand? In the years I have been talking about this I have yet to see anyone challenge the simple findings that can be had from looking at a simple graph. Interesting.

> This move feels radical, but I don't see how we avert catastrophe without moves that feel radical. If we keep plodding down the course we're on we'll just sleepwalk into oblivion.

One of the most frustrating things for me in the global warming debate is the total lack of interest in the scientific truth on BOTH sides of the issue. The truly odd scenario it sets-up is one where both sides are, well, to be kind, confused.

It's weird, deniers don't know what they are talking about --because it is most-definitely real-- and advocates are confused because they are ignoring the most basic science on the subject.

What is the truth?

There is nothing whatsoever we can do about it. Plain and simple.

This is a planetary-scale problem that cannot be solved in thousands of years even if the entirety of humanity and our technology left this planet at once.

If we all left earth immediately, at best, it will take somewhere in the order of 50,000 to 100,000 years for atmospheric CO2 levels to come down by 100 ppm.

That's the truth. And it requires everyone leaving earth right away. A consequence of this is that no partial measure anyone can cook-up can even begin to make a dent. In fact, we have years-long research findings concluding that, even if we converted the entire planet to the most optimal forms of renewable energy not only would atmospheric CO2 not go down, it would continue to grow exponentially.

And yet everyone ignores the most basic of scientific analysis that confirms this reality. Scientists don't want to speak-up because it would mean losing grants and likely having their lives and careers destroyed. Nobody wants to go against something politicians and others are too happy to use to gain votes and make money. And so, the scientific truth is suppressed and lay-people believe nonsense.

OK, so, what is this simple analysis that proves this idea that it would take 50,000 to 100,000 years for CO2 levels to come down by 100 ppm if we all left earth?

We know EXACTLY how quickly natural processes reduce atmospheric CO2 through historical ice core sample records going back 800,000 years. In case it isn't obvious, this means we know the rate of change for a planet without humanity.

Here's were you will find the 800,000 years of ice core data:

https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical...

https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html

Here's a paper that explains why it is that atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise exponentially even if we switch the the most optimal forms of renewable energy world-wide:

https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-...

Take that graph into your favorite image editor and fit lines to it for the decline phase in every cycle. Measure the slope for each cycle. Take the average or median, your choice. The number is in the tens of thousands of years. Not hundreds. Tens of thousands.

Then read the paper and understand how a transition to clean energy is an exercise in futility.

I challenge anyone to show how anything short of all of humanity leaving earth can produce a rate of change dramatically better than tens of thousands of years per 100 ppm. No magic hand-wavy stuff. Whatever anyone proposes must include analysis of energy and resources needed to execute a planetary scale solution that is able to force a change at a rate up to a thousand times faster than the natural "no humans on earth" rate.

This is not to say there aren't a lot of good reasons to clean-up our act. There are. Of course. We just need to stop lying to ourselves, understand reality and start talking about how to adapt for the sake of future generations. We must also free-up our brilliant scientists so they can deal with this issue factually without fear for the destruction of their careers and loss of funding. The current path will lead nowhere. Converting California to all electric vehicles in the name of climate change is farcical at best and potentially detrimental.

There isn't anyone alive who can solve a scientific problem by ignoring evidence and data.

It's also not clear what zero emissions mean. Is the supply chain zero emissions?

At least the plants are happy. Co2 is food for them.

This move is not radical. Government lags private sector. Private sector knows it can go zero-emission and have given governmnet the green light. California just likes to look like its ahead of the curve but its not.

Why do it randomly in the middle of a term instead of campaign based of this so we can properly debate and discuss the details?