Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Protests to follow.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/earthquake ... -bay-area/

You hear that California is trying to pass a law that will make it illegal to sell fossil fueled cars after 2040?

California and New York should be given back so we don't have to put up with their nonsense.

Oh, and hope the big one comes soon and UC-Berkeley is the epicenter and gets swallowed first.

ASUG8 wrote:Protests to follow.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/earthquake ... -bay-area/

Only if it disproportionately disadvantaged minorities

CID1990 wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:Protests to follow.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/earthquake ... -bay-area/

Only if it disproportionately disadvantaged minorities

Not at UC-Berk. Those minorities are conservative whites. Fuck 'em and their racist/sexist culture.



Did I get that right, Dback?

grizzaholic wrote:You hear that California is trying to pass a law that will make it illegal to sell fossil fueled cars after 2040?

California and New York should be given back so we don't have to put up with their nonsense.

Oh, and hope the big one comes soon and UC-Berkeley is the epicenter and gets swallowed first.

I've got no problem with that. Electric and fuel cell cars will be ubiquitous by then anyway, so it won't be a hardship. You'll still be able to drive the fossil fuel car you have, but cars will be significantly changed in 20 years anyway.

GannonFan wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:You hear that California is trying to pass a law that will make it illegal to sell fossil fueled cars after 2040?

California and New York should be given back so we don't have to put up with their nonsense.

Oh, and hope the big one comes soon and UC-Berkeley is the epicenter and gets swallowed first.

I've got no problem with that. Electric and fuel cell cars will be ubiquitous by then anyway, so it won't be a hardship. You'll still be able to drive the fossil fuel car you have, but cars will be significantly changed in 20 years anyway.

GannonFan wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:You hear that California is trying to pass a law that will make it illegal to sell fossil fueled cars after 2040?

California and New York should be given back so we don't have to put up with their nonsense.

Oh, and hope the big one comes soon and UC-Berkeley is the epicenter and gets swallowed first.

I've got no problem with that. Electric and fuel cell cars will be ubiquitous by then anyway, so it won't be a hardship. You'll still be able to drive the fossil fuel car you have, but cars will be significantly changed in 20 years anyway.

http://fortune.com/2017/12/06/californi ... cars-2040/

California drivers could see tremendous changes to their commute in the not-too-distant future if a California lawmaker gets his way.

Assemblymember Phil Ting says he plans to introduce a bill to prohibit vehicles that use fossil fuels from driving on the state’s roads. If passed, the legislation would go into effect in 2040.

Ting tells Bloomberg he plans to introduce the bill next month, when lawmakers gather for their next legislative session. It would tie in with California’s goal to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 80% between 1990 and 2050.

Under the proposal, the motor vehicles department would only register vehicles that have zero carbon dioxide emissions.

grizzaholic wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I've got no problem with that. Electric and fuel cell cars will be ubiquitous by then anyway, so it won't be a hardship. You'll still be able to drive the fossil fuel car you have, but cars will be significantly changed in 20 years anyway.

http://fortune.com/2017/12/06/californi ... cars-2040/

California drivers could see tremendous changes to their commute in the not-too-distant future if a California lawmaker gets his way.

Assemblymember Phil Ting says he plans to introduce a bill to prohibit vehicles that use fossil fuels from driving on the state’s roads. If passed, the legislation would go into effect in 2040.

Ting tells Bloomberg he plans to introduce the bill next month, when lawmakers gather for their next legislative session. It would tie in with California’s goal to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 80% between 1990 and 2050.

Under the proposal, the motor vehicles department would only register vehicles that have zero carbon dioxide emissions.

Well, start planning ahead now then. You've got a 20+ year heads up if you're planning on driving in CA.

GannonFan wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
http://fortune.com/2017/12/06/californi ... cars-2040/

California drivers could see tremendous changes to their commute in the not-too-distant future if a California lawmaker gets his way.

Assemblymember Phil Ting says he plans to introduce a bill to prohibit vehicles that use fossil fuels from driving on the state’s roads. If passed, the legislation would go into effect in 2040.

Ting tells Bloomberg he plans to introduce the bill next month, when lawmakers gather for their next legislative session. It would tie in with California’s goal to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 80% between 1990 and 2050.

Under the proposal, the motor vehicles department would only register vehicles that have zero carbon dioxide emissions.

Well, start planning ahead now then. You've got a 20+ year heads up if you're planning on driving in CA.

grizzaholic wrote:
http://fortune.com/2017/12/06/californi ... cars-2040/

California drivers could see tremendous changes to their commute in the not-too-distant future if a California lawmaker gets his way.

Assemblymember Phil Ting says he plans to introduce a bill to prohibit vehicles that use fossil fuels from driving on the state’s roads. If passed, the legislation would go into effect in 2040.

Ting tells Bloomberg he plans to introduce the bill next month, when lawmakers gather for their next legislative session. It would tie in with California’s goal to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 80% between 1990 and 2050.

Under the proposal, the motor vehicles department would only register vehicles that have zero carbon dioxide emissions.

So what about tourists driving into the state? Will be a pretty big hit to the state pocket book if they decide to go that route.

Travel-generated state and local tax revenue totaled $10.3 billion in 2016, an increase of 3.8% over the previous year. And the industry now amounts to about 2.5% of the state’s gross domestic product.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c ... story.html

Ibanez wrote: Not at UC-Berk. Those minorities are conservative whites. Fuck 'em and their racist/sexist culture.
Get the hell out of my Country!


Did I get that right, Dback?

FIFY

GannonFan wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
http://fortune.com/2017/12/06/californi ... cars-2040/

California drivers could see tremendous changes to their commute in the not-too-distant future if a California lawmaker gets his way.

Assemblymember Phil Ting says he plans to introduce a bill to prohibit vehicles that use fossil fuels from driving on the state’s roads. If passed, the legislation would go into effect in 2040.

Ting tells Bloomberg he plans to introduce the bill next month, when lawmakers gather for their next legislative session. It would tie in with California’s goal to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 80% between 1990 and 2050.

Under the proposal, the motor vehicles department would only register vehicles that have zero carbon dioxide emissions.

Well, start planning ahead now then. You've got a 20+ year heads up if you're planning on driving in CA.

Never...but this is why people, myself, hate California and everything contained in it.

Winterborn wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
http://fortune.com/2017/12/06/californi ... cars-2040/

California drivers could see tremendous changes to their commute in the not-too-distant future if a California lawmaker gets his way.

Assemblymember Phil Ting says he plans to introduce a bill to prohibit vehicles that use fossil fuels from driving on the state’s roads. If passed, the legislation would go into effect in 2040.

Ting tells Bloomberg he plans to introduce the bill next month, when lawmakers gather for their next legislative session. It would tie in with California’s goal to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 80% between 1990 and 2050.

Under the proposal, the motor vehicles department would only register vehicles that have zero carbon dioxide emissions.

So what about tourists driving into the state? Will be a pretty big hit to the state pocket book if they decide to go that route.

Travel-generated state and local tax revenue totaled $10.3 billion in 2016, an increase of 3.8% over the previous year. And the industry now amounts to about 2.5% of the state’s gross domestic product.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c ... story.html

Or commerce??? Guess they will have to get some electric railways and electric semis to move all the cargo that passes through that Anacostia of a hellhole..

Winterborn wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
http://fortune.com/2017/12/06/californi ... cars-2040/

California drivers could see tremendous changes to their commute in the not-too-distant future if a California lawmaker gets his way.

Assemblymember Phil Ting says he plans to introduce a bill to prohibit vehicles that use fossil fuels from driving on the state’s roads. If passed, the legislation would go into effect in 2040.

Ting tells Bloomberg he plans to introduce the bill next month, when lawmakers gather for their next legislative session. It would tie in with California’s goal to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 80% between 1990 and 2050.

Under the proposal, the motor vehicles department would only register vehicles that have zero carbon dioxide emissions.

So what about tourists driving into the state? Will be a pretty big hit to the state pocket book if they decide to go that route.

Travel-generated state and local tax revenue totaled $10.3 billion in 2016, an increase of 3.8% over the previous year. And the industry now amounts to about 2.5% of the state’s gross domestic product.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c ... story.html

1) He is talking only about REGISTERING
2) France, and other European Countries are having the same discussion
3) Chances of this passing in the near future are slim, but it will be the norm eventually.

People have resisted new technology since there were people. 50 years from now, they'll have tracks you can go to to drive your antique non-autonomous internal combustion car. The track will probably have to pay for a license to allow these noxious killing machines to still be operated.

dbackjon wrote:

Winterborn wrote:
So what about tourists driving into the state? Will be a pretty big hit to the state pocket book if they decide to go that route.



http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c ... story.html

1) He is talking only about REGISTERING
2) France, and other European Countries are having the same discussion
3) Chances of this passing in the near future are slim, but it will be the norm eventually.

As dback said, you will still be able to drive a fossil fuel car into and through California (presumably - it would be something if California tries to revoke reciprocity when it comes to driving cars into the state from other states - I assume the tourism industry would frown on that development).

GannonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

1) He is talking only about REGISTERING
2) France, and other European Countries are having the same discussion
3) Chances of this passing in the near future are slim, but it will be the norm eventually.

As dback said, you will still be able to drive a fossil fuel car into and through California (presumably - it would be something if California tries to revoke reciprocity when it comes to driving cars into the state from other states - I assume the tourism industry would frown on that development).

I hope they do it. Let that state suffer.

grizzaholic wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
As dback said, you will still be able to drive a fossil fuel car into and through California (presumably - it would be something if California tries to revoke reciprocity when it comes to driving cars into the state from other states - I assume the tourism industry would frown on that development).

I hope they do it. Let that state suffer.

If California suffers, they move to Montana.

GannonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

1) He is talking only about REGISTERING
2) France, and other European Countries are having the same discussion
3) Chances of this passing in the near future are slim, but it will be the norm eventually.

As dback said, you will still be able to drive a fossil fuel car into and through California (presumably - it would be something if California tries to revoke reciprocity when it comes to driving cars into the state from other states - I assume the tourism industry would frown on that development).

Just like now, CA has different emissions standards for Cars sold in the state. There is no border checkpoint looking at emissions (just asking about any fruits or vegetables you have)

dbackjon wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
As dback said, you will still be able to drive a fossil fuel car into and through California (presumably - it would be something if California tries to revoke reciprocity when it comes to driving cars into the state from other states - I assume the tourism industry would frown on that development).

Just like now, CA has different emissions standards for Cars sold in the state. There is no border checkpoint looking at emissions (just asking about any fruits or vegetables you have)

Do they have checkpoints at the border for that or is that just an airport thing?

GannonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Just like now, CA has different emissions standards for Cars sold in the state. There is no border checkpoint looking at emissions (just asking about any fruits or vegetables you have)

Do they have checkpoints at the border for that or is that just an airport thing?

They have ag checkpoints at the border. Trying to prevent importation of noxious weeds and diseased fruits. Arizona has the same standards as California, so Arizona fruit/produce is good, and normally AZ cars just get waved through.

dbackjon wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Do they have checkpoints at the border for that or is that just an airport thing?

They have ag checkpoints at the border. Trying to prevent importation of noxious weeds and diseased fruits. Arizona has the same standards as California, so Arizona fruit/produce is good, and normally AZ cars just get waved through.

Did not know that. Never had the occasion to drive into CA (only fly, being an EC and all). Do they actually man all the roads across the border? I'd imagine that's a huge undertaking. Heck, most states have a hard time manning and operating all the weigh stations. Florida doesn't have anything like that and I suppose they are at risk as well to invasive agriculture.

GannonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
They have ag checkpoints at the border. Trying to prevent importation of noxious weeds and diseased fruits. Arizona has the same standards as California, so Arizona fruit/produce is good, and normally AZ cars just get waved through.

Did not know that. Never had the occasion to drive into CA (only fly, being an EC and all). Do they actually man all the roads across the border? I'd imagine that's a huge undertaking. Heck, most states have a hard time manning and operating all the weigh stations. Florida doesn't have anything like that and I suppose they are at risk as well to invasive agriculture.

They have 16 of them - not all are manned all the time, but the interstate ones usually are. California has natural barriers (Ocean, Deserts and Mountains) that separate the main ag areas from the rest of the country, so really the only way for ag pests to get there are to be brought in. Fruit flies are a major concern. Florida doesn't have those natural barriers, so they are somewhat screwed.

Generally the cost of eradicating a pest if it slips through far outweighs the cost of manning the stations.