ABG: Michael Bloomberg would require all new cars to be EVs by 2035 Goals for vehicles and buildings are less ambitious

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
https://www.autoblog.com/2020/01/17/michael-bloomberg-clean-cars-buildings-plan/



Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg would push for all new cars to be electric by 2035 and new buildings to produce zero carbon emissions by 2025 as part of clean energy plans he released this week.

Bloomberg's latest climate plans build off his December plan to cut the United States' carbon emissions by 50% by 2030. That's less ambitious than the Green New Deal that many of his competitors have embraced that calls for achieving net-zero carbon emissions within 10 years. Bloomberg's plans do not include total costs or specifics on how they would be paid for, details his campaign advisers say they will share later.
The newest plan, released Friday, outlines how Bloomberg would cut down on pollution from cars and trucks, which thanks to the popularity of pickups and SUVs have become the nation's biggest source of carbon emissions. While the plan calls for new federal standards requiring all new cars to be electric by 2035, it would require 15% of the nation's trucks and buses to be pollution-free by 2030. Those are less lofty goals than some of his competitors, including Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

Bloomberg's plan also calls for expanding tax credits and rebate programs to help people buy electric vehicles and for building charging stations along highways. The plan calls for spending $250 billion on clean energy research and development by 2025.

Bloomberg would also invest in high-speed rail, pledging to build an operable segment in the next five years. The United States lags behind Europe and Asia when it comes to high-speed rail, and California's effort to build the nation's first major high-speed rail line, between Los Angeles and San Francisco, has been plagued by cost overruns and delays.

A Bloomberg adviser said the plan would be to build a short segment so that Americans can see that high-speed rail is viable before extending it.

Bloomberg's clean-building plan calls for retrofitting homes to make them more efficient and offering rebates, tax credits and other ways to help people pay for increasing insulation and trading in boilers, heaters and other appliances that run on oil and gas. His plan would offer more federal dollars to cities and states that require owners of large buildings to reduce their pollution. . . .

On wildfires, Bloomberg calls for doubling to $10 billion the federal government's annual spending on forest management, firefighting and prevention. He also proposes increasing federal money to help people fireproof their homes and expand access roads to dangerous places. He's endorsing a plan by California Sen. Kamala Harris to spend $1 billion annually on community wildfire plans.

Bloomberg has invested hundreds of millions of dollars of his personal fortune in fighting climate change, including a program by the Sierra Club aimed at closing coal-fired power plants. But some environmental groups have argued that Bloomberg hasn't embraced aggressive enough programs.


Should we have one topic for all the Dem. candidate's announced plans? If so, I can change the title of this one. Or should we wait and see who the eventual nominee is, and just give theirs? Many of them have supported some/all of the Green New Deal without going into any detail on how they plan to pay for it (as is also the case with Bloomberg).
 
The dems in NM appear to be effectively blocking a new cobalt mine from opening here.
How are we going to switch to all electric car production when there is barely enough Ni and Li to make the electrics and hybrids we have now when the nimby useful idiots won't allow any new mines to be open?
 
Nimbys seem to love blocking alternative energy projects.

Cobalt for batteries has to come from somewhere. Guess we can keep buying child slave mined cobalt from the congo. Where they don't see what the big deal is with slavery.

The east coast useful idiot Nimbys set wind power back from Maine to north Carolina at least a decade.

NV useful idiots made sure nuclear waste stays in "temporary storage" forever. Which is literally the worst idea anyone could think of besides sending it to iran or dumping it in the ocean.

They're useful idiots because they think they are making things better, or maybe they're just selfish but they actually make things worse.
I think they are mostly just selfish but calling them useful idiots is far more inflammatory.


Where is the advantage is building less hybrid and battery powered vehicles?
The trend is to build more of them with bigger batteries.
It has to come from somewhere.
That lithium battery in our cars didn't miracle it's self under there.
 
I figured that you don't understand many of the terms that you use, but just wanted to confirm it. There is real irony here...


Bloomberg's "plan" is both interesting and unfortunate. Interesting because it allows for real progress, in a do-able timeframe. Unfortunate, because it would have had to be implemented 20 years ago to succeed in greatly slowing climate change.
 
Nimbys fit the definition of useful idiot perfectly.

How are average people who get dooped into spreading propaganda against something that would benefit them by those who are benefiting from maintaining the status quo not useful idiots?

The rich a holes who live on the beach, and realestate developers team up with money from big conventional power generation to recruit soccer mom's and hippies for a fake grass roots movement to "save the scenic coast" or something to that effect.
When said over the water wind turbines would likely provide all those soccer mom's and dirty hippies with cheaper electricity and possibly cleaner air.
 
Oilpan4 said:
How are average people who get dooped into spreading propaganda against something that would benefit them by those who are benefiting from maintaining the status quo not useful idiots?
Sounds just like Trump voters to me.
 
Oilpan4 said:
... I think they are mostly just selfish but calling them useful idiots is far more inflammatory. ...

An occasional ribbing is humorous and can build rapport. Persistant inflammatory dialogue does the opposite. If the only goal is to "trigger" people, then enjoy your sport, I guess. It adds heat but no light.
 
Nimbys are people who see a very personal negative effect on themselves from whatever project is suggested. Whether or not someone agrees with their priorities, those priorities aren't (usually) generated from outside. Useful idiots, OTOH, are those who ignore the facts right in front of their faces and unquestioningly regurgitate whatever the official line is of the ideology they support - Sidney and Beatrice Webb being classic examples.
 
WetEV said:
Oilpan4 said:
How are average people who get dooped into spreading propaganda against something that would benefit them by those who are benefiting from maintaining the status quo not useful idiots?
Sounds just like Trump voters to me.

I didn't vote in 2016 because I sure couldn't vote for hillery. Would have voted for burnie but you know how that went.
But after the last debate freak show I'll probably be voting for trump or staying home again getting drunk and watching trump hit 270 before the polls close on the west coast.

At least queen Nancy muzzled chief spreading bull and crazy Bernie to allow Biden a few weeks to sound reasonable.
 
Back
Top