Nubo wrote: GRA wrote:
Meh. It's like pissing in the ocean. CARB could make far more of an impact with rules that have wide-spread effect instead of diddling with silly little stuff like this. But they never did have a lot of sense. When I moved to CA I was forced to hand over $300 because my car (which was mechanically identical in all 50 states) didn't have a "california emissions sticker". Later they helped "kill the electric car". Screw CARB.
You mean rules like requiring each manufacturer to sell a certain number of ZEVs,or buy credits from another one? Or requiring power plants to clean up their act? Or having (and fighting the current administration to retain) the most stringent vehicle emissions requirements in the country? Or requiring a shift to zero carbon electricity? Or or or . . .
They're doing all of that, too, but as areas with large numbers of trucks and buses (most of which have diesel engines) moving at slow speeds with frequent stops such as airports and ports tend to have the highest concentrations of emissions, especially particulates, as well as the largest numbers of low-income people living nearby or along the route, you get a tremendous bang for the buck by mandating changes in those locations, not to mention the environmental justice angle. Airport shuttles are particularly well-suited for a switch to ZEVs, as they travel only one or two short, flat routes at slow speeds with frequent stops all day long with well-known traffic peaks, and charging and maintenance can all be concentrated in a small area.
This is LA traffic. Not sure EV airport shuttles are going to make a dent in emissions.
See "requiring each manufacturer to sell a certain number of ZEVs,or buy credits from another one", as well as "the most stringent vehicle emissions requirements in the country", not to mention funding ZEV mass transit. As it is, a 500,000 metric ton reduction (total lifetime, I assume) from only 1,000 vehicles is a fair-sized dent, considering there are about 35 million registered vehicles in California. Of course, as California's annual
GHG emissions in 2016 were 429.4 million tons, the lifetime reduction from those 1,000 buses is only about 0.11% of a single year for the state, and no one's claiming that this alone is enough, which is why CARB has all their other requirements. Then there's the local air pollution effects, e.g.
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/05 ... iles-away/
Study: Air Pollution From LAX Affects Residents Up To 10 Miles Away
A study published in the American Chemical Society’s Environmental Science and Technology journal found that pollution levels within nine square miles of the airport are 10 times higher than in other parts of LA and affects neighborhoods up to 10 miles east of the airport.
Now, that's mainly concerned with aircraft emissions of ultrafine particles rather than DPM, but you can bet wherever there's a concentration of heavy diesel vehicles, the particulate emissions will be strongly elevated.
Do you consider CARB's requirement that drayage trucks at ports not idle but instead use electric power hookups to run their reefers while waiting, while writing regs athat will eventually require drayage trucks to be ZEV, to also be "like pissing in the ocean"? Having worked at container loading docks in the port of Oakland a long time ago, I can tell you that between trucks, trains and ships all blowing diesel exhaust, the air quality could sometimes be pretty bad, and unlike the residents of West Oakland who had to breathe that crap all the time, I didn't live there.