Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to California Tailpipe Emissions Limits
The justices agreed to decide whether industry groups have suffered the sort of injury that gave them standing to sue over an unusual waiver.
Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to California Tailpipe Emissions Limits
The justices agreed to decide whether industry groups have suffered the sort of injury that gave them standing to sue over an unusual waiver.
I’m not talking anything of “well, technically this is aloud because of this” yadda yadda yadda. That’s irrelevant. Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should do something.
I’m saying you shouldn’t do it. Did you know that over 25% of the cars on the roads today are over 15 years old? Do you have any idea what it will do to people who have to drive these older vehicles, because they can’t afford newer ones, if in the future they have batteries that go out and will cost 4x more to fix than what they paid for the vehicle to begin with? The loads of people who will always have to pay a premium price to charge up because they can only afford to live at an apartment instead of a house with a garage?
Do you know how dirt cheap a working engine is, compared to an ev battery? That a small car engine swap can be done at home or in your buddy’s garage, because they don’t weigh over 1,000 pounds like a battery can?
Going EV required is a great idea! So long as you’re more wealthy than half the country is. For them, you’re going to make life even harder in the future. Requiring EV on new cars means that 10 years later the people who rely on cheap used vehicles are going to start getting screwed. All for one state to have slightly lower emissions in one category.
That’s entirely the point. You said they shouldn’t be allowed to. They can.
It’s entirely relevant because that’s the point of your previous post where you said “the state shouldn’t be allowed to do this.”
I never wavered from my point. They shouldn’t be allowed to.