Freedom of choice is certainly important but we do all have to work together for the sake of our future and our children’s future. It is certainly a good idea to set efficiency and emissions standards, including up to a controlled transition to zero emissions.
It’s not even close to a situation of forcing any customers: we’re at a stage of forcing manufacturers to improve their products and work toward a transition in 11 years, and help encourage a growing market for them to profit by it.
This is back to old arguments like:
free speech but you can’t yell “FIRE” in a coowded theater
freedom to swing your arms, that stops before you hit my face
And connected to Tragedy of the Commons.
breathable air and livable environments are something we all need in common. You have no right to take that from the rest of us
Sure, we have standards to demonstrate that. We know that global warming is taking that livable environment away. We have established goals per country, and strategies to meet them. Those strategies map out limits for how much your vehicle can pollute, without being detrimental to everyone’s livable environment. Given the impact on people, we’ve made the compromise to phase those in over more than a decade, but after 2035 (in my state), the compromise is over. New cars for sale can no longer emit carbon dioxide as part of their operation.
Your existing vehicle is grandfathered since we hadn’t established those limits when it was manufactured, and it was the purchased with the expectation of being suitable for purpose
Read the news sometime. A memorable recent one I read included the history of a barrier island town, the nearby ones already abandoned, and whether they need to abandon it yet or if it was still livable. The root cause was sea level rise caused by global warming
Freedom of choice is certainly important but we do all have to work together for the sake of our future and our children’s future. It is certainly a good idea to set efficiency and emissions standards, including up to a controlled transition to zero emissions.
It’s not even close to a situation of forcing any customers: we’re at a stage of forcing manufacturers to improve their products and work toward a transition in 11 years, and help encourage a growing market for them to profit by it.
This is back to old arguments like:
And connected to Tragedy of the Commons.
And based on this logic, you only get the right to take my freedom when can prove that I’m taking your livable environment away.
Sure, we have standards to demonstrate that. We know that global warming is taking that livable environment away. We have established goals per country, and strategies to meet them. Those strategies map out limits for how much your vehicle can pollute, without being detrimental to everyone’s livable environment. Given the impact on people, we’ve made the compromise to phase those in over more than a decade, but after 2035 (in my state), the compromise is over. New cars for sale can no longer emit carbon dioxide as part of their operation.
Your existing vehicle is grandfathered since we hadn’t established those limits when it was manufactured, and it was the purchased with the expectation of being suitable for purpose
No we do not. You’re claiming that you are going to die, unless you take away my freedom.
Can you show me the evidence of a model that’s predicting humans being unable to live here due to global warming? I doubt that you can.
Read the news sometime. A memorable recent one I read included the history of a barrier island town, the nearby ones already abandoned, and whether they need to abandon it yet or if it was still livable. The root cause was sea level rise caused by global warming