In a move towards environmental sustainability, California is pushing for a mandate to ban the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035. The proposal, currently under scrutiny, has sparked debates about its feasibility, environmental impact, and potential clash with federal regulations.
ClimateDepot.com publisher Mark Morano recently discussed the mandate’s implications on ‘Varney & Co.’ Let’s delve into the details and controversies surrounding this major shift in automotive policy.
The Hot Year Debate
Morano starts the discussion by challenging the notion that 2023 was the hottest year ever recorded. He argues that such declarations are often based on minuscule temperature differences, with even NASA scientists acknowledging it as a political statement rather than a precise measurement.
This sets the stage for questioning the urgency of the proposed gas car ban as a response to climate change.
Morano questions the logic of relying on electric vehicles (EVs) as a solution to environmental issues. He highlights the environmental impact of producing EV batteries, which require substantial raw materials and contribute to the exploitation of countries with lax human rights and environmental standards.
The discussion challenges the assumption that EVs are a panacea for climate concerns.
The National Collision: California’s Mandate Goes Federal?
The conversation takes a political turn as Morano predicts a collision between federal and state regulations. The California mandate, if accepted, could become a national policy, impacting the entire automotive industry.
Morano argues that granting California the power to dictate federal vehicle transportation policy is unlawful and infringes on consumer choice.
The discussion extends to the Biden administration’s $1 billion plan to provide green school buses nationwide. Morano critiques the plan, highlighting the impracticality of the current infrastructure to support electric bus fleets.
He cites examples of failed attempts in Sweden and Philadelphia, emphasizing the risks of forcing an unprepared transition to electric buses.
YouTube commenters are critical towards this type of future: “California can’t keep the power on as it is now, can you imagine what would happen when 15 million to 20 million people plug in their cars? Then, if you do plug in your car and the power grid is lacking, PGandE will use the power from your car to support the grid. Either way, you’re walking to work….and that’s the plan.”
“The State has No right to impose this or anything on its People or Citizens!” added another commenter.
Some managed to find the time to joke about the matter: “Thats hilarious. I never would have thought that the movie ‘Escape From LA’ would begin to become reality…”
And some believe that this could spread further: “Warning what happens in California eventually happens across the country.”
A Dark Future or Inevitable Transition?
As California pushes for a gas car ban and the federal government invests in green initiatives, the clash between environmental policies, practicality, and consumer choice intensifies. Mark Morano’s insights provide a contrarian perspective, urging a closer examination of these ambitious mandates’ true environmental impact and feasibility.
Whether this marks a dark future or an inevitable transition remains a topic of heated debate in the ongoing battle between climate policy and consumer freedom.
What are your thoughts? As California pioneers the end of gas-powered cars, are we witnessing a bold step towards a sustainable future or an overreach of state authority?
Will the collision between California’s mandate and potential federal opposition lead to a legal battleground, and what implications might it have for national policies? In pursuing a greener world, are electric vehicles truly the panacea, considering the environmental costs of their production and disposal?