By Steve Haner

Yes, Virginia, the Democrats are coming for your gasoline and diesel powered cars. The only way to decouple Virginia from the California Air Resources Board’s relentless drive toward electric vehicles only on new car lots is to change the political landscape in Richmond and reverse a 2021 bill.

A Republican candidate for Virginia Senate used the illustration above to challenge his opponent, current Delegate Danica Roem (D-Manassas), now seeking a seat in the less numerous body. The blog Blue Virginia rushed to Roem’s defense. Here is the full link to the article so you can get the link and the tenor of the message all in one.

“False fearmongering” and “wild lies”? The attack on Roem’s vote to surrender Virginia’s regulatory authority to California could have been more carefully worded. Right now the law will only ban the sale, not the use, of new gasoline or diesel cars come 2035. It will begin to restrict sales with the 2026 model year, which is now just two years away. There is no ban on owning one. Yet.

It might be a fair question to ask Democrats who voted for the 2021 bill if they are willing to promise it will go no further. Will they promise not to vote in the future to speed up the targets or restrict used vehicles? Blue Virginia didn’t address that.

Instead, it called on Senator Scott Surovell, D-Fairfax, who sought to reassure Blue Virginia readers (because even many Democrats think this is crackers) that they can buy a new gas or diesel car right up until 2035, and a used one beyond that. But in truth the regulation already in force states that by 2030, fewer than one-third of new sales can be something other than a vehicle that runs on electricity from the grid. By 2033, the minimum percentage that must be EV’s is 88%.

Unless customer preferences really do change, those remaining new gas cars or gas hybrids will be a hot commodity. The right to buy something doesn’t mean much if regulations mean the product cannot be found, and scarcity is driving up price. This is going to be a bonanza for dealers in West Virginia, Tennessee and North Carolina.

If Virginia automobile dealers come to a point where they regret this, well, they supported that 2021 bill and continue to fund the campaigns of the Democrats who voted for it.  Ask one if he or she thinks EV sales will reach 35% in two years. Ignore the hype in the op-ed columns – find a real dealer and ask.

The rules that manage the rationing system are complicated, but in general if the auto makers and auto dealers cannot convince enough people to buy EV’s, they won’t be able to ship as many gas or diesel vehicles. Which is why the 2021 Democrats also voted to create a state-funded subsidy for EV purchases, still on the books but not (yet) funded with cash.

Imagine being told that you cannot get that F-150 with a gas engine you want until enough people come into the dealership to buy the EV’s sitting on the lot. The illusion of choice for consumers is overpowered by the reality of the mandates and rationing on the industry.

Some of the Green New Deal nonsense that has found its way into the Code of Virginia has enjoyed some level of bipartisan support, but not this slow-motion train wreck. As bad as the underlying policy, the worst aspect of the Democrat’s move is how it abandons Virginia’s sovereignty to California’s appointed bureaucrats.

If you think the Californians are done with this now that the Advanced Clean Cars II program is adopted, perhaps you’d like to join the bidding pool on the Oakland Bay Bridge. Surovell in particular is a committed climate warrior, convinced CO2 is a poison and that Virginia can make a difference despite the rest of the world’s indifference. “Climate change is a full blown crisis,” he recently insisted on Twitter or X or whatever we call it now.

The line will soon be: We can’t wait until 2035 to deal with a full-blown crisis! We can’t allow used vehicles using gasoline or diesel to stay on the highways decades longer if this is a full-blown crisis! But with a one-vote edge in the Virginia Senate and voters starting to wake up about how this is a mandate only pretending to be a choice, it is important to defend the cover story. Give Surovell a real majority and a willing Governor in 2025 and see what comes next. Remember, some of the saner members of his caucus went down in the primaries.

“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor.”  No, wait, that was something else. Strike “doctor” and insert “gas-driven pick-up truck.”


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

108 responses to “Democrats Cannot Hide From Vote to Ban Gas Cars”

  1. As bad as the underlying policy, the worst aspect of the Democrat’s move is how it abandons Virginia’s sovereignty to California’s appointed bureaucrats.

    This is the key action in my opinion. Anyone, democrat, republican, or whatever, who is willing to vote away Virginia’s sovereignty to unelected officials 3,000 miles away is completely unfit for office. Do the difficult work of representing Virginians yourself, or go home.

  2. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    well just to keep things real in terms of public acceptance of global warming and support to making changes (not just Virginia or California):

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/753b1f4607d74d43fdc5b7f14d9f2f9c2b085fe9a234057eb724e7e88b7bde2e.jpg

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      https://www.baconsrebellion.com/renewables-fossil-fuels-americans-want-both/

      Seen and raised. Also irrelevant to the point that Democrats are running away from their votes.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        naw.. it’s clear that Conservatives and GOP are skeptics on global warming and don’t want to do much of anything to adapt while most of the rest of the political world from independents to Dems including some GOP think we need to change.

        The skeptics are going to gradually die off and we’ll get on to do what needs to be done…

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Which I assume is invade China? Because they are adding coal at an amazing rate.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            nope. we lead and eventually others follow….

            with respect to China, they also have installed more solar than the rest of the world…

            as well as hydro and nukes…

            Most of the rest of the developed world knows we need to make changes… and they know it can’t be with drop-dead dates… it’s changes we can make when we can make them… and keep on that way.

            Conservatives don’t think that way at all, apparently.

            We’d have China’s air quality today if it were up to the GOP……

          2. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            Larry, you live in a world all your own. The notion that conservatives don’t want to do anything to address climate change is pure baloney. There has never been an issue of doing nothing; it has always been actions that make sense. You and your ilk don’t understand that.
            California has special air quality problems that Virginia doesn’t have. So, why should we adopt emission reductions that have little to do with our air quality?
            If you look at the data, which I know is an inconvenience, you will discover that our emissions are lower than they were in 1990 while our economy has grown by a factor of more than 4.

          3. Most of the rest of the developed world knows we need to make changes… and they know it can’t be with drop-dead dates…

            Well then why do we assign drop-dead dates?

        2. Do you own and drive an electric car?

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Sometimes we just need a goal.

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        The electric vehicle goal is sort of OK. When reality intrudes on the Democratic thinking, the law can be changed.

        But that Dominion jackpot of a wind farm project off the coast?

        Those costs are going to pile up very quickly.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          You’re young enough that the EV is in your future. Me? I’d like one, but my two ICEs are only 4 years old, and one has 25K and one 15K, so not bloody likely. Lucid gets 500+ miles, and 20-minute express charge to 80% as test by Car&Driver (or that other mag). That’s 800 miles. Who drives that in a day? In 10 years, the cheapest golf cart will get that, and that’ll be the end of the ICE in cars. Trucks, maybe not so much.

          1. $82,000 is a little out of my price range for a car.

            However, I’m standing by to purchase an electric motorcycle as soon as they have about twice their current range, and cost about 20% less than they do right now.

            One caveat on car pricing: If you have a low-mileage 2014 or 2015 Ferrari 458 Italia you’re willing to part with for $82,000 I’ll FIND the money… 😉

          2. Lefty665 Avatar

            With the weight of the battery will it put half ton Harleys back in fashion?

          3. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            Half or more of the motorcycle riders in Prince William County didn’t get the memo about half ton Harleys being out of fashion.

          4. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            But how do you get loud pipes on an electric motorcycle?

            Making sure that your motorcycle is loud enough to wake up people sleeping over a mile away seems to be very important to some people.

          5. Yeah, well, not to me.

            If it does not make the bike go faster, stop more quickly, and/or handle better then I don’t want it.

            There was a time when a more open (and therefore louder) pipe helped with the “going faster” thing. With modern electronics and fuel injection, your money is better spent on a “chip” and updated fuel/ignition mapping.

          6. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            I like fast and quiet, myself.

            I don’t think much of the “loud pipes” crowd knows all that much about engine performance, or physics, or science, or technology…

          7. I have to admit that a well designed after-market pipe on a Ducati V-Twin provides a very satisfying sound – just enough ‘bark’ to stir the soul but not enough to wake the neighbors.

            I find loud exhaust pipes on anything obnoxious, except on a race track – and even most race tracks have noise limits now.

            NOTE: I have not always held that opinion, so I apologize if I annoyed any of you in my youth.

          8. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            Worth noting that among the many faults of Manassas, an abundance of vehicles which apparently have no muffler at all is one of them, and it’s been that way since at least 1988 when I was dragged there by my parents.

          9. Yeah, I think we discussed Japanese hatchbacks with “fart can” mufflers once before, didn’t we?

            🙂

          10. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            234 Business on Friday night used to sound like a drag strip. I think the cops must have decided to do a little law enforcement because it seems to have gotten better.

          11. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Any year on the first, but rather than looking for that 20% reduction in price, look for a percentage relative to an ICE bike.

            We’ve got a kid in the neighborhood whose Dad added a kit to a hover board turning it into a seated ride. It uses two levers to apply forward and backwards to each half. The front wheel is a large caster. Damned thing easily hits 25 to 30. I want one.

          12. …but rather than looking for that 20% reduction in price, look for a percentage relative to an ICE bike.

            That’s where I came up with the 20% price reduction requirement.

      2. And sometimes we just need a gaol.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          And a ghoul.

          1. I’ve never questioned the content moderation here, but I am really wondering why that comment got deleted.

            Isn’t ‘gaol’ an archaic spelling of jail? Is it possible it has some other
            meaning?

          2. I’ve never questioned the content moderation here, but I am really wondering why that comment got deleted.

            Isn’t ‘gaol’ an archaic spelling of jail? Is it possible it has some other
            meaning?

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Don’t worry, these will get axed too. It’s random. Lefty said “Time heals all wounds”. I responded with “Time wounds all heels”. It got axed. But it was about the Civil War and the moderator is sympathetic to the South.

          4. And intolerant of mediocre snark that adds nothing to the conversation

          5. I can take constructive criticism. Henceforth I shall try to improve both the quality and relevance of my snark.

            😉

          6. Comment was for NN. 😊

          7. I know.

            😉

          8. It was in the approved list earlier today and I did not delete it on purpose. There is the possibility of a glitch by hitting the wrong button. If so. I’m sorry for that!

          9. No worries. You have a difficult job.

            Thank you for the explanation – and for restoring my comment.

            🙂

    3. It’s a huge leap from “developing alternative energy sources” to banning fossil fuel powered automobiles.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        I agree if it were true… where does it say we are banning fossil fuel powered autos?

        1. Give me a break. You know very well the ultimate goal of these people is to ban the IC engine.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            nope, not. no more than it was when gas mileage standards were supposed to in some minds.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            proves the point: ” Yet despite all these commitments, no country has actually passed a law prohibiting anything. ”There is literally not a single ban on the books in regulatory language that is enforceable in any auto market in the world,”

            we want to move in that direction when we can.. but reality keeps us from going too fast … this is not new… it happens with a lot of new technologies… as they evolve…

          3. I said it was their goal. And it is their goal.

            Please stop misrepresenting my comments.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            didn’t know I was… but I think your idea of what “goal” is , is different from mine.
            I see it as something we are striving for as opposed to mandated drop-dead dates. And yes, it is an intentional goal… on purpose… little different than when we decided to have other goals like fuel mileage standards or smokestack standards… we set goals, we implement standards, we assess how well we are progressing towards the goals…and sometimes recalibrate.

            it’s a purposeful process.

  3. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    Does tying one state’s laws to the whim of another state’s legislature, governor and bureaucrats violate Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution? It’s one thing for a legislature to enact a law that mirrors that of another state. But what Virginia did is quite different.

    And this cuts both ways. What if a state legislature passed a law that tied its abortion laws to the state with the most restrictive provisions? Equally unconstitutional in my mind.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Are we really ‘tying” or are we “adopting” with the option of un-adopting whenever we wish?

      The idea that we are locking ourselves in with no ability to undo – is not true!

      Many states try to adopt some common approach to many things especially if having separate laws and regs causes problems for everyone.

      Who knows how long it will take to evolve on emission standards?

      It took decades the first time around.

      Do folks remember when some cars had California emission standards and some not?

      This is primarily a made-up issue from the climate skeptics… IMO.

      1. The idea that we are locking ourselves in with no ability to undo – is not true!

        Who said it is true? Please name names.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      The federal Clean Air Act allows states to follow California’s rules as opposed to EPA’s, but I’m not sure there has been a legal test on the VA Constitutional issue.

      Really Larry? Seems the Democrats are in court claiming we cannot “undo” RGGI right now! But yes, an election can change this.

      1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        It strikes me as different if a state were to adopt existing California air quality rules versus automatically applying changes in those rules without a vote of the legislature or, if already authorized, without following the state’s requirements for rulemaking.

        We need to keep in mind that one legislature cannot bind its successors.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          and they don’t…they can “undo” at any time….

          The implication that they cannot is totally wrong.

          California has always LED on air quality and vehicle emissions… and other states have followed along by “adopting”.

          We now have some of the cleanest air in our cities than we’ve had for decades… and it’s not Virginia that led the way… it’s California and we followed just like we are now.

          And it’s not “locked in forever” at all…

          it’s “adopt” with the option of backing off if is not right for us.

          THe GOP has never been in favor of cleaner air (or water). They’ve fought tooth and nail against efforts to improve it… and it’s always making the environment the enemy of the economy.

          The GOP is totally unfit to lead when it comes to the environment, IMO.

          We’d have air quality like they have in China if the GOP was in charge.

          1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            Larry, your argument fails. There is nothing wrong with a legislature adopting the same law that is in effect in another state or a state agency with appropriate authority adopting the rules that are in effect in another state. It happens quite often.

            But it’s simply wrong for a legislature or an agency to put things on autopilot, automatically adopting another state’s changed laws or regulations without a vote of the legislature or an agency following rulemaking procedures. That deprives residents of their right to a republican government.

            It doesn’t matter what the issue is. Citizens have a right to force their legislators to vote on bills and to have agencies follow the administrative procedure laws.

    3. On December 18, 2021, Bacon’s Rebellion posted my article “Delegating Emission Standards to California is Unconstitutional.” In that article I cited several Virginia Supreme Court decisions to support my contention that delegation of emission standards to California is unconstitutional. Although I was addressing the delegation of emission standards to California, the reasoning of the Virginia Supreme Court decisions cited in my article would be applicable to any other similar delegations.

    4. On December 18, 2021, Bacon’s Rebellion posted my article “Delegating Emission Standards to California is Unconstitutional.” In that article I cited several Virginia Supreme Court decisions to support my contention that delegation of emission standards to California is unconstitutional. Although I was addressing the delegation of emission standards to California, the reasoning of the Virginia Supreme Court decisions cited in my article would be applicable to any other similar delegations.

  4. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    US oil production at record high.
    https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5142

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      And it is only going up, here and world wide. There is not and will not be in our lifetimes an “energy transition.”

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Well, OUR lifetimes… but my daughters?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          when one can buy a car for 25k that has a range of 500-1000 miles and it costs $5 to fill it up..change is going to happen… not from the “anti” geezers true, but from your daughters..?? sure.

          1. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            I couldn’t agree more. Now, show me the math that demonstrates that will happen by 2035.

          2. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            It’s the same kind of math that showed Enron to be a profitable company.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            We don’t know when it will happen… but this technology is barely beyond it’s infancy and there are lots of signs that it could get a lot better quickly.

            2035 is a goal… it’s not the date we start hauling out folks and shooting them! 😉

          4. …this technology is barely beyond it’s infancy…

            Exactly! So why should we adopt short-term policies which will have enormous effects on our national economy based on technology that has just entered the ‘toddler’ stage?

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            no more or less than when we started requirements for fuel efficiency on cars, the use of unleaded fuels, etc, …which took a decade or more… or standards for smokestacks, or wastewater disposal, etc. You have to START somewhere and this is really no different. The technology itself is rapidly improving.

            People have the opportunity to start using the technology… now… and many will… and are…
            we’re seeing things like bus fleets and local delivery trucks, etc.. as well as commuter cars…

            the technology is in it’s infancy but it already provides sufficient functionality to use.

          6. the technology is in it’s infancy but it already provides sufficient functionality to use.

            As of yet, not useful enough to use as a basis for major policy and laws.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            there is a LOT of it already out there ! no?

          8. Well now you’re arguing with yourself. Either the technology is barely out of its ‘infancy’ or it is further along. Make up your mind, please.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            In it’s infancy, real and expanding… very consistent unless someone just can’t help getting tangled up!

            virtually all of these technology/efficiency changes have take decades… and over that time,
            they vastly improved…all the gloom and doom over unleaded gas… were you even around when that happened?

          10. ..when one can buy a car for 25k that has a range of 500-1000 miles and it costs $5 to fill it up

            …I will buy two of them.

            What year should I plan to make my purchases?

        2. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Still pulling for fusion. 🙂

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Cold or naught!

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            still pulling for SMRs? 😉

          3. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            The idea has to compete on the basis of cost just like all the others. Right now it probably cannot.

        3. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
          f/k/a_tmtfairfax

          So why don’t all the left-wing billionaires from California give away their fortunes, save a billion, to create a car company that produces affordable electric cars? Toss in the old money like the Ford Foundation and make it happen.

          The path to alternative energy carries trucks loads of wealth from the middle class to the uber wealthy. Call Henry Ford a robber baron, but he made cars affordable.

          1. Lefty665 Avatar

            The current Ford Motor Company (presciently Motor, not Engine) is losing $40k on each EV it produces. How about if the billionaires just cough up that $40k per car, plus another $40k to make EVs affordable and another $20k for good measure to make a nice round $100k per car subsidy to facilitate the conversion? They wouldn’t need to build anything themselves, just a few key clicks to transfer the money to those who do.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            I believe I saw an article where the CEO finally drove a Lightning for a road trip and got a reality check.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            you might have said the same thing about cell phones and other technologies a few years back… no?

            give it time… it’s going forward… despite the Luddite folk…per usual

          4. No Luddite here, just a realist.

          5. So why don’t all the left-wing billionaires from California give away their fortunes, save a billion, to create a car company that produces affordable electric cars?

            Because:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f9c092dac21c361e5d4045859397bf7cba55f8a07a9faa62441ef375017c79c4.png use:

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            trickle down economics? 😉

  5. Matt Adams Avatar
    Matt Adams

    Hey the price of used cars is already through the roof after “cash for clunkers” and COVID, why not pile this on. Next thing you know, you’ll be paying $22k for a 1999 Honda Civic with 215,000 miles on it to get to and from work.

  6. Walter Hadlock Avatar
    Walter Hadlock

    First of all, I agree with those who say we should not have decisions for Virginians made by some other state. Secondly, Electric Vehicles (EV) might be all well and good but good luck 1) finding one, and then discovering the dealer has added a dealer mark up to the MSRP 2) being able to afford it, 3) having either a home based charger, a free one or a for fee one nearby. And, don’t forget, in Virginia, to make up for an EV not burning taxed fossil fuel, you will pay a separate fee as part of registering your EV. As more models, at more affordable prices, become available, I expect there will be a gradual transition to EVs.

  7. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    One, I don’t like automatically tying Virginia to laws and regulations enacted in other states. It is a lazy way of legislating that allows Virginia legislators to avoid doing the hard stuff–analyzing, thinking, debating.

    Two, the Republican ad is outrageously false.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Change “driving” to “buying” and it is 100% accurate. The next wave of advertising can fix that. 🙂 Dem’s also disputed the cost figure but, being Dems, always forget the taxes and registration fees (don’t forget that nasty car tax bill you quickly get from the county, too.)

    2. I don’t know about “outrageously”…

      😉

    3. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Change “driving” to “buying” and it is 100% accurate. The next wave of advertising can fix that. 🙂 Dem’s also disputed the cost figure but, being Dems, always forget the taxes and registration fees (don’t forget that nasty car tax bill you quickly get from the county, too.)

  8. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    The Democrats have certainly become the authoritarian party. Authoritarian and arrogant. They arrogantly believe that they can accurately predict the trend of technology and then are authoritarian enough to put those bogus predictions into law.

    Electric vehicles will eventually win. When? I don’t know and neither does anybody else.

    Wind, hydro, and solar power will eventually win. When? I don’t know and neither does anybody else.

    There is no “Moore’s Law” for green energy.

    Speaking of Moore’s Law …

    In 1965 the late, great Gordon Moore came up with what would be called “Moore’s Law” (he should be awarded a Nobel Prize for that but that’s another story). It wouldn’t have mattered one whit if (in 1965) the government would have legislated that every person in America buy 10 computer chips per year to speed up Moore’s Law.

    I hope that the science to make green energy and electric cars competitive with the fossil fuel alternatives happens quickly. A lot of bad things beyond carbon dioxide are being spewed by fossil fuel based power.

    But hope is neither a strategy nor a good basis for legislation.

    The sheer arrogance of our elected officials throwing the dice betting our economy by making technology improvement predictions is breathtaking.

    And it doesn’t end with green energy.

    Yesterday, I saw that technology genius Chuck Schumer plans to host a series of closed door Congressional sessions on AI. Chuck Schumer couldn’t spell “AI” if you spotted him the “A”. Amy Schumer might as well host the sessions. And who did he invite to the first session? Crazy Elon, Meta Mark, Evil Bill, Silly Satya, etc. A group of West Coast tech sharks who couldn’t possibly have more of a vested interest in manipulating any regulation to their own benefit.

    All White and Asian men too, I noticed.

    Where is the DEI rep on that panel, Chuck?

    Like green energy, it won’t matter what the US regulations are for AI if the Chinese don’t get in line. And the ChiComs won’t ge in line.

    Wha a mindless political spectacle.

    Government is not the answer. Government is the problem.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      We have cleaner and safer cars today because of government. Our city’s air has never been cleaner as a result. The Potomac is a cleaner river today because of govt. The Bay is gradually getting better, because of govt.

      Do you remember back when the EPA fuel standards and air quality emissions got implemented? All heck broke loose among Conservatives… Unleaded gas, remember that?

      PCBs and other toxics… ?? remember that?

      Airline Safety?

      Sometimes Conservatives seem to act like all these things were already in place and just are built-in. Nope. Every one of them had to get passed as law and implemented often with Conservatives fighting tooth and nail against “regulation”..

      1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        There clearly is a place for environmental, safety and consumer protection regulation where the long-term benefits outweigh the long-term costs.

        But what are seeing is economic regulation designed to pick winners and losers and to transfer money from the middle class to the winners.

        A business cannot deduct the costs for trying to influence federal legislation. Extend the ban to cover influencing federal regulators. But level the playing field, prohibit nonprofits from spending money to influence government policy or public opinion if they want to keep their tax free status. No 503(c)(3) can have a 503(c)(4) affiliate.

  9. As bad as the underlying policy, the worst aspect of the Democrat’s move is how it abandons Virginia’s sovereignty to California’s appointed bureaucrats.

    This is the key action, in my opinion. Anyone, democrat, republican, or whatever, who is willing to vote away Virginia’s sovereignty to unelected officials 3,000 miles away is completely unfit for office. Do the difficult work of representing Virginians yourself, or go home.

  10. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Here’s a question for the peanut gallery …

    Where does “automotive” rank among the human activities that most cause global warming?

    I’ve been told that raising livestock for human consumption is a major contributor to global warming.

    If true, why are our politicians so fixated on electric vehicles?

    Vegetarian / vegan diets are available now, cost less than meat-based diets and would probably have the additional benefit of improving health and lowering healthcare costs.

    So, why aren’t our politicians focused on banning meat by 2035?

    The land used for livestock and growing the feed for livestock could be split between growing more vegetables and being reforested – which also helps with global warming.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      so is your position informed?

      Is your position based on facts ?

      Would you change your position if the facts showed that cars are substantial contributors to GHG or would you take Haner’s position which seems to be that it’s all a hoax anyhow…

      ” What percent of global warming is caused by cars?
      Transportation and Climate Change

      ​Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation account for about 29 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, making it the largest contributor of U.S. GHG emissions.May 11, 2023″

      https://www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climate-change/carbon-pollution-transportation#:~:text=Transportation%20and%20Climate%20Change,-Burning%20fossil%20fuels&text=%E2%80%8BGreenhouse%20gas%20(GHG)%20emissions,contributor%20of%20U.S.%20GHG%20emissions.

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      There is no question that livestock farming has a large impact on the environment and not just in regard to climate change.

      Eliminating the sale of new, fossil-fuel-powered cars after 2035 is a whole lot easier than banning the sale of meat by that date. The switch to electric vehicles would probably have a bigger impact on carbon emissions that would the banning of the sale of meat.

      As for vegan diets being cheaper than meat-based diets, I have my doubts. One of my grandsons is a vegan and I have seen the cost of vegan products.

      1. Lefty665 Avatar

        “The switch to electric vehicles would probably have a bigger impact on carbon emissions”

        Studies are showing that life cycle emissions of EV vs ICEV are at best a wash. I like the idea of EVs around town, but let that grow as consumer choice rather than a statewide mandate.

        I agree with you, my vegan and vegetarian in-laws do not eat economically, and they have health consequences that are not all good.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          That’s impossible meat stuff is super expensive and yet they still end up with an iron deficiency.

      2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        Several years ago, I attended a presentation by the MWCOG staff on housing stock and greenhouse gas emissions. Houses with little or no insulation and/or inefficient heating plants are a huge contributor to emissions. But the cost to remedy was beyond the pale even for true believers. What if the feds eliminated all the climate-related funding for universities, nonprofits, state grants, etc., as well as all the subsidies to EVs, solar farms, etc., and began insulating the existing housing stock? What if money went to help ordinary people and not the elites?

        1. how_it_works Avatar
          how_it_works

          It’s a lot easier and less work to insulate and air seal a house BEFORE the drywall goes in…with one exception–the top plate in the attic can’t be sealed up till the drywall goes in, and that sealing is much easier to do BEFORE the insulation is blown in.

          My experience has been that, historically, home builders in NoVA have paid little attention to insulation and air sealing. Why would they, in the “judge a book by it’s cover” mentality that predominates. It doesn’t make the house look nicer or more impressive.

          1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            Our house in Wake Forest is well insulated and sealed. We have efficient appliances, a tankless water heater and LED lighting. It’s been a hot summer in the Triangle. I just got a new electric bill from late June to late July. We are both home during the day but did go out of town for a wedding. The bill is $126.45, including taxes.

            So why don’t we figure out what can be done with the older housing stock instead of rewarding the rent seekers?

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            That LED lighting is an example of efficiency standards that do get implemented even as the boo birds declare there is a “war” on incandescent lights and people are being “forced” by “bans” to do something they do not want to do.

            You did it.

            You did not demand that your house NOT have LED or an on-demand heater… you accepted it.

            The same technology evolution is ongoing for both houses and cars…. and part of RGGI was to provide credits for upgrading technology in older housing stock.

          3. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            But how much more could be done for the older housing stock if the direct appropriations to colleges and universities and nonprofits was slashed? Or rebates and tax subsidies for EVs, solar and wind were eliminated? And then there is that pesky problem of allowing massive illegal immigration where the illegals will have a much higher carbon footprint in the U.S. than if they remained in South or Central America.

            My problem is not addressing climate change. It’s addressing it in a way that transfers wealth from ordinary people to the self-appointed elites.

            Just think of the wailing and gnashing of teeth that would take place among the elites from job losses if nonprofits could not spend money to influence public policy and opinion. It puts a smile on my face.

          4. Lefty665 Avatar

            “if nonprofits could not spend money to influence public policy and opinion.”

            501c-3s are already prohibited from lobbying. They need to register as 501c-4s to take influencing positions. It’s a different set of regs, and comes without the tax deductible charitable deduction.

          5. …even as the boo birds declare there is a “war” on incandescent lights and people are being “forced” by “bans” to do something they do not want to do.

            1) Why do you post the same exact things over and over and over to this blog?

            2) Not that it really matters any more, but there was a war on incandescent light bulbs, and incandescent light bulbs have been banned – as of the first day of this month. And yes, I know, they are banned for sale, not for use – don’t be petty.

            3) Most of the “boo birds” you deride were opposed to those stupid fluorescent lights which were the first thing our government touted as the “better” replacement for incandescent lights. Fluorescent lighting is terrible for your eyes, and the tubes contain mercury, a toxic material.

            4) AFTER the fluorescent debacle, and once the quality and availability of LEDs were greatly improved, LED lighting virtually took over the market. The overwhelming majority of your so-called “boo birds” have readily adopted them. They have adopted them because LEDs are a high quality, economical replacement, not because you and the government told them they have to.

            Interestingly, though, in your repetitive criticism of others, you don’t seem to remember or want to discuss the big push by our government to get people to switch to those poisonous fluorescent lights. And “boo bird” or not, if high quality LEDs had not come along, if I was going to be stuck with those stupid fluorescent lights, I would still be fighting to keep my incandescent bulbs.

            Sometimes the government is wrong.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            sometimes you might be……..eh?

          7. You’re saying I should not have switched to LED lighting?

            Seriously, though, I am usually wrong several times a day. And I admit it when I am. I am not wrong about this. The government’s push for a switch to fluorescent lighting was ill conceived and quite costly to many who fell for it.

          8. LarrytheG Avatar

            I always felt I had a choice with regard to buying fluorescents or not. Didn’t you?

          9. Lefty665 Avatar

            Best decision I ever made was to bring attic insulation in our older all electric house up to R40 with fiberglass batts. It has cut heating costs more than in half and cooling close to as much. It was startling. A heat pump water heater did not help much, it turned out our hot water costs are mostly storage. I regret not going tankless, but the 120amp feed would have required an upgraded service.

            Energy efficiency has wonderful long term payouts.

    3. Lefty665 Avatar

      The Dutch have been in the throes of banning livestock. Read about how well that has gone before encouraging our dingbat government to ban meat to reduce emissions.

      There is little evidence that vegan diets are healthier than those containing meat protein. Assuming they lower disease and healthcare costs is unsupported. Our 50+ year Fed (FDA & USDA) diet advocacy that has greatly increased the consumption of carbs and reduced the consumption of meats and saturated fats has resulted in 40% of the country fattening up to obese, and the percentage is growing. That ain’t healthy.
      https://www.amazon.com/Big-Fat-Surprise-Butter-Healthy/dp/1451624433/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1Y3RTX08YI2HK&keywords=the+big+fat+lie+book&qid=1693418205&sprefix=the+big+fat+lie%2Caps%2C296&sr=8-1

      Analysis has shown that life cycle pollution costs of EV versus ICE vehicles is at best a wash. The toxic waste and pollution of mining the huge amount of minerals needed for batteries, disposing them at life end, and the pollution caused by generating and transporting the electricity to charge them equals or exceeds the emissions of building, using and disposing of ICE engined vehicles.

      Hybrids turn out to be the best of both worlds. But don’t tell that to the green fanatics, the Biden administration or the Virginia Dems who locked us into California’s nut jobs vision of the only correct future.

      1. And doesn’t a vegan diet cause people to produce more gas than if they had an omnivorous diet?

        Cows get their excessive flatulence from somewhere, and that somewhere is from eating nothing but plant matter.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          When we potty trained our daughter, we had several books explaining, everybody poops. Perhaps, we should find one book that “everyone farts” and provide it with these individuals who malign cattle for their flatulence and its “climate impact”.

  11. Ronnie Chappell Avatar
    Ronnie Chappell

    People aren’t going to like implementation of the law and Democrats will pay the price. Car makers can’t sell the EV’s they’re making now. The percentages will be impossible to achieve. The change will drive new and used car prices even higher at a time when the average car payment, according to the WSJ, is already $700. Virginians will buy new gas fueled cars in other states and the percentage of used cars on the road will climb. And then, the big three automakers, who lined up at the federal trough for EV subsidies and low interest loans, will arrive in Washington to say that unless allowed to make cars people actually want, they’re going to close factories and lay off workers. This will be as successful as collective farms in the old Soviet Union. You will plant potatoes in the spring.

  12. Turbocohen Avatar
    Turbocohen

    This is real easy. Deny Democrat Socialists who voted for this garbage of any food that was produced using diesel fuel.

Leave a Reply