The Left’s All or Nothing Environmental Strategy

California's severe air pollution and combating climate change. The withdrawal comes after the Biden administration recently approved the California Air Resources Boards mandate phasing out new gas powered cars by twenty thirty five, but had not yet approved other waivers for four diesel vehicle standards that the state has adopted. President elect Donald Trump has threatened to revoke or challenge all zero emissions vehicle rules and California's other clean air standards.

By withdrawing its requests for US Environmental Protection Agency approval, the Newsome administration is signaling a dramatic step back as the state recalibrates in anticipation of the new Trump era. California has withdrawn its pending waiver and authorization requests that

us EPA has not yet acted on. Air Resources Board chair Leanne Randolph said in a statement, while we are disappointed that us EPA was unable to act on all the requests in time, the withdrawal is an important step given the uncertainty presented by the incoming administration that previously attacked California's programs to protect public health and the climate and has said we'll continue to oppose those programs. Environmentalists

were distressed, saying it puts communities at risks, at risk. Yes, our environment. We are so afraid of these at risk communities as Los Angeles is burning down on to the ground and dismantles key programs to meet basic Now this the quote here is from some of the people who are ruining the state. Let me just preface that to meet basic standards for healthy air, California has to shift to zero, has to shift to zero emissions trucks and trains in the coming years. Diesel is one of the

most dangerous kinds of air pollution for human health. In California's diesel problem is big enough to cast its own shadow Paul Court, director of the group Earth Justices Right to Zero Campaign, said in a statement. The group called on Governor Knew, some state legislators and our air quality regulators to join us to clean up our freight system

and fix the mess EPA's inaction has created. Now this is going to have an impact on this Advanced Clean Fleet Rule California's Advanced Clean Fleet Rule, which phases out diesel trucks. It was one of the most far reaching and controversial rules that California has enacted in recent years

to reduce air pollution in greenhouse gases. It would have ended the sale of new fossil fuel trucks in twenty thirty six and required large trucking companies to convert their medium and heavy duty fleets to electric or hydrogen models by twenty forty two. The Truck Fleet Rule was approved in twenty twenty two after years of analysis, public hearings, and discussions with industries and experts. After years of discussion, after which we put in place a wildly unrealistic set

of goals to shoot for. It would have ended Diesel's stronghold on goods movement in the state. Oh They have a stranglehold they have a stronghold on it. I'm not sure what a stronghold is that different from a stranglehold. Allow me to explain why diesel has a stranglehold on the trucking industry. How else are you going to move large amount ounce of heavy stuff. It's the only way to make a cost efficient engine that will move that stuff. All right, You want to buy Tesla model trucks. I

saw one. I saw one in the wild one time. I saw a semi truck with a Tesla logo on the well, a Tesla logo on the front.

the statement. He said the industry would work with the state, Airborne and EPA to further reduce emissions in a tech chologically feasible, in cost effective manner that preserves our state and nation's critical supply chain. Other withdrawn measures and health concerns. Diesel exhaust has been linked to cancer and contains fine particles that can trigger asthma in heart attacks, as well

as gases that form smog. Low income, disadvantaged communities of color near ports, freeways, and warehouses, especially in the Los Angeles and Long Beach area, have long complained about nauseous and dangerous diesel exhaust. The state withdrew three other measures regulating emissions from diesel powered locomotives, commercial harbor craft, and refrigeration unit engines that are hauled by trucks and railcars.

Under the railroad rule, only locomotives less than twenty three years old would have been allowed in California beginning in twenty thirty unless they were zero emissions. The rule also limited how long they could be idle. People living in communities with trains and rail yards have long complained that

the emissions are making them sick. Railroads said no viable zero emission locomotive technology and infrastructure exists yet, so the rules timeline is impossible, and that it would prematurely retire viable equipment and disrupt goods movement. This is the constant

posture of the environmental movement. They want something, they want some switchover to a green zero emission standard, energy production train systems, trucking, all cars, and their activists push California regulators to come up with standards that the industries they're regulating are just telling them this is not attainable, this is impossible, And their response is well tough, and I mean, I get it.

into California a lot. So here's California actually being saved from itself, saved from imposing this idiotic air regulation scheme, this idiotic emissions regulation scheme. That Look, I'm not denying that diesel fuel particulates are bad for people. I'm not

denying that environmental harms are not great. Here's what I am saying, though this solution is impossible, This solution is not feasible, you know, I mean going beyond that, I mean, the article is talking about the prior California Air Resources Board, you know, set of goals that they put in place for all new cars, not just for trucks, just talking about normal cars, the normal fleet of cars that you and I drive, that all cars in California, all new

car sales in California by twenty thirty five will be for zero emissions, cars, electric, whatever, zero emissions. And that's also a wildly unrealistic proposition. Our electrical grid cannot sustain having ten million, twelve million new cars on the road that are all going to be electric powered. We don't have the capacity for that within the current of the electric grid as currently constituted. So you're either going to need to build a couple of mega nuclear power plants.

we don't have the solar power capacity, all right. There's talk about like trying to set up offshore solar farms. There's talk about it, there's no actual doing of it. There's talk about it, I mean and the like. To sustain fourteen million new electric cars on the road, you would need to set up an enormous offshore solar farm industry in California and infrastructure and industry that does not exist. You would need to basically, I mean, look at how

many gas stations we have in this state. You want all the cars on the road to be electric cars, you got to at some point convert all those gas stations into electric vehicle charging stations. And you got to tell me exactly how unless you're just we're just all relying on Elon musk to solve the problem. I guess, how are you going to get an electric car that is as cheap as a Toyota Corolla Because we haven't quite figured that out yet. Right, the cheapest we're doing

is like thirty thirty five. I mean for any new Tesla, the lowest end Tesla is still well above thirty thousand dollars unless I'm mistaken. So how do we propose to do that other than just banking on the idea? Ah,

Elon Muskle solve it. Elon Muscle figure out a way to take the electric car concept and make it more cost effective over the course of time, and eventually he'll have you know, eventually, at some point, Tesla will come out with basically a Toyota Corolla equivalent car that is priced at a Toyota Corolla equivalent level, and a mini van that is priced at a you know, the what's.

there yet. We are not there yet. So that's the amazing thing is that the incoming Trump administration basically they've signaled we're not going to approve this insane California new standard for trucking that all trucks have to be you know, zero emissions by this state. Forget about it. That's insane. It's almost like the Trump EPA is saving California from itself.

It's saving and this is happening time and time again where California is proposing regulations and again I understand not not being dictated to by the industry you're trying to regulate, but when the industry you're trying to regulate is telling you this will destroy our industry. This is an impossible

standard to meet. I mean, this reminds me of exon when California was when Governor Newsom proposed this, the legislation that we passed last year for fuel refineries and they have to maintain a consistently artificially high inflated supply of fuel so that we won't have artificial summer spikes and gas prices, and Exon was telling the state this is

an idiotic regulation. It is going to just increase costs for us all year round, which could lead to higher gas prices all year round rather than just spiking in the summertime. And guess what, we're really questioning whether we want to keep investing in California because it costs US like three hundred million dollars to maintain a fuel refiner, any individual fuel refinery station in the state of California.

We're really gonna consider withdrawing our investment. And Gavin Newsom's response was eh, Like, again, I get not coddling the industry that you're trying to regulate. I get not being wanting to be captured by the industry you're trying to regulate.

But when the industry you're trying to regulate is telling you we are leaving, Sayonara, and your attitude is one of just blunt in transigent combativeness and not actually listening to them and not taking the expertise that they honestly have into account and they're not being given take well, it's a recipe for disaster, for economic disaster for companies just leaving the state and ultimately for more costs to the consumer all around. When we return, have you noticed

that California doesn't care about hybrid cars anymore? Next on the John Girardi Show, I got this interesting story sent to me by my buddy Eric. It was sent by It was this piece written by i e F, which is some sort of International Energy Federation or something like that, this international based entity that looks at energy stuff. And part of what they are saying in this piece, this piece about how do we electrify global fleets of cars?

The International Energy Form Excuse me, so they're talking about how do you electrify global vehicle fleets? Okay, fossil fuel emission that this a whole article is about. You know, fossil fuel emissions are bad. We need to find zero emissions, ways of zero emissions, ways of allowing people to do transportation.

an El Camino. It's kind of like a car, but it has a kind of trucky tiny tray and it's a hybrid car. And I'm like, well, it's not really that expensive. I mean, it's not that expensive it's a hybrid, so I mean i'd save money on gas.

the ief they write. To electrify the global vehicle fleet, have all the vehicles throughout the world become ultimately electric cars requires bringing into production fifty five percent more new mines mines for rare earth minerals than would otherwise be needed. On the other hand, hybrid electric vehicle manufacture would require negligible extra copper mining, so we could have the whole world transition to hybrid cars with And this is the

other thing. For some reason, we're so fixated on zero missions electric cars in spite of the fact that there are real environmental harms associated with it, like the kinds of mining you have to do for the stuff you need for electric car batteries is pretty bad for the environment. It's just it's bad for the environment in Africa. We don't see it in America. So I guess for environmentalists

they think that that's better. Somehow we can export our environmental harms to the Third world and somehow that makes us, that should make us feel.

the environment. And the environment wins one hundred percent of the time, every single which way to Sunday.

when they can burn. But one forest fire will do more to harm the environment than forty years of California state environmental programs have done to mitigate environmental damage. So, I mean, what are we even talking about. Basically, it's this all or nothing approach. After all the big wildfires, what were the solutions everyone had. We've all heard them,

We've all rattled them off. Thinning of overgrown forests, clearing away brush, sweeping up forest floors, having controlled burns, in some cases limited control stuff that the Native Americans used to do, having limited controlled burns to mitigate prevent the incidents of some larger fire, allowing some logging to clear away, especially to clear away old, dead, fallen trees, to thin out forests that are massively overgrown, and the environmentalist left

opposes it every single step of the way. Newsom even wanted to do some of those things, allowed some of those things to be done, but he had this constant bam pam pam pam pam of pressure coming from his leftward flank to say no, no, no, no no. And by the way, it's it's not just these environmental groups. These environmental groups don't have power in and of themselves.

The reason they have power is because they are backed by gazillionaire donors whom gave Newsome has to dance for like a monkey to placate them so that he can run for president. And all the Democrats all up and down California state politics have to placate these donor interests. This is why the environmental movement is such a relevant force. It's like the definition of special interests. It's just really wealthy people who are really important to one political party

and they're functioning. It's this wildly outsized sphere of special interest influence. Now, so they opposed everything. It was an all or nothing strategy, absolutely zero. When we look at what and we look at in other areas where environmental law is concerned, our goals for energy production in California, it's not okay, well, we're going to transition to you know, gradually growing with a plan of this is how we're going to build more you know, solar infrastructure. This is

how we'll build more hydrogen power infrastructure. You know, we can have more hydro you know, water power infrastructure. And ultimately this will set us on a plan of having you know, seventy five percent of California energy production be zero emissions by the ear TA DA DA DA DA. Even the stuff that is emissions producing, we'll focus more on natural gas rather than so and such. You know, we have a lot of oil in Bakersfield area. California

has you know, an energy industry of its own. We could pump for more oil here, we could ex support it, we could sell, we could we can make money off of this. We can help foster jobs in the current county area. We could have energy production from this. No, not the approach California takes. California takes the approach of Our goal is zero emissions period, and not zero emissions by hydro power ultimately, because hydro power requires dams, and

dams hurt the fishies. So not prioritizing hydro power. Just hydrogen power plants, solar plants and wind farms. Solar and wind that don't work very well. Hydrogen I don't know too much about. But absolutely no nuclear, which is the obvious solution for the whole world. Absolutely no nuclear, Absolutely no, absolutely no nuclear. Absolutely nothing that involves burning fossil fuel,

even though these are obviously the best ways to produce energy. Okay, no give, no take, no compromise, no, like, let's work towards correcting this problem long term. No. And in fact, when you ask, well, how are we how are we gonna mitigate forest fires? Well, we need to you know, we need to do something about climate change. You're not gonna do anything about climate change. California could become the

most green, peaceful, idyllic place in the world. It's state government can be completely taken over by environmentalist wackos, which it has been for fourteen years, and it's not gonna reverse climate change. Okay, you've had complete environmentalist control of every branch of California state government for fourteen years. You haven't reversed climate change. You know why, because, first of all, the whole concept of climate change is a lot more

amorphous than the old global warming used to be. Sort of this catch off for any bat that liberals sort of say any bad thing that happens is the result of climate change, hurricanes or the result.

So the idea that this relatively small land mass on a global scale, relatively small of California US doing stuff that's environmentally helpful, that that's going to somehow reverse climate change globally, that or a reverse climate change enough that is going to turn the clock back on us in California, that doesn't make any sense.

or two degrees. If that happens, you still think you think there's no forest fire risk, because that's what we're talking about. We're talking about a change of average temperatures of about two degrees on average. You're still going to have really hot and dry summers occasionally that'll drag into fall in September October. You'll still have wildfire seasons. You're not gonna stop it even if you completely reverse climate change.

But that's the strategy the environmentalist wackos again with this zero compromises approach they have. They said, absolutely no thinning of a forest, absolutely no controlled burns, absolutely no clearing away of brush, Absolutely no clearing away of dead logs, absolutely no clearing of forest floors.

OH insurance companies won't provide fire insurance for houses. Well, it's probably the best that we just don't build there. That's their solution. Just leave, just just get away from anywhere that has a hill in trees. They are okay with the outcome of just human communities not existing in the places where we have set up human communities up and down the state. And seemingly they are okay with

massive wildfires that have enormous environmental harm. They would rather have that than the limited environmental damage that would result from appropriate forestry management, controlled burns, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. This is the outcome they prefer, Seemingly, this is the outcome that their actions lead them to, because they are in this basically zero compromise solution.

environmental policy. With things that don't involve absolute moral evils like murder, like killing. We're talking about, are we going to clear away some brush, Let some loggers chop a couple of trees down. No, never that that that tree has a soul. It's too many people who watched Pocahontas when they were kids. I do sort of wonder if Pocahontas screwed up a whole generation of millennials when it

came to environmental policy. Environmental policy, the idea of Western civilization as a conquering blight upon the pristine face of the lant. My kids, actually, this is ridiculous. My kids are trying to do a California Missions report. And my wife got some book on a bunch of books at the local library about the California Missions because every kid in elementary school in.

with your Coexist bumper sticker. Sorry, you are now not sufficiently woke. You now need to get some kind of non Tesla electric car to be woke enough for the modern day environmental left. Or if you do have a Tesla, you need to have a bumper sticker on it that said says something like Elon Musk is bad or I bought it before I knew he was evil.

a long distance runner. I'm a long distance runner. I've done a marathon. I've done a couple of half marathons. Usually on weekends, I'll do a ten k, do a five k. You know, I run pretty frequently. And I've never lifted weights, never never done any kind of weightlifting anything. And then I saw a tweet after the election, or like a day or two after the election that has just stuck in my mind the whole time, basically someone saying the.