XPost: alt.politics.economics, alt.california, sac.politics   
   XPost: alt.politics.democrats   
   From: mygarbagecan@verizon.net   
      
   "Governor Swill"  wrote in message   
   news:u755ib9pheofeibrrn1hcshaef4u54bdsv@4ax.com...   
      
   On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 19:39:15 -0700, "Wayne"    
   wrote:   
      
   >   
   >   
   >"$15 An Hour! Snicker..."  wrote in message   
   >news:54d1e2afac4fd6e6db7bf1c3f187cf86@dizum.com...   
   >   
   >>After handing out close to $300 million in rebates for   
   >>purchasers of low- and zero-emission vehicles, state regulators   
   >>spotted a nettlesome trend -- much of the money ended up in the   
   >>pockets of upper middle class and wealthy homeowners.   
   >   
   >>Did the state really need to subsidize owners of gleaming new   
   >>Volts and Teslas and BMW i3s?   
   >   
   >>"If somebody is going to buy a top-line Tesla," said Dave   
   >>Clegern, spokesman for the California Air Resources Board, "they   
   >>may not need the help."   
   >   
   >LOL.  And sooner or probably later these regulator monkeys are going to   
   >realize that there is a bigger carbon footprint for electric vehicles   
   >(sometimes known as "coal powered" vehicles.   
      
   # Reducing coal use is a global trend.  The Chinese have cut their coal   
   # consumption by 30% over the past decade.  No mean feat when you factor   
   # in growth.  In the US, there simply is not the demand there was and   
   # now Peabody has gone belly up.   
      
   Even if coal isn't involved, the electricity has to be generated somewhere   
   and transported by wires to the end user.   
   Factoring all in manufacturing costs including battery construction and   
   disposal, conventional cars are still just a bit cleaner.   
      
   An exception to this might be Norway where hydro electricity abounds.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)