[baidifnaoxi]

What’s going to happen: Trucking companies are simply going to leave CA. They will deliver goods to the border. Then some enterprising company with electric trucks will pick those up at the border and deliver into CA.

Congratulations, you’ve now significantly increased the cost of all the goods going into California. You’ve only moderately reduced the climate burden and likely increased the amount of traffic via container ships that pollute significantly more.

[vm]

That premise seems unlikely based on two facts from the article:

1. “to require truck manufacturers to sell an increasing number of zero-emission trucks over the next couple of decades”

This is a multi-decade effort for manufacturers, not freight companies

2. “eight other states plan to adopt California’s truck standards”

It’s a catalyst for other states to adopt this same standard. California is using its market power to influence national emission standards.

[hd95489]

My state has been infected by California copy cat syndrome and it’s destroying our cities. Every shitty California policy gets adopted here a couple years later and now we can’t build anything, Pay more taxes and have more crime. The supposed benefits never come through.

[iancmceachern]

Look up California clean air regulations, and how they have radiated around the world and made every single city cleaner and healthier. That's bad? You want to go back to breathing lead and other heavy metals and carcinogens in your exhaust?

[asguy]

The problem is, like any good government agency, they don’t stop when they’ve succeeded fixing their original problem. What started with catalytic converters and OBD-2 is now preventing me from buying sub-freezing temperature windshield wiper fluid, and my BBQ lighter fluid is so watered down I have to use 2x to get it to do anything useful.

[iancmceachern]

Yeah, because those things are toxic and poisoning you, your children, and our environment.

Now that those have been banned, companies will work to meet the market demand that you are noting, they will develop alternatives that are good, but also not poisoning us, and sell that. It will only be a minor inconvenience for you.

This is the exact same thing that happened with whale oil, leaded gas, leaded glass, sulfur diesel, ddt, on and on.

In each of those cases people were complaining like you, in each of those cases life went on and we figured out how to cope with the new, safer, less toxic, reality.

Edited to correct 2 spelling errors

[asguy]

> Yeah, because those things are toxic and poisoning you, your children, and our environment. ... This is the exact same thing that happened with whale oil, leaded gas, leaded glass, sulfur diesel, ddt, on and on.

You don't know what you're talking about, but you feel like you do. Methanol, ethanol, and isopropyl alcohol are all legitimate ingredients for the examples I gave. You're making equivalence between burning leaded gas, and a desire to spray my windows with volatile alcohol.

Are you planning on banning isopropyl alcohol for medical use? Removing my ability to by vodka? Stopping my ability to use my camp stove?

One day it's stopping toxic waste getting poured into the watershed, the next it's a desire to stop research on safe nuclear power, and ban gas stoves for interior cooking use.

Blind environmentalism is its own worst enemy.

[gumby]

> ...preventing me from buying sub-freezing temperature windshield wiper fluid

Actually you can buy and use that stuff in California, you just can't buy it in the valleys (which are warmer BTW) because the emissions cause smog. But in the sierras, where it's a safety issue and the topographic features are different, its available in every service station and car parts store. It's in in my gf's car right now.

The same sensible attitude works in reverse: some states ban studded winter tires because they rip up the roads. California allows them from November-April (longer in very snowy years) because they are safer in snow (and annoying as hell, especially in dry conditions, so you never encounter them at low altitude).

[asguy]

You're missing the point: I don't live in the Sierras. I live on the coast, and I drive to the mountains.

What do I do with the windshield wiper fluid that is in my car, before I go to a freezing area? Do I waste it all by overusing it on the drive up? Do I set calendars to make sure I cycle my windshield wiper fluid, so that I'm low enough by the time I get to the mountains, I can buy sub freezing fluid, that my remaining fluid won't freeze?

What I end up doing is making my own blend on the coast because (thankfully) I know how, but it's a ridiculous limitation of California environmentalism.

[conk]

If you have to use lighter fluid to BBQ you’re better off just using a stove/oven.

[bcraven]

Yes, what a bizarre comment! I'm not some nutter who goes out to learn how to make fire with sticks in the woods, but I can certainly readily light a barbecue with matches and kindling.

[mistrial9]

there is some kind of international phenomena about halting house building and raising the prices, to bury capital. People on YNews from Australia to Hungary have mentioned it. So, yes, that one thing is problematic and is not unique to California

[consumer451]

Historically, it seems that rules in large markets end up setting the bar for the market at large.

Plus in this case the Port of Long Beach exists.

Also, what is the alternative? Just keep burning the oil until it's gone?

[lazide]

We can (and likely will) keep burning oil for a very long time. It likely will never be actually gone - it would be uneconomic (and the planet a scorching hothouse unable to support humans) long before oil is unable to be extracted.

[martinky24]

This is incredibly naive, considering a few of the biggest ports on the continent are in California.

[dehrmann]

I'd expect it to look like gas prices. CA has some of the most expensive gas in the country. Part is due to taxes, part is due to extra refining requirements.

[m463]

I think there's another force at play here - the price increase is flexible because people expect to pay more for "special" gas.

Sentiment affects pricing and whenever some disaster or other event happens, the market is pretty efficient at capitalizing on it. This goes for all kinds of things like ukraine and natural gas, chickens and eggs, EVs and electricity pricing, etc...

[dehrmann]

All those examples are all supply shocks. CA gas prices have been high for a long time, and I doubt most people see CA gas as "special," so surely another refiner would have stepped in by now.

[lazide]

Near as I can tell, there is really only a tiny handful of places in California where the geography permits this - all near the interstates.

Building boom for giant warehouses/transfer stations?

[kelseyfrog]

Logistics companies will have to weigh the economics of building and operating warehouse transfer stations or operating an interstate electric fleet. If operating an electric fleet is more cost-effective the. they'll do it or risk being outcompeted by those that do.

[Glawen]

It might increase train transport though. But there will be less ships mooring at Californian ports as it will become uncompetitive

[toomuchtodo]

Look into how California ports already transfer containers from ports.

https://www.portoflosangeles.org/business/supply-chain/rail

[martinky24]

So you're saying they don't use trucks? Kind of delusional tbh

[gonzo]

Trains burn diesel.

[lern_too_spel]

The problem with diesel isn't climate. Diesel has lower carbon emissions than gasoline. The problem with diesel is toxic emissions. California is willing to pay more in shipping costs to pay less in healthcare costs.

[dragonwriter]

> The problem with diesel isn't climate.

Yes, it is.

> Diesel has lower carbon emissions than gasoline.

It is not being phased out in trucks in favor of gasoline trucks, so, even if true, that would be irrelevant.

But it’s also not true, diesel releases more CO2 for the same energy than gasoline does. [0]

[0] https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php

[lern_too_spel]

> But it’s also not true, diesel releases more CO2 for the same energy than gasoline does. [0]

That article makes the assumption that the ethanol component of finished motor gasoline has net zero carbon emissions.

https://theconversation.com/fact-check-are-diesel-cars-reall...

"So, while diesel fuel contains slightly more carbon (2.68kg CO₂/litre) than petrol (2.31kg CO₂/litre), overall CO₂ emissions of a diesel car tend to be lower. In use, on average, this equates to around 200g CO₂/km for petrol and 120g CO₂/km for diesel."