Reply #3: They over promised.

[Oerdin]

The requirement to make 2% of all cars in the state electric cars was both stupid and wrong headed. Not only was the state of electric cars not up to consumer demands but even after a decade of trying the costs were easily double a standard internal combustion engine car. What's worse is the state's dedication to burning fossil fuels in power plants meant those "zero emissions vehicles" actually resulted in an aweful lot of emissions. It was unrealistic for both economic and practical reasons.

The state's current policies are much, much better. Currently 20% of total state electrical production must be "alternative" (which is a flimsy word full of weasal room I know) sources by 2010 and the state is on track to meet that requirement. This new law boosts the requirement to 1/3 by 2020. That's good but it needs to specify that the "alternative energy" sources need to be nongreen house gas generating sources and that we are not counting the burning of garbage as an "alternative energy source". Arnie's push for GHG caps is good, even if some people question the reasons he is doing it, and it is in the long term interests of our state. I would prefer a national solution to damping the job loses in California but since the Feds have made it clear they will fiddle while Rome burns I will take the job loses and be happy that at least the state is taking action.

The big missing part of the equation so far is mass transit. There have been gains in recent years with the building of a limited but fully modern and nice subway system in LA along with the expansion of light rail lines in places like San Diego and Sacramento but neither the state nor local governments have money to do more expansions any time soon. We're going to need Federal help if we want to get modern mass transit in place and really reduce the amount of GHGs people produce just getting around each day.