Yep, it's a low sulfur, lower volatility gasoline blend (https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/how-california-reg...) which apparently cuts harmful exhaust emissions like carbon monoxide and NOx.

▲

jsbisviewtiful 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Sounds great for people and the environment. Too bad its production is now in danger thanks to horrible, ignorant decisions by this administration.

▲

gjsman-1000 4 hours ago | parent [-]

… except that it’s wildly expensive per gallon compared to the rest of the US.

If you’re making six figures on two incomes, it’s plenty tolerable.

If you’re single and working as a street sweeper or make $60K a year outside the cities, it makes you want to burn the system down.

For anyone who isn’t rolling in cash, it’s economically oppressive. I’m not surprised that breeds resentment. I consider this the biggest blind spot of green movements: “It’s not that much more expensive to be green” said by someone who can afford it to people who can’t. A modern “let them eat cake.”

▲

jsbisviewtiful 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sure but do you recall what LA looked like in the 80's? The gas is more expensive but the unseen cost of that level of pollution is very high. The gov can solve all future gas problems with EV subsidies and manufacturers can help solve this problem by making affordable EVs, but getting the current admin or manufacturers to do either seems like a cruel joke at this point. The fed is going as far as to deny Chinese car imports because the EVs are so cheap it would crash the US car industry.

▲

gjsman-1000 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Not everyone in California lives in LA or has LA’s problems.

	▲	jjav an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Not everyone in California lives in LA or has LA’s problems. That's why smog rules vary per county.
	▲	jsbisviewtiful 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I won't engage any further with a strawman argument made in bad faith.

▲

JKCalhoun an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And economically regressive.

I'm not sure I would point the finger at "green movements" though.

▲

jst1fthsdys 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Prices just shot up over a dollar nationally and no one is burning anything down.

The real "let them eat cake" is the biggest polluters externalizing the costs of that pollution down to the people, all while the state is dismantling the EPA and clean energy.

Imagine if we had real public transportation across the nation. Less pollution AND cheaper for the average person. Wonder why that isn't happening.

▲

gjsman-1000 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> Wonder why that isn't happening

Because the US is overwhelmingly urban sprawl and is not Europe. The only way to fix this is to tear down and rebuild (which we cannot afford), or accept that public transit wait times are terribly slow due to the distance between stops.

Combine that with a lack of nerve to aggressively combat crime or antisocial behavior on transit, maybe a fear of perpetuating inequality or something, and anyone who isn’t a man doesn’t feel safe trying it.

	▲	digitalPhonix 40 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Because the US is overwhelmingly urban sprawl and is not Europe That's a bad excuse a) because Europe isn't one single demographic but still public transport is useful, reliable and safe everywhere (from Dublin/Zurich on the low side of the population density scale to London/Paris/Madrid on the high side and Amsterdam/Hamburg/Prague in the middle). and b) there are plenty of examples outside of Europe. Melbourne is urban sprawl. The metro area is 50 miles east to west, 30 miles north to south (more, but there's also a big bay) and a population of only 5 million. A lower population density than the Denver MSA but manages to run a train/bus/tram system that's useful, reliable and safe.