Why dont we build oil and coal plants that destroy the environment like our president wants?

In fact i think about half the country wants less air.

zero-emission car. A pure electric car includes significant emissions involved in the manufacturing: all of the production and transportation emissions involved in making the parts, putting them together and also associated with the labor and sales force that makes, markets and sells the car. In addition, if it gets its power from a power plant, that power plant takes fossil fuel (in CA it almost always natural gas) and burns that fuel to generate electricity at an efficiency that could be as low as 30% for an older plant. In other words, you need to burn 1 cubic foot of natural gas for every 0.3 cubic foot worth of actual electricity that is generated.

Is a zero-emission car actually less polluting overall than a conventional car? I don't know; that would be a complicated analysis involving every step of production, sales and operation. But I do know that "zero-emission" is a lie that doesn't even come close to reflecting reality.

The only zero-emission car is the one that doesn't exist.

one would then have to factor in the future, rather than the current 'now', of our electrical infrastructure.
California seems to be a leader in upgrading to renewable sources, and has always been at the forefront
of more stringent emission requirements for autos and trucks.
I would suggest that the overall cost per mile favors electricity regardless of it's source, considering the 'full' price
of a gallon of gasoline.



https://www.treehugger.com/solar-technology/solar-electric-car-charging-stations-fuel-sunshine.html

http://www.plugincars.com/ultimate-guide-electric-car-charging-networks-126530.html

Maybe a 'zero-er' emission frame would be more accurate.


snip>
"The shift is possible in California partly because there’s a surplus of solar power, after a surge of rooftop panels and large-scale gathering systems helped double the renewable energy it used over the past decade. Batteries can charge up in daylight and dispense electricity later. With improved technology and lower costs, storage systems are becoming more viable for utilities, especially in a state hoping to get half its power from wind and solar by 2030 and targeting major cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

“California is going to create a blueprint for the coming years,” said Michael Ferguson, the director of U.S. energy infrastructure at S&P Global Ratings in New York. “Renewables proliferated where there was supportive regulation, and that caused the costs to decline. I would expect to see the same thing to happen with battery storage.”

While natural gas became the biggest source of power in the U.S. two years ago -- it burns cleaner and more cheaply than coal -- regulators are looking to reduce carbon emissions to combat global warming and climate change. Gas now accounts for about a third of the country’s electricity, but renewables like solar and wind are expanding faster, doubling their share of the market over the past decade to a projected 17 percent last year, government data show."<

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/a-new-era-of-batteries-spells-trouble-for-gas-in-america/ar-AAuzerv?li=BBnbfcN

different cars - even if they are electric - it's fewer cars. How about providing tax incentives for employers that shift their employees to working from home (even 1 day a week means 20% less commuting), or to provide carpool vans. Even if all the cars are electric, most urban highways in CA are already beyond capacity and in poor condition - that doesn't change if the cars are (not really)zero-emission. We need new thinking, not fake "zero-emission" cars.