Banning new gas stations

 

(Source)

In the north San Francisco Bay Area, the city of Petaluma has banned any future gas stations above the 16 the city already has. I've been there several times, it's a small-to-medium size city that's normally easy to drive around (rush hour might be different), and another article I read says everyone's within a 5-minute drive of an existing gas station. In the short-to-medium term, this is a mostly symbolic effort.

I'm very glad to see it, anyway. Symbolism has value - it's an indication of political strength in local efforts to combat climate change, which can then do other things. The link says they tried it before in 2014 and didn't get it passed, and this time it passed unanimously, so hopefully it's an indicator of more to come.

And it may have some immediate effect - some potential car buyers in Petaluma (or other cities that follow them) may have this in mind when deciding between EVs or ICE vehicles, and tip them to the former. FWIW, if you need to fuel up during rush hour even now, it's going to be a pain in the neck. Five years from now, when three or four of those 16 stations have closed while EV charging is more ubiquitous, the convenience balance between EVs and ICE will get better for the environment. Same thing can happen in other cities.

I have a longstanding interest in the EV/ICE convenience balance being more than EVs becoming more convenient, but also about a degradation and then breakdown of ICE infrastructure convenience. I think it's a partially self-fulfilling process, but steps like this one could be a regulatory accelerator of that process.

The other political advantage it has is greed - gas station owners are likely to say "why not limit competition?" Chains might be a different matter, but at least some owners are unlikely to fight.

Libel lawsuits and the truth in the Post-Trump era

So! Been a while since there's been substantive posting around here. I had a half-started post going about how to properly rage-donate when January 6 rolled around, and it felt inadequate. Haven't quite figured out how to react to tragedy and recovery in the meantime.

And then, today's article about Fox Business firing their most-popular commentator, Lou Dobbs, got me thinking a bit. I agree with the speculation that libel lawsuits piling up against Fox played a role in getting rid of Dobbs, although the exact mechanism is less clear. Assuming a jury finds that Dobbs and Fox committed libel up to Jan. 20, firing Dobbs afterwards does not undo the damage. 

Two reasons might come into play though: first, Dobbs may have refused to recant or even told Fox he'd continue the libel, and 2. the fear of punitive damages might have led Fox to dump Dobbs to reduce the belief that Fox needed extra punishment to learn its lesson.

All the above isn't about climate, although it's unsurprising to find Dobbs to be a climate denier (if an inconsistent one). Getting someone who lies off the air is good in general, and it's good for climate policy in this case as well.

I've had a lingering hesitation about libel lawsuits on public policy, including the ones over climate change, and just wish the truth didn't need to go to court to overcome lies. If the lies are loud enough though, then that seems necessary, and the climate libel lawsuits may have had some benefits in reducing the scale of exposure for climate denial. Now that we have a president who unlike the previous one has caught up to the state of science in 1896 and afterwards. Young conservatives are increasingly likely to believe in climate reality, although whether they'll vote for climate isn't yet clear.

I see an analogy between libel and the Democrats tossing that idiot Marjorie Taylor Greene off of the House committees. There's a harm found in the majority party interfering in the assignments made by the minority party. There's even more harm to not interfering. 

Maybe sometime we can get to the state of play where we don't need to take these actions. Meanwhile, I'm glad these people committing libel are getting sued.

 

One last thought: the article on Dobbs said he founded Space.com, which is a great place for space enthusiasts. It's just too bad when people like Dobbs, Singer, and Lindzen ruin a pretty good career by going Big Evil at the end.

UPDATE: a timely piece from Inside Climate on the latest about Michael Mann's lawsuit against climate deniers who defamed him.