1) It is nice the see the elected officals attempting to keep their elected positions just before elections.

2) This bill is an attempt to drive down emissions BACK to the 1990 levels by 2025.
Wait! Wait! even the 1990 levels were FORCING global warming upon us!
THere MUST be radical reductions and they must be done now!
But this is just NOT going to happen.
So relax, do worry, chill out.
There will probably worse things that will happen to the Earth before any effects of Warming really hit us.

Back to 1990 levels by 2020 is better than continuing the trend of increasing levels. If they can show that it can be done while still maintaining their economy & gdp then it sets an example for the rest of the US and sets a precedent to continue along that path until emissions are significantly lower than 1990 levels. A drastic change happening immediately would see the economy of California collapse. Why do you think the EU is missing their self imposed goals from the Kyoto Protocol? They chose economic growth over emissions goals.

A new Solar Concentrator energy production plant should be coming online in California soon. They say it is slightly cheaper than standard PV cells due to the high efficiencies requiring fewer actual cells and just more surface area for the optics for the same output of power. It will be a 10MW unit sold from Boeing to SolFocus of California.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q3/060828a_nr.html

I hope this stuff does not drive up energy prices here in Arizona. I heard they were stringing power lines from a nuke plant here in Arizona to California. I don't think these regulations will do much good. What they need to do is raise the tax on gasoline. That will never happen because people like spouting off green rhetoric, but cry like a baby when they have to pay an extra nickel for a gallon of gas to put in their Suburban.

California could do a nice job on GHG emissions if all law enforcement (state, county, city) detained illegal immigrants whenever they found them and held them for deportation.  The established areas either have skyrocketing land prices where things are good, or high crime rates making things unlivable.  The only way out is to go away and build new.  But if the state made a serious effort to catch illegals and get them deported, the immigrant gangs, drug smugglers and other factors driving the crime rates would be hit hard.  People could come back from the exurbs.  Fewer cars and highways would be needed, and they would waste less with congestion.

Not to mention that fewer people in general require less energy.

As a resident of Ohio I think this is a great idea. We need the jobs that California will close down.

"Still, personal transportation fuels make up less than 10% of the CO2 emissions anyway."

No.

Cervus, you can't just throw around the term "environmentalist" like that. The attitudes between being totaly misanthropic and having your head in a bucket of sand, run along a continuum. When you deride "environmentalists" it simply comes across as a slur against anyone who gives a ##$(#*.

For example I would consider the people who run GCC as being environmentalists of a sort. Are you deriding them?

SolFocus' product is supposed to scale to about $1 per watt at some point, which is more than slightly cheaper than conventional photovoltaics.

This argument reveals an inherent problem with common perceptions of 'environmentalism'. Quite simply, there are as many positions within the environmentalist camp as there are outside it.
I find myself feeling personally attacked anytime someone pours scorn upon environmentalists - even though my views are about as removed from the unabomber's as can be imagined! We are going to find very soon (indeed already are) that current terminology is inadequate to describe the range of views which are being expressed. The most immediate example of this is the 'windfarms good' versus 'windfarms evil' camps. Both sides argue from perspectives which supposedly protect the environment, while pursuing entirely opposing agendas.
This problem is going to intensify - until people recognise that environmentalism is not a particular point of view, so much as a recognition that living planetary systems require our understanding and recognition just as much as other economic or political factors. That does not mean arguing over their intricacies will end!
This is all part of the common human mistake of assigning groups the characteristics of individuals. So, next time you feel despair and disgust towards 'environmentalists' remember - environmentalism is not a meaningful bounded identity, it is a continuum and it is entirely valid to disagree with others who would label themselves the same way.

Solfocus information is available at this link, since green cars may some day operate on solar energy.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q3/060828a_nr.html

Shaun mann has a good point. In addition though California seems to be the leader of sorts for our nation and thus other states look to it as an example. I think the EPA should have more power and should be able to over-rule legislation that promotes the "NIMBYism" and guides us to an overall cleaner country.

For example... in order for internal combustion engines to reduce emissions for CARB approval they need to combust the fuel at perfect stoiciometric levels and then filter or otherwise treat the exhaust to remove the remaining "pollutants". Californina and it's legislation drives what kind of engines the rest of the country has to deal with. If we had lean burn engines we'd get the same power, but around 30% better gas mileage automatically. Catalytic converters increase backpressure and decrease performance. Consumers want that performance so they end up buying higher power engines that use more gas to compensate for their larger mass and inherently higher friction. I realize downsizing engines will only go so far, but lean burn engines hold enormous potential. Lean burn engines create more heat than "normal" engines but that would make them perfect for heat energy recovery systems. Legislation sometimes inhibits progress or leads us down a less than desireable path.

Where is the check point where we re-evaluate if the system is working or if it's having the desired effect? Are there land-based systems that can directly clean the air? Can we engineer cities to minimize the need for personal vehicles? Engineer-Poet was making this point already though.

As an analogy I just feel like we're trying to scrub the air with a tooth brush when it's obvious other things would more than likely work better. We're stuck trying to refine the toothbrush and force everyone to use the same one insead of taking a step back and realizing what we're really doing when trying to get industry and people in general to become more environmentally responsible.

Moots, hasn't Honda had lean-burn engines on American roads for years? Mean old California is holding the whole rest of the country hostage, forcing catalytic converters and non-lean combustion down our throats, eh? I'll tell you where I'm coming from- I spend a large part of every day driving not very far behind the car in front of me. I have to breathe what comes out of the tailpipe, before it is highly diluted. Catalysts make that a reasonable proposition, so I kinda like 'em. BTW, people drive big engines because they are fun, and even though it's bad for our economy and environment, our government has chosen not to discourage it. To blame them on Calif emissions regs is silly.