MILLIONS of Jobs Will be DESTROYED by California’s New Mandate!

For the first time since it achieved statehood in 1850, California has been losing population.

But the regulatory records in Sacramento are still at it.

They are scheming to ultimately ban diesel-powered locomotives.

Older engines would be prohibited by 2029, and longer distance freight trains would have to have zero emissions of carbon dioxide by 2035.

That was for a portion of the funding.

And I think that's something that we're trying to be very clear about is that we've never had the full funding to construct and complete high speed rail in California.

In the sun-drenched state of California, a fresh storm is brewing that threatens to derail not just the transportation industry, but the very economic foundations of the Golden State and beyond.

The California Air Resources Board is considering a radical proposal that could spell the end of diesel-fueled trains, a move that experts warn could have catastrophic consequences for the state's economy, its residents, and the nation as a whole.

This is not a distant threat or a hypothetical scenario, but a clear and present danger that could reshape the landscape of American commerce and industry for generations to come.

The numbers paint a stark and sobering picture of the potential impact of this proposed ban.

According to the Association of American Railroads, in 2022, US rail intermodal volume was 13.5 million units.

The average carloads of crude oil originated in the US was around 650 barrels of oil, and freight railroads moved 3.4 million carloads of

coal.

Freight railroads move 2.3 million carloads of plastics, fertilizers and other chemicals.

This massive volume of cargo, crucial to the state's economy, relies almost entirely on diesel-powered locomotives.

The prospect of eliminating these engines without a viable alternative in place has sent shockwaves through the industry and beyond.

Even more alarming are the economic implications of such a move.

According to the California Department of Transportation, the freight industry generates over $700 billion in economic activity annually.

There are also an estimated 92,000 job years of employment enabled by the sector, spurring $7 billion in total direct labor income earned by workers on the project and $18 billion in total economic activity.

Any disruption to this vital sector could have far-reaching consequences,

potentially leading to job losses, increased consumer costs, and a significant blow to the state's economic output.

Considering the magnitude of economic input, California's plan to ban carbon-producing trains from operating in the state beginning in 2035 would no doubt be devastating to the critical efficient functioning of the National Freight Rail Network.

In this video,

We'll delve into the potential repercussions of this ambitious yet controversial proposal.

We will explore how the ban could affect various sectors, from agriculture to manufacturing, and examine the broader implications for Californians, California, and national economies.

The roots of this controversial proposal can be traced back to September 2022, when CARB unveiled its draft in-use locomotive regulation.

This ambitious plan aims to accelerate the transition to zero-emission locomotives in California, with the ultimate goal of phasing out all diesel-powered locomotives by 2030 for rail yards and short-line railroads, and by 2035 for Class 1 railroads.

In April 2023, the organization adopted an in-use locomotive regulation requiring all trains operating in the state to be zero emissions by 2035.

The proposal was born out of California's aggressive climate goals, which include achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.

While these objectives are laudable in principle,

The means by which CARB proposes to achieve them in the railroad sector have been met with widespread criticism and concern.

The body claims the proposed locomotive regulation would prevent approximately 3,200 premature deaths, 1,100 hospital admissions and 1,500 emergency room visits in California if it takes effect.

The CARB also claimed 21 areas in California currently fail to meet federal air quality standards, which it said the rules would help to address, and this disproportionately

pack citizens who live in low-income and disadvantaged communities.

However, these claims are far from the glaring truth.

One of the primary arguments against the proposed diesel ban is the astronomical cost associated with such a transition.

The cost is enormous and would harm even the largest operators.

California requires Class 1 railroads to deposit as much as $800 million per year per railroad into an account starting in 2026.

to help pay for the mandated electric locomotives and infrastructure.

Current railroad infrastructure improvement projects would likely be shelved, many of which are designed to reduce operations emissions.

This staggering figure does not include the additional cost of infrastructure upgrades, such as electrification of rail lines and the installation of charging stations, which could easily push the total cost well over $50 billion.

To put this into perspective, California's entire annual budget for transportation and infrastructure in 2024 is approximately $33.2 billion.

The proposed locomotive transition would require nearly double this amount, potentially diverting funds from other critical areas such as education, healthcare, and social services.

At a time when California is grappling with a host of pressing issues, including a

housing crisis, persistent drought, and wildfire management, many argue that such a massive expenditure on locomotive technology is misguided and irresponsible.

The transition away from diesel-electric locomotives is a very expensive undertaking as the technology is not commercially available today.

It is likely to cost hundreds of millions of dollars per railroad at least when the required infrastructure is included.

Moreover, the technology required to fully replace diesel locomotives with zero-emission alternatives simply does not exist at the scale and reliability needed for widespread commercial use.

While there have been some promising developments in battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell locomotives, these technologies are still in their infancy and face significant hurdles in terms of range, power output, and operational reliability.

For instance, the most advanced battery electric locomotives, the FLX drive, currently in development have a range of only about 350 miles on a single charge compared to the 1,000 mile range of a typical diesel locomotive.

This limitation would require frequent recharging stops significantly impacting the efficiency and cost effectiveness of freight rail operations.

Furthermore, the power output of these electric locomotives is often insufficient for heavy freight applications, particularly in mountainous terrain where high tractive effort is required.

The proposed ban would also have a devastating impact on smaller locomotive companies and short-line railroads,

often operate on thin profit margins and lack the capital resources to invest in expensive new technologies.

Over 16 short-line railroads are operating in California, serving rural communities and providing crucial last-mile connections for freight.

Many of these companies could be forced out of business if required to replace their entire locomotive fleets within the proposed timeframe.

potentially leaving rural areas without vital rail connections and exacerbating economic disparities within the state.

Another critical concern is the massive amount of funds that would need to be set aside for this transition, funds that could be used to address more immediate and pressing needs of California's residents.

With the state facing ongoing challenges such as homelessness, underfunded public schools, and crumbling infrastructure, many argue that allocating billions of dollars to replace functional diesel locomotives is a misplacement of priorities.

Furthermore, the environmental benefits of such a transition are questionable at best.

Modern diesel locomotives are remarkably clean and efficient, thanks to decades of technological advancements and stringent emissions regulations.

Transportation is the largest source of US emissions, yet railroads' contribution amounts to not much more than a rounding error.

The industry cites its efficiency improvements over time, allowing railroads today to move a ton of freight more than 500 miles on a single gallon of diesel.

Its expensive machines, which last between 30 to 50 years and are retrofitted throughout their life cycles, are about 75% more efficient than long-haul trucks that carry a comparative amount of freight.

Given these already low figures, the marginal environmental benefits of a complete transition to zero-emission locomotives may not justify the enormous costs and disruptions involved.

Perhaps most critically, California's electrical grid is already strained to its limits, raising serious questions about its ability to support a large-scale transition to electric locomotives.

In recent years, the state has experienced frequent rolling blackouts and power shortages, particularly during periods of high demand such as heat waves.

According to the California Independent System Operator, the state narrowly avoided blackouts on multiple occasions due to supply shortages.

Adding the enormous power demands of an electrified rail system to this already overtaxed grid could potentially lead to more frequent and widespread power outages, affecting not just the rail industry but millions of California residents and businesses.

The state's struggles to provide consistent electricity to its current customers cast serious doubt on its ability to support the additional load that would come with electrified freight rail.

The negative consequences of this policy for California residents and the broader American economy cannot be overstated.

First and foremost, the astronomical costs associated with the transition would likely be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for goods transported by rail.

This could lead to significant increases in the cost of living for Californians who are already grappling with some of the highest prices in the nation for essentials such as housing, food, and energy.

According to a 2023 report by the Los Angeles Times, the cost of living in California's major metropolitan areas has increased above the national average.

Transportation, utilities, and food are 27%, 22%, and 17% above average, respectively.

While some coastal California cities lost population during the pandemic, housing values rose.

As of June 30, the median home price in LA was $975,333, an increase of more than 30% from five

years prior.

Any additional increase in transportation costs could push many families to the brink of financial hardship, particularly in a state where nearly a third of residents are already living in or near poverty, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

Another major concern is the potential loss of jobs in the railroad industry and related sectors.

The freight rail industry supports over 92,000 jobs in California alone, with an average annual wage of over $143,000, according to the Association of American Railroads.

Many of these high-paying skilled jobs could be at risk if railroads are forced to downsize or cease operations due to the prohibitive costs of compliance with the proposed regulations.

Furthermore, the likely shift of freight from rail to road would have far-reaching consequences for California's already congested highways.

According to the American Transportation Research Institute, traffic congestion costs the trucking industry over $74 billion annually, with California ranking as one of the worst states for truck bottlenecks.

A significant increase in truck traffic could exacerbate this problem, leading to more accidents, increased road maintenance costs, and higher levels of air pollution in urban areas.

The environmental implications of such a shift are equally

While the proposed ban aims to reduce emissions, the potential increase in truck traffic could actually lead to a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, moving freight by rail is up to four times more fuel efficient than moving it by truck.

A large-scale shift from rail to road transport could undermine California's climate goals rather than advancing them.

As the largest state economy in the US and a crucial hub for international trade, any disruption to this system could lead to supply chain bottlenecks, increased costs for businesses nationwide, and potentially even shortages of essential goods.

Moreover, the precedent set by California in banning diesel locomotives could inspire similar measures in other states, potentially leading to a patchwork of regulations that would make interstate commerce increasingly complex and costly.

This could undermine the efficiency of the National Freight Rail Network, which plays a crucial role in America's economic competitiveness on the global stage.

As California stands on the precipice of this radical policy shift, the potential consequences loom like a dark storm on the horizon.

threatening to derail the state's and nation's economy in general.

The proposed ban on diesel-fueled trains could unleash a cascade of unintended consequences, from skyrocketing consumer prices and widespread job losses to environmental backsliding and gridlocked highways.

leaving millions of Americans to grapple with the harsh realities of a decision that could alter the landscape of transportation for generations to come.