> >This is why California is mandating that a certain
> >percentage of cars be "zero" pollution (electric cars, and
> we know how
> >pollution free the generation of electricity is) by some date in the
> >future.  (This makes sense??!)
>
> Agreed -- electric cars just move the pollution around.  We
> need to find something  better for the mean time.

I keep hearing this argument, even though it contains very little sense.
Perhaps this hasn't occurred to you, but

     1)  It's a lot easier to put 'scrubbers' and other expensive
         anti-polution measures on a few hundred well-regulated
         power plants than a few million private automobiles.

     2)  It's a lot easier to keep these power plants up-to-date
         with the latest clean energy technology.

For example, a huge percentage of the polution in California comes from a
small percentage of older automobiles.  These were built before polution was
an issue in the state.  It's very hard to go back and 'clean up' these
vehicles, and in most of California things don't rust, so they keep going.
If they used electric power, the few dozen power plants in the state would
have gotten cleaner over the last 20 years, reducing polution.

Understand?
Coyote

--                      /\_/\      ____
Ron 'Coyote' Lussier   (     )     \ _/__            Andromedia, Inc.
coyote@andromedia.com   \   /       \X  /             818 Mission St.
1.415.365.6467           \_/          \/      San Francisco, CA 94103