<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Buttle&#039;s World]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://buttle.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[clgood]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://buttle.wordpress.com/author/buttle/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[CARB: We&#8217;re Not&nbsp;Tyrants]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;We wouldn&#8217;t do something so silly as to <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/uptospeed/2009/03/black-car-ban.html" target="_blank">ban black paint</a>,&#8221; says the friendly California Air Resources Board. Of course not. That would be tyrannical. All those dittoheads can just relax.</p>
<blockquote><p>The California Air Resources Board said Friday that it has no plans “at this time” to regulate car paint as part of a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — and never intended to outlaw black cars in the first place.</p>
<p>“We are by no means interested in banning or restricting car colors,” CARB spokesman Stanley Young said.</p></blockquote>
<p>There, don&#8217;t we all feel better?</p>
<p>Wait&#8230; What&#8217;s this?</p>
<blockquote><p>CARB ultimately decided to ditch the paint scheme and move ahead with just the reflective glass mandate (which is not window tinting, by the way; it’s a reflective clear coat).</p></blockquote>
<p>So CARB still thinks they can <em>mandate a technology just because they like it</em>. This is a proper function of government? The whole &#8220;cool cars&#8221; project is tyranny. If there are coatings or paints or goat-sacrifices which will make vehicles more efficient<em> let the market find them</em>. CARB is being <em>just as tyrannical </em>with this as banning black paint would have been, only tyrannical in a stealthier way.</p>
]]></html></oembed>