The Star-Ledger’s recent editorial (“This action on climate control can’t wait”) calling for New Jersey’s adoption of California’s Advanced Clean Cars II (ACCII) rule ignores the negative impact that this rule will have on consumer choice and affordability.
The strict mandates imposed by ACCII on the percentage of new car sales that must be electric vehicles will force car manufacturers to build more electric vehicles, which is great. But it will also force automakers to build fewer and more expensive versions of internal combustion engine vehicles, which isn’t great for consumers who can’t afford an EV or aren’t ready to buy one because of the limited upload options.
The problem is that ACCII does not increase demand. It focuses entirely on the supply side of the equation in a way that is sure to limit consumer choice and make new cars unaffordable for many working- and middle-class families in New Jersey.
Automakers will spend $1.2 trillion designing and building electric vehicles by 2030, and car dealers will spend billions more. New Jersey dealers alone will spend more than $150 million this year on the tools, training and charging infrastructure needed to sell and service electric vehicles. The auto industry is “all in” on electric vehicles. But government mandates that ignore market realities are bound to fail.
The ACCII establishes an aggressive plan to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and tailpipes. But it’s not the only option. The Biden administration just proposed a new federal clean car rule that offers an aggressive plan that won’t limit consumer choice or increase the already high cost of new cars.
ACCII locks us into a rule created for California. New Jersey should slow down and take time, now, to review both the ACCII and the proposed federal rule to determine which is the best option for the Garden State.
Jim Appleton, President, New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers (NJ CAR), Trenton.
Replace the buddy system for soldier promotions
Fifty-six years ago, when I was first a New Jersey state trooper, I was surprised when the promotions came out. The old barracks telegraph bell rang and everyone gathered to see who was promoted.
As each name came up, there were comments from the assembled soldiers such as, “That guy should have been fired” and “That guy drinks too much.” I thought to myself, why are they promoting these guys if these comments are true? Every time the bell rang for the next 25 years, I heard the same kind of feedback.
Promotions policy came up in every contract negotiation I can remember. Every time there were comments like “Management should have their prerogatives”. There was always some sort of promotion test, but it was such a small part of the system that only a few points separated the highest scorer from the lowest.
Many minority soldiers say they are being discriminated against because less qualified people are being promoted. Take my word for it, many white soldiers feel the same way. The minority soldiers are right, there is a “good guy network”, but it also affects white soldiers. People get promoted because their friend or classmate is in a position to promote whoever they want. In some cases, even politicians get involved in the decisions.
My question is, where the hell is the state attorney general in all of this? He is the person with whom the troop unions negotiate. He is in charge of the state police, but nothing has been done to resolve the issue of promotion through various administrations.
Time for a civil service test or something similar to give everyone a shot at promotion. At the very least, if they fail to gain promotion it will be because they didn’t get a high enough score.
Paul Bershefski, Harrison
Early release does not apply to some crimes
In response to the Star Ledger’s recent editorial “Dying in prison makes no sense,” about the compassionate release of elderly prisoners:
The editorial referred to an earlier opinion piece by a lawyer who pardoned the person who murdered his brother and was released after 15 years. He wrote that he now believes the killer, with whom he has been in contact, deserves a second chance.
That’s fine with her. Personally, I don’t agree. I’m more concerned for the victim and feel that the original punishment — he was sentenced to 20 years as part of a plea deal — was fully justified. I’m not talking about minor crimes, just murders, repeated assaults and rapes.
It is for the same reason that I believe that the hunt for Nazis who committed atrocities – however many they have now – is also justified.
Steve Niforatos, Bluffton, SC
There goes the neighborhood
To whom the April 27 Star-Ledger print headline “Welcome to Mr. Rodgers’ New Neighborhood” wrote: Shame on you.
Can you really draw a parallel between quarterback Aaron Rodgers, who just signed with the Jets, and Fred Rogers, the children’s TV personality?
Aaron Rogers is an inveterate liar and anti-vaxxer who had no shame or qualms about exposing his former team, the Green Bay Packers, to COVID-19 by claiming he had been “immunized” but later admitted that I had not received it. the vaccine
Gabriela Kaplan, Elizabeth
Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe to NJ.com today.
The Star-Ledger/NJ.com encourages opinion presentations. bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. follow us on twitter @NJ_Opinió and on Facebook at NJ.com review. Get the latest news straight to your inbox. Sign up for NJ.com newsletters.
