I would never support this.

That'd mean some huge corporation would have to take the reigns because lining the pockets of politicians in order to get the law passed takes a lot of money and lobbying; relatively speaking compared to the common, every day Thomas Edisons of the world.

And besides that, it'd force yet even more regulations onto the free citizenry and the car manufacturers as well, and who would eat this extra, forced expense that car manufacturers have to, by law, put in all new vehicles? You an me, that's who.

It's the same concept as all the DEF, ethanol and biodiesel regulations and laws: I have to keep cases upon cases of DEF fluid in my shop on a dedicated shelf that took even more time and money to build, and also take up precious dedicated floor space because every single new diesel powered machine I have is mandated to have DEF emission equipment on it. In the same way, the forced manufacture and sale of ethanol has caused the American people billions of dollars in repair, maintenance and replacement costs of equipment due to the atrocious effects of ethanol on internal combustion engines, in particular carbureted engines.

Ethanol and biodiesel mandates have also been a huge smoking gun on the decimation of vital wetlands via the increasing need to meet the supply of ethanol grains by way of forced regulations: Farmers- and especially farmers in the Prairie Pothole Region, aka the waterfowl factory of North America- could clearly see that they needed to plant what was once marginal (at best) farmland that was tied up in Conservation Reserve Program easements (i.e., payments to leave it natural and uncultivated because it was far more vital to a multitude of ecological and economic benefits compared to row cropping it) to meet the growing government-forced demand of ethanol. The CRP payments couldn't keep up with (and paled in comparison to) the potential profits (or insurance claims due to production losses in the marginal areas) that row cropping for ethanol in marginal wetland areas offered. The acreage was already shite acreage for row cropping, but a man's got to eat, and on every front the US government's creation of a faux industry incentivized him to eat by way of planting ethanol producing crops on as many acres as possible- even terribly marginal acreage.

Not to mention the adverse effects that the mandates have had on the food supply, and on the manufacturers of automobiles and gas powered machinery and equipment (and eventually us, the consumers) via the burdensome task of tooling/retooling their manufacturing facilities to meet the additional design concepts required to combat the multitude of problems brought about by the forced use of ethanol and biodiesel products. The mechanics are- and have been- in hog heaven though.

Meanwhile, in places like India, China, etc., the same manufacturers of the diesel equipment that I have can freely produce and sell and operate DEF-free equipment that has an inherently lower complexity (e.g., mo stuff, mo problems) and operates at a much lower hourly and lifetime cost than my DEF designed equipment. "Keep it simple stupid" is always a fact of life, and this ain't it, Chief (talking to Uncle Sam).

And all of it for what? Because politicians and bureaucrats have to make laws because that's what they do? It's one thing for the government to incentivize- not force- private industry to meet the growing demands of humanity's footprint on this planet (that assumes their lawmaking actually cares about anything more than making money behind closed doors), or alternatively in this case, continue their futile attempt to legislate total safety and thereby save idiots from themselves and other idiots. (And I say that as a self-recognized fallible father of a 10 month old who does the daily grind like most others on this board and who fears the problem this tries to fix could happen to him.)

I'm all for the incentivization of making this problem go away by the use of human ingenuity, but to even mention to the government that you'd be on board with them forcing it into effect would yet again kick over another shite can that nobody will ever clean up because that's not what the government does: They only muddy the waters even more by throwing more regulations and more taxpayer money at the problem that was originally caused by faulty laws and regulations, and while they're at it they'll also add in thousands of pages of new, additional, not-related-to-the-original-problem laws, funding, earmarks and pork spending, and years later you'll find out about it when a snippet on the news wets themselves over the potential of Capitol Hill grandstanding because a giant corporation ran by a senator's son has shite the bed because they failed to supply the VA hospitals with all of their adult diapers after they'd been awarded the highly sought after contract in the same "protect the kids 2.0" legislation.

Frick that: Yeah, it'll make good money,for a select few, but not for you and I and ours. But as long as it comes about in the form of private, capitalistic, entrepreneurial ingenuity, then that's the way it's supposed to be. Frick another law.