California Bans Sale of New Gasoline Cars by 2035

[T-26E4 Super Pershing]

Hey, sounds great because it means New Yorkers like me can get gasoline-engine cars which don't require a $3,000 California-chipped catalytic converter when a $700 after-market will meet standards. But for F's sake, I got 30mpg highway out of my 1990 full-sized hatchback, why does my 2011 get 23? Even my wife's 2020 only gets 28.

California’s governor signed an executive order on Wednesday that would ban the sale of gas-only cars within 15 years, in a bid to combat the effects of climate change crisis.

The move comes as the state battles historic wildfires, following a summer of record-high temperatures. “We can’t continue down this path,” Gavin Newsom said.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ate-change


https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environ ... 5-n1240878

https://www.wsj.com/articles/california ... 1600882738

---

New gasoline powered autos will eventually be phased out in the state of California. Given how large California is, this could inevitably force a massive change in the lineup of automobiles sold within the entirety of the United States, as manufacturers must comply with the largest economy within the country to have access to its market.

Granted the push away from fossil fuels towards EVs is happening naturally, this could prove effective in hastening the move.

[Ifreann]

This is fucking ridiculous. In my mind, freedom takes precedence over somebody's fears about whatever the fuck my car emits into the air.

Why should Californians have to sacrifice their freedom to choose what vehicle they want to drive because their government told them to do so? Does anybody else see something wrong with this picture?

No. Everyone has to breathe that air to, you know, stay alive. Therefore people are denied the freedom to poison that air. Similarly, we all need the planet to not heat up too much.

[Esternial]

Not a bad idea, but probably won't be hugely impactful on its own.

Might result in electric cars becoming even more affordable.

I wanted to lease an electric car two years ago but they were insanely overpriced. Ended up with a Diesel...at least with AdBlue.

[Picairn]

This is fucking ridiculous. In my mind, freedom takes precedence over somebody's fears about whatever the fuck my car emits into the air.

Why should Californians have to sacrifice their freedom to choose what vehicle they want to drive because their government told them to do so? Does anybody else see something wrong with this picture?

Try breathing the smoke emitted from your car every day, and you'll soon understand why there are environmental laws in action, provided you didn't die of lung cancer first.

[Esternial]

This is fucking ridiculous. In my mind, freedom takes precedence over somebody's fears about whatever the fuck my car emits into the air.

Why should Californians have to sacrifice their freedom to choose what vehicle they want to drive because their government told them to do so? Does anybody else see something wrong with this picture?

No. Everyone has to breathe that air to, you know, stay alive. Therefore people are denied the freedom to poison that air. Similarly, we all need the planet to not heat up too much.

Stop ruining my plans to buy a tank.

[Ifreann]

Not a bad idea, but probably won't be hugely impactful on its own.

Might result in electric cars becoming even more affordable.

I wanted to lease an electric car two years ago but they were insanely overpriced. Ended up with a Diesel...at least with AdBlue.

And electric cars being more affordable will be good, but that'd still have us in situations where we have a hundred people all going the same direction at about the same speed using 100 engines in their 100 different cars, instead of having one big engine moving them all. Which is probably going to be inefficient no matter what kind of engines they are.

---

No. Everyone has to breathe that air to, you know, stay alive. Therefore people are denied the freedom to poison that air. Similarly, we all need the planet to not heat up too much.

Stop ruining my plans to buy a tank.

Get an electric tank.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Doubt this will matter. Too many climate change laws and legislation affect consumers, particularly the poorer. What they should really be going after are the industries themselves.

[SD_Film Artists]

Not a bad idea, but probably won't be hugely impactful on its own.

Might result in electric cars becoming even more affordable.

Doubt it. With everyone being more or less forced into electric cars the government will have no more incentive to subsidise the industry including charging points. Also expect blackouts unless the government adds some investment money to backup their plans

[SD_Film Artists]

Might result in electric cars becoming even more affordable.

I wanted to lease an electric car two years ago but they were insanely overpriced. Ended up with a Diesel...at least with AdBlue.

And electric cars being more affordable will be good, but that'd still have us in situations where we have a hundred people all going the same direction at about the same speed using 100 engines in their 100 different cars, instead of having one big engine moving them all. Which is probably going to be inefficient no matter what kind of engines they are.

But the 100 people will be able to get to 100 destinations at the same time, and if the 100 people are on motorcycles then it won't have a large impact on the road unlike the thing with a big engine.

[HXVZ-07031017]

Sounds pretty based, but 2035 is so bloody far that our lives at that point is inconceivable as of 2020, won't it?

[Picairn]

Sounds pretty based, but 2035 is so bloody far that our lives at that point is inconceivable as of 2020, won't it?

In 15 years I'll be 33. Hopefully the world has made great achievements to combat climate change by then, otherwise I'm thinking of building a bunker.

[Ifreann]

And electric cars being more affordable will be good, but that'd still have us in situations where we have a hundred people all going the same direction at about the same speed using 100 engines in their 100 different cars, instead of having one big engine moving them all. Which is probably going to be inefficient no matter what kind of engines they are.

But the 100 people will be able to get to 100 destinations at the same time, and if the 100 people are on motorcycles then it won't have a large impact on the road unlike the thing with a big engine.

Okay?

[HXVZ-07031017]

Sounds pretty based, but 2035 is so bloody far that our lives at that point is inconceivable as of 2020, won't it?

In 15 years I'll be 33. Hopefully the world has made great achievements to combat climate change by then, otherwise I'm thinking of building a bunker.

In that amount of time I'll be 28 and I hope not dead.

[Ethel mermania]

This is fucking ridiculous. In my mind, freedom takes precedence over somebody's fears about whatever the fuck my car emits into the air.

Why should Californians have to sacrifice their freedom to choose what vehicle they want to drive because their government told them to do so? Does anybody else see something wrong with this picture?

Buy your car in nevada.

[Valrifell]

This is fucking ridiculous. In my mind, freedom takes precedence over somebody's fears about whatever the fuck my car emits into the air.

Why should Californians have to sacrifice their freedom to choose what vehicle they want to drive because their government told them to do so? Does anybody else see something wrong with this picture?

The government won't let you build with asbestos either, or use lead gasoline! Positively ridiculous!

If I want lung cancer that's my prerogative as a freedom-loving, gun-toting, red-blooded American! Yee-haw!

[HXVZ-07031017]

This is fucking ridiculous. In my mind, freedom takes precedence over somebody's fears about whatever the fuck my car emits into the air.

Why should Californians have to sacrifice their freedom to choose what vehicle they want to drive because their government told them to do so? Does anybody else see something wrong with this picture?

The government won't let you build with asbestos either, or use lead gasoline! Positively ridiculous!

If I want lung cancer that's my prerogative as a freedom-loving, gun-toting, red-blooded American! Yee-haw!

To be honest, I'm worried about the geopolitical implications of climate change very much. Just think of how authoritarian governments would make use of this situation by rising to power through the means of offering food, water, shelter, and land to their followers and instigate a coup d'etat and establishing a regime under their whim, where basic rights are only given to loyalist party members due to a lack of resources caused by climate change. Man, that nightmare scenario might just happen somewhere in the late 21st century.

[Ethel mermania]

This is fucking ridiculous. In my mind, freedom takes precedence over somebody's fears about whatever the fuck my car emits into the air.

Why should Californians have to sacrifice their freedom to choose what vehicle they want to drive because their government told them to do so? Does anybody else see something wrong with this picture?

The government won't let you build with asbestos either, or use lead gasoline! Positively ridiculous!

If I want lung cancer that's my prerogative as a freedom-loving, gun-toting, red-blooded American! Yee-haw!

Get your lung cancer the old fashioned way, smoke cigarettes

[SD_Film Artists]

But the 100 people will be able to get to 100 destinations at the same time, and if the 100 people are on motorcycles then it won't have a large impact on the road unlike the thing with a big engine.

Okay?

Oh I guess I misunderstood you, I thought you were making a point about public transport.

[Ifreann]

Okay?

Oh I guess I misunderstood you, I thought you were making a point about public transport.

I was.

[SD_Film Artists]

Oh I guess I misunderstood you, I thought you were making a point about public transport.

I was.

But the 100 people will be able to get to 100 destinations at the same time, and if the 100 people are on motorcycles then it won't have a large impact on the road unlike the thing with a big engine.

[Ifreann]

I was.

But the 100 people will be able to get to 100 destinations at the same time, and if the 100 people are on motorcycles then it won't have a large impact on the road unlike the thing with a big engine.

Yeah, I know. So what?

[SD_Film Artists]

But the 100 people will be able to get to 100 destinations at the same time, and if the 100 people are on motorcycles then it won't have a large impact on the road unlike the thing with a big engine.

Yeah, I know. So what?

It sounds like the 100 would be more efficient, getting to their destination(s) a lot faster and causing less damage to infrastructure.

[Cannot think of a name]

Honestly I absolutely do not think this is a good idea for several reasons.
1. Yes, it solves the issue of urban smog but not everyone lives in a city. And I am unsure how good electric cars are for people living in the countryside of a country with so much territory as america. Can you make an electric pickup? An electric off road 4x4? An electric shipping truck?

Take your pick. By 2022 Ford. Will have an electric F-150. Tesla’s very bizarre looking Cybertruck will come out next year. Chevrolet has announced their electric truck, expect it in 2023. A company funded by Ford called Rivian will deliver their truck next year, bonus points, it can spin in place like a tank. Bollinger not only offers an electric pickup that has a tunnel connecting the bed to the ‘frunk’ to carry long lengths of anything but they also sell just the ‘skateboard’ and you can put whatever body you want on top of it. Lordstown, a company GM has invested in, has an electric pickup that will be shipped in a year or so. Nikola had one, but it looks like their company has some internal problems. The new electric Hummer has 12,500 lbs ft of torque. And that’s just the companies that are already building electric pickups.

Amazon has ordered 10,000 electric delivery trucks, UPS has a partnership with an EV maker for a fleet of electric delivery trucks as well. Tesla has already started orders on an EV tractor trailer with at least three other competitors offering their own version.

So the answer to your question here is yes to all of those things and there are several options available.

2. On its own an electric vehicle does nothing to solve our reliance on fossil fuels. Not when most of the worlds electricity still comes from burning them. Indeed, they increase demand for electricity which is going to stretch the supply even more leading to an inevitable rise in usage of thermoelectric plants. You need to also tackle that problem by building more atomic energy plants (because renewables other than hydro are just not up to the task) otherwise you are actually harming the environment due to the inevitable energy loss in conversion between chemical to electric and than to mechanical as opposed to just chemical to mechanical as well as transportation losses.

There’s really no indication that renewables are ‘not up to the task’ as you assert, but the ‘long tail pipe’ argument falls apart even if the electricity grid wasn’t already changing. A single static generator that powers X thousand cars is more efficient and easier to clean than x thousand separate and separately maintained generators all running independently.

3. It is an attack on personal freedom and freedom of choice and lifestyle which once again puts the burden of ecology on the average citizen as opposed to where it belongs, big industry and energy production. The rich corporations get to cut down forests, burn and pollute until our air becomes unbreathable, our water undrinkable and our oil runs out but the average citizen can't get the car he wants. That's just not right. And it is just another step on the road that will leave the average man in a state of ecologically enforced hyperausterity whilst leaving the rich to do what ever they want.

[/quote]
You’re conflating two separate issues. There’s nothing saying we can’t continue to regulate corporate behavior (something opposed by the same cats who pucker up at the idea that cars are changing) while also reducing pollution from cars. Laws that prevent me from peeing in the water supply are also an affront to my freedom to relieve myself anywhere I want. Or, having to buy a car that will pass smog. Or a crash test. Or have seatbelts. Or use unleaded gasoline. Etc.

[Ifreann]

Yeah, I know. So what?

It sounds like the 100 would be more efficient, getting to their destination(s) a lot faster

That's not more efficient.

and causing less damage to infrastructure.

Buses and trains are obviously a lot safer and more efficient than putting all those passengers on motorcycles.

[Ifreann]

...Bollinger not only offers an electric pickup that has a tunnel connecting the bed to the ‘frunk’ to carry long lengths of anything but they also sell just the ‘skateboard’ and you can put whatever body you want on top of it....

Is that the same Bollinger that makes champagne?