Slashdot Mirror
California Considers Banning Internal Combustion Engines To Meet Emissions Goals (sacbee.com)
New submitter Rick Schumann writes about California considering a ban on internal combustion engines: The ban on internal-combustion engine automobiles would be at least 10 years away, and it's unclear at this early stage if it would ban only sales and use of new cars, or ban existing cars as well. There's also no mention of two (or three) wheeled vehicles at this stage. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is nevertheless considering this seriously, in order to meet its ambitious emissions reduction goals. According to state data, tailpipes generate more than one-third of all greenhouse gases, and so far only a small fraction of California's motorists drive electric vehicles. The announcement was made in an interview with Bloomberg news. "I've gotten messages from the governor asking, 'Why haven't we done something already?' The governor has certainly indicated an interest in why China can do this and not California," Mary Nichols, the chairwoman of the CARB, told Bloomberg.
It's a ludicrous cost for us to bear when electric mountain-capable vehicles just don't exist.
Every two years I reinstall the cats and stock intake, takes less than a day. Neener, neener!
If they try this, it will finally break the Ds hold on state government! Don't mess with Californian's cars, especially the old ones.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Banning is asking for trouble from the right.
Much smarter to simply put a 100% tax on them. You want to buy an internal combustion vehicle? If you want it badly enough PAY for it.
If you aren't willing to pay the money then buy electric.
Also, you don't have to deal with some agency deciding who is truly in need of an internal combustion error. People that use powered parachutes, or four wheel drive vehicles for people that live in the middle of a national forest with no electricity for miles.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
>why China can do this and not California
Because they're a dictatorship who can proclaim broad life-changing decrees and their citizens have no way to vote them out.
Even better, these limousine liberals are constantly pointing to China and their majestic green initiatives, while hoping you don't notice China is already polluting more than twice as much as the US and is currently building countless new coal mines and plants on top of that.
like it or not electrics are a lot more expensive up front. They tightened their emissions rules on long haul trucks without tightening labor regulations and the result was desperate truckers forced into "leases" for new trucks where they worked for pennies a week and eventually gave the truck (and all the lease payments) to the company owner.
This is all well and good only if it's followed by worker protections. My question is, is this actual progressive policy or a bunch of rich people that just want clean air for themselves? For the truckers it was the latter.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Not everyone can walk out and afford a 40K brand new electric car. Then have to pay an additional pile of money to install a charging station at their residence. And good luck having enough charging stations at apartment buildings or on the street where some people park. Then factor in the high rate for electricity. The issue has become, these cars haven't had a chance to filter down to the non 1% people into the used car lots. Until they make it affordable, I'll be driving my dieselgate VW.
quote: "The governor has certainly indicated an interest in why China can do this and not California."
So far the Chinese have shown that they can *talk* about banning combustion cars, not that they can actually make it work.
$100,000.00 Teslas, or dorky looking BMW and Nissan EVs.
China CAN'T do it. Sure they announced something...an 'intention' and not even a set time period. I can 'announce intentions' all the time...watch "I intend to have sex with Anjolina Jolie"...the chances of that happening are about the same as banning internal combustion engines any time before the turn of the century.
This is all just a show. If they were REALLY serious they'd start announcing bans/controls on human births until such time as the population is done to a maximum of 4 Billion people but better yet 1 Billion or even 500 Million. You want to put a dent in carbon usage, attack the real source, the size of the population.Of course none of these supposed leaders want to actually talk about what the REAL problem is and work to do something about that (not a ban but education, redistribution of the population from countries having far too many births to parents who have none or only 1 in countries where the birth rate is falling below replacement). But then again this has to all be voluntary otherwise wars will start...O wait, wars are great for culling the population...forget I said that.
First thing to bear in mind, banning all combustion-engine-powered cars would be an absolute nonstarter. There are a number of groups that would absolutely band-together to lobby against it, even if those groups that may not normally have a lot to do with each other (enthusiasts for horseless-carriage-era cars and modern auto manufacturers for example) would immediately find common ground to coordinate efforts.
Second, there are classes of vehicles and types of use that do not readily lend themselves to electric use. In particular vehicles designed for heavy offroad use would not make for good electrics when they go places that the electric grid doesn't service, and the mass-penalty in carrying batteries would be a problem for offroad performance. Additionally many commercial-service vehicles would make poor electrics if their daily range far exceeds what a charge can provide, as commercial vehicles might not even have opportunity to charge at their destinations.
Realistically, passenger cars that are not primarily geared toward commercial use would be the best application for electric adoption. Roads are built close to infrastructure and are themselves infrastructure, so recharging cars is practical or can be made practical. Additionally, when the entry-level electric car has a range equivalent to half a tank of gas, which is usually 100-150 miles, suddenly it becomes practical for most commuters for their daily use. Sure, some people do drive more than that in a given day, but most do not, so most people could make that kind of range work for them.
In addition to passenger cars, many 2wd commercial chassis would be designed with an electric option. While a lot of commercial vehicles would not be suitable as electrics, plenty more would be. It is not unrealistic that delivery vans could be made electric if their routes are sufficiently short, and personal-use "lifestyle" 2wd pickups could also make for good electrics when they're used similarly to passenger cars for things like commuting.
I expect that small and mid-sized sedans would be all-electric first. Small cars are usually least likely to be used for passenger livery, and mid-size sedans are extremely popular and the number of sales would make quite a dent in gasoline power. Large sedans would probably follow last since they're often used for police and passenger livery, and they may well always have a gasoline variant. Once these prove popular and successful then we might see coupes and sports cars work as popular electrics, and eventually trucks, vans, and other chassis.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
What sensationalist tripe.
What are they going to do, strand millions of lower-income people who can't afford to replace their $2000 clunker with a $30,000 new car?
If all buses and trains are electric and then taxis and then delivery vehicles and so on, they'd be starting with the most used and therefore polluting vehicles and working their way down the list. It'd also be an opportunity to beef up public infrastructure and maybe slightly reduce California's overreliance on private car ownership. That would in turn, reduce road congestion, and so on. An outright, blanket ban will just backfire horribly and in unpredictable ways.
If they wanted to be super-pollution-nazi serious they'd have a phase out over 20 years or so with a progressive tax on new combustion car sales. This is stupid.
I don't read AC
Los Angeles is one the leading smog capitals of the world.
Yes, and?
If people didn't like that, wouldn't they move? But LA population is rising.
Meanwhile LA roads also keep expanding. Pretty obviously as the original post stated, Californians love cars, and LA residents plainly do not care about smog. Therefore he is right and the stick up your ass serves no purpose other than to give someone a handle to easily control your responses with.
It is a merry tune you dance to, green puppet, but you are not playing for much of a crowd.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They can ban selling them but not the usage. That would come under the control of the Federal goverment as it is interferring with commerce.
LOL. Please Fruitopia, Ban them. See how long people stay in your state. Just don't expect your harbors to be full of ships with imported and exported goods any longer.
Smoked too much paraquat laced weed.
- As always, the Slashdot headline is a flagrant lie. The article is more accurate, though.
- Despite the scary headline, they only mean internal combustion engines IN CARS. They're not banning cargo ships, fighter jets, or anything else, just cars.
- and likely only SALE of NEW cars, so existing cars could still be operated. (this bit is not certain yet).
-This wouldn't take effect immediately. It would be planned for like 2040, by which time combustion cars would already be obsolete.
- If it falls out of political fashion, the law could be voted on and repealed at any time between now and when it goes into effect. Governments can and do renege on deals.
- No mention of whether external combustion engines are ok. (such as those in classic steam locomotives)
Will all state and local government vehicles and see how it goes for them.
The governor has certainly indicated an interest in why China can do this and not California,"
Because one of the two is is a totalitarian communist regime and the other is....
Wait, I take that back.
Because some of us have to live within the confines of what income we have and don't spend money we don't have.
EVs cost twice as much as ICEs, and they last half as long. A good ICE truck or car can easily last 20 years. EVs? Show me a used one you can by that is 10 years old and will last much longer, not without replacing the batteries, which is a major expense.
This is more like a ban on sales of new ICE powered cars.
All they can really do about existing cars is to tighten the emissions regulations, which require EPA approval.
The leftist extremist cant understand the fact that by switching to electric powered vehicles, their precious, perfect utopian a step backward about 150 years.
Any sensible thinker will realize, that aside from the horrific environmental impact that is battery production, mining of raw materials, and hazardous material disposal issues as the batteries reach the end of their useful lifespan, is the fact that in the unthinkable plane of existance that IS reality, electric cars are indeed MOSTLY STEAM POWERED! The steam being produced by the burning of FOSSIL FUELS!
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_in_the_united_states
The current power production in the US is 30% coal, and 34% natural gas powered steam turbine generation, 20% NUCLEAR....(OMG Fukashima...OMG), and the remaining measly 15% being "renewable energy"... the lions share being hydro at 7%... and wind 6%. The remaining 2% being biomass, solar, and other insignificant sources.
So.... there really is NO MAGIC energy source the just comes pouring out of a wall socket (hard to believe, I know) without impact, to charge their filthy, coal fired, steam engine driven (think of a 1865 locomotive) "electric feely good vehicle". Just because you change the form of energy, doesn't magically make it better or cleaner. You still have to produce it. Perhaps the best solution is to continue to let technology advance and make the current ICE more efficient, cleaner, and most importantly... burn LESS of the evil dinosaur juice.
This doesn't even touch on the subject of completely reconfiguring the taxation structure, to account for the losses of fuel taxes. Even an across the board 5% fuel efficiency increase in the commuter fleet sends lawmakers (tax spenders and wasters) into a complete doomsday budgetary meltdown. The conflicting message is to "Please burn less gas, but BUY MORE, and keep MORE gas taxes flowing into the public coffers". Hmm.... quite a quandary,... but not to a rational thinking logical person that doesn't believe in unicorns flying over rainbows, trailing pixie dust. End rant
We have to preserve our air, and there is no reason whatsover the good people of SoCal should suffer the health risks associated with internal combustion engines, not to mention that gasoline is a hazardous substance and known carcinogen.
Get this legislation to the governor's desk and signed ASAP.
is already stretched to the max. It wasn't that long ago we had rolling blackouts. It sucked driving over an hour each way to work to only have to sit at my desk with nothing to do since my computer didn't have power. A steep increase in the number of electric cars will kill our power grid.
I don't think they realize how the electrical energy you get from the energy company is made. Quite often it's made by burn coal or natural gas. I.E. Still burning fossil fuels to make your car run.
This is so hilarious
When are they gonna start enforcing noise pollution laws?
To summarize a few points:
* This is just CARB 'talking' about this. It's not legislation, no one has introduced a bill. It's really just a 'what if' they're discussing.
* I hardly think they'd suddenly ban all IC engine vehicles. That would be a disaster, so don't even think about it.
* Furthermore it'd likely be a gradual shift away from IC engines to electric.
* Furthermore, I don't think things like motorcycles would be included in the ban, nor fleets of trucks, emergency vehicles, etc.
* Furthermore, I don't think it'd include existing vehicles, just new vehicles. Otherwise it would be an impossible financial burden on everyone. * Again: It's just above the level of coffee-table conversation the CARB is having about this. It would be at least TEN YEARS before they'd do anything.
* Furthermore, it'd likely have to be legislation. We all know how long that'd take, right?
Basically: No need to get all flustered about it -- YET. But it was worthy of being posted, so you all know what's going on. Also, not like you didn't all think something like this would come up eventually, anyway, we've been slowly moving towards this for a while now.
Anything behind a 10 year time frame is a wish list not policy
The history of CARB has been to set unrealistic goals because they can than quietly retrench.
What's changed, at least from the point of view of the irresponsible people who run CARB is that now there are real electric cars on the roads.
Never mind they require huge subsidies to eke out a microscopic slice of the market, they're real so CARB can once again flex its muscles and hope not to end up with egg on its face.
The irony is CARB may actually get what it wants although not via a mighty mandate. Technology and the free market will, as usual, deliver the solution that government's incapable of providing in the form of autonomous electric cabs.
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
Leave it to CA to jump on the banning bandwagon. How about we just let things continue to get better by themselves?
1) Is the motivation reduction of pollution or just "feel good" political nonsense? If the latter, then let people feel good by opening their OWN pocketbooks to buy infant technology freely.
2) Cars are cleaner than ever. Again, is this about pollution or feel-good, drop-in-the-bucket, "save the earth NOW" CO2?
3) Target gross polluters, one "bad" ICE can spit out many, many times as much pollution as a good one.
4) People are generally excited about electric. The market is going to explode for electric with or without government interference.
5) Put some thought into what emissions those generation stations that feed those electric will emit and have that ready.
6) Trying to force alternatives to ICE before the market has products or production capability or infrastructure is a recipe for disaster.
7) Not all vehicles can be electric anytime soon. Motorcycles, towing vehicles, long-distance hauling, airplanes
8) Encourage alternatives, don't punish regular people.
Most modern electronic fuel-injected gasoline engines can burn combination of gasoline and ethanol up to 100% pure ethanol if a software change is applied to the timing. Heck, many vehicles are already FLEX-fuel and the owners dont even realize it or what it means.
Burning ethanol produces half of the CO2 of burning gasoline, but with a range penalty. You need 125% as much ethanol as gasoline to travel the same distance.
Still, 125% of half the emissions is 62.5% of gas emissions for the same distance. Thats about 1/3 reduction in CO2 emissions and you can still run gasoline engines for decades to come. And its arguably healthier for your engine to burn alcohol anyway.
But to produce alcohol cheaply enough to be competitive with gasoline, we would have to drop the alcohol taxes and regulations so it could just be a simple commodity.
Guess unraveling the tax/compliance mafia is harder work than simply issuing edicts, bans and such.
... that has the range, power, and payload of a standard TurboDiesel ambulance.
If California wants to ban internal combustion engines, OK, then let the Great State of California, and LA County LEAD the way, by junking every gasoline-burning police car and ambulance and fire truck they have, and replacing them ALL with electric vehicles.
I'll wait.
Why shouldn't California do the right thing and tax or ban jets as well.
Especially if this is true:
"On average, a plane produces a little over 53 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) per mile. "
It is a ban on NEW cars. You are NOT poor if you can buy a new car.
Doesn't anybody remember the ban on incandescent lights? That is the way to go. A lot of people will be confused by propaganda in the same way and try to buy a bunch of cars before the ban happens... which is will offset the wise people who do not buy them and wait for the replacements to get cheaper from mass adoption. It works out perfectly where the foolish aid in the transition.
Everything begins somewhere and big issues like this one take YEARS to happen. It should be done eventually and this is the start of that inevitable process that leads to the ban. By the time the ban actually happens it will be less of an issue at the time and if 10 years from now is too soon it will be shoved back.... if government does not do it's job then it'll happen much later when it means almost nothing or the last gas engine maker goes out of business.
Progress is often connected with government actions and it happens more than people realize and more so in the past when democracy functioned better than today when it is near it's death cycle. Our collective power is government and if we don't control it, it's still empowered by us. At least it does a lot of good stuff before becomming totally dysfunctional.
So the blanket statement is a Banning internal combustion engines. Presumably, this would remove the need for gas fueling stations so they disappear from the landscape as well.
But, as someone who was recently considering a driving trip to California, I wonder if this means then leaving your ICE vehicle at the state line and having to rent an electric vehicle to continue one's trip into California. That would be an ill thing with the current (ha ha, current) state of electric vehicle range and recharging. I've said it to others before, electric vehicles will be more acceptable when the range and recharge (refill) time match the old, now politically incorrect, ICE vehicle.
Unless they can start delivering American-sized & priced (read: Crown Vic sized with ~$25k price tag) alt-fuel vehicles with similar ranges, no sale.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
All that does is make it so that the well-off can drive whatever they want and that you needlessly restrict what the Rest of Us drive.
If it can't cause pain for policymakers, then it's a non-starter.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
They should just start sterilizing people
CFL bulbs suck and are toxic to the environment. Thanks for the apt comparison.
It would be unrealistic to ban IC-engine vehicles in a decade. As others have pointed out, short of some revolution in battery capacity, they just don't have the range.
What would be more realistic would be a ban on diesel engines and a requirement to use hybrid drivetrains for passenger and freight vehicles. The technology is mostly available today and the pain and cost would be much lower.
We shall replace all internal combustion engines with external combustion engines!
Long awaited, the time for turbo rocket space car is here!
... and get to be possibly the last generation to be able to own a car with a V8 roar and manual transmission.
By the time my kids get to the point of responsibly buying anything more than a simple commuter car everything will be electric.
Which isnâ(TM)t bad. Just different. But I really enjoy a big combustion engine. Too much Dukes of Hazard as a kid?
For this to happen, the electric car must be roughly equivalent to the combustion engine powered car. It must be able to provide at least 600km autonomy in a less then 10 minutes charge. An electric car with a 200km autonomy and 4 hours recharge is fine if you have a garage to store and charge it, most people just don't have that possibility. Combustion engines are so successful because you can charge them to 1000km autonomy in less than 5 minutes.
I don't say that this wouldn't exist in 10 years, but until then, there is no practical replacement for at least 50% of trips. And you are not supposed to buy 2 cars, 1 electric for small commutes and 1 combustion for larger ones or where you won't have easy electricity to charge them.
I gave up with the idea of an useful sig...
Within 10 years it will be the ban of selling new ICE cars, and maybe ICE's that are 30+ years old (and don't pass a certain emission standard).
It'll take a few decades before the whole fleet of ICE cars have been replaced, you just cannot ban cars as a lot of people still depend on them and do not have the money to buy new ones. Also at this time the technology for batteries isn't commercially viable/good enough for replacing the ICE for long range/offroad situations. But in 10 years that will have changed, just as the ammount of charging stations, because if they thought people having airconditiongs on during the warmer periods is already a problem for powersupply, wait until it also has to charge every EV (which ofcourse takes a lot of energy). So it's great if they want to ban ICE's, but they first need to make sure that range is much better and there is a good infrastructure to charge all those EV's. Both are heading in the right direction.
Let's not forget, people still want to drive the old cars as they love them, so there needs to be a plan to let people be able to do so (even if it requires a total conversion to EV).
There is no such thing as 'catastrophic man-made global warming', so they renamed it climate change. Now we have this level of insanity - trying to ban internal combustion engines.
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
Car emissions are such a small part of the problem.
However, if they would return to nuclear (using modern nuclear) instead of relying on coal and oil, they would probably meet their goal easily.
I think banning internal combustion engines is a good idea. I would love to see external combustion engines catch up.
Because we're not a totalitarian state - yet.
CFL bulbs suck and are toxic to the environment. Thanks for the apt comparison.
CFL light bulb was a stupid stop gap measure launched by panicking manufacturer.
It didn't make any sense from engineering pov (it uses toxic substance in the tube, use complex starting circuitry that can easily fail).
It was mainly done so :
- classical lightbulb manufacturer can do something that "passes" such potential laws, while using technology that they already have the patents for since ages (most classic lightbulb manufacturer have also been making various fluorescent tubes for age - CFL was a small incremental evolution).
they did successfully manage to circumvent ban (but so did even the manufacturer that replaced plain classic incandescent filament with slightly better efficient halogen bulbs. I joke you note - in Europe, OSRAM successfully managed to circumvent incandescent lightbulb ban using another incandescent technology, just by being enough more efficient)
- with any chance, the back lash against the poor light quality and high failure rate will cause backlash against classic incandescent bulb ban.
It did not.
LED light bulb is the actual real step ahead. It requires a lot less weird substances (e.g.: doesn't need toxic mercury) and the electronics are much simpler. (Modern LED bulb imitating the old classic edison filament style manage to cram all the electronics inside the screw) and the overall efficiency is even better than CFL.
Yes, LED bulb require a little bit more resource (and cause a little bit more emission) per unit built.
But over the life-time of a LED bulb (usually in the decade range - the warranty of some Phillips models is actually 10 years) those initial building impact is completely dwarves by the enormous power economy.
over 10 years, your LED bulb will have ended up being a lot less toxic to the environment than the long serie of incandesent
----------
The same "LED" situation is currently happening with EV.
Yes lithium battery are toxic to the environment to produce.
But ICE engine don't grow on (organic) tree neither.
Compared to the production of a classic car, the production of an EV is only fractionally more impacting (to lazy to google, seem to remember it being in the ball park of 25%).
But this number (environmental impact at production) is completely insignificant compared to the rest of the lifetime of a vehicle (environmental impact during years of use).
Current research show that over the life-time of a car, even lots of country that still burn fossils for electricity production, the environmental impact of an EV ends up being smaller.
(Again, too lazy to google. If I remember correctly : only India, China and Australia have such awful electricity production that there's no difference between driving an EV or an ICE car. Even in the US that relies a lot on fossil for its electricity, the EV end up being less impacting. Here around in Europe it's even better due to several countries moving to renewables)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Your poor and immigrants will be unable to purchase under what is already an extreme tax structure. Drive all your poor to the utter broke end of the spectrum. The divide between the haves and have nots will be astronomical.
It's official. California is run by a bunch of fucking retards.
Why not just ban tailpipes then? Why ban the whole motor?
That'll put California the rest of the way into bankruptcy. Maybe once the state is broke and has to sell itself off piece by piece, the rest of us can stop putting up with their BS.
I grew up in a small backwater shithole. Through hard work, pretty much illegal labor (ain't nothing like working for less than minimum wage for a resume bullet, and I'm not talking waiting tables and getting a fuckton of tips) and sheer insanity, I got the fuck out.
Most of the people I went to school didn't.
And most of them were right fucked over when the price of used cars rose by thousands of dollars because abloobloobloo environmentandohpoorinnocentGM.
So, somehow we're to believe voting Republican is 'voting against your best interests' when the Democrats have a history just as violent, if not worse, against the working classes.
Remove the 3M illegal immigrants from the state. Presumably they take their pollution with them. They represent somewhere north of 6% of the population at last check. But that's probably low, since there are around 1M illegal immigrants with drivers licenses.
"Nearly a million undocumented drivers could be licensed in California by the end of the year. Through June 2017, the Department of Motor Vehicles has issued approximately 905,000 driver’s licenses under Assembly Bill 60, the law requiring applicants to prove only their identity and California residency, rather than their legal presence in the state.
I love the phrase "undocumented drivers"...
Does this mean that NASCAR won't be able to race in California? What about diesel-powered cargo ships, are they no longer able to port in California? California also has a massive military presence, will they be exempt? Too many questions that need answered first.
I called it a mighty Sperm Whale, she called it Finding Nemo.
The "ban the internal combustion engine" people are of the luddite part of the EnvorinMENTAList movement.
Their long term goal is that we are partying like it is 1799.
My uncle has a country place, that no-one knows about
He says it used to be a farm, before the Motor Law
Sundays I elude the ‘Eyes’, and hop the Turbine Freight
To far outside the Wire, where my white-haired uncle waits
Jump to the ground
As the Turbo slows to cross the borderline
Run like the wind
As excitement shivers up and down my spine
Down in his barn
My uncle preserved for me an old machine –
For fifty-odd years
To keep it as new has been his dearest dream
I strip away the old debris, that hides a shining car
A brilliant red Barchetta, from a better, vanished time
Fire up the willing engine, responding with a roar!
Tires spitting gravel, I commit my weekly crime
...California would therefore ban all heavy construction as well?
Precisely how are you going to build a highway, or dam, or large building without heavy equipment like bulldozers and dump trucks, or do they believe those can be electrical too?
-Styopa
- and see how everyone eats, gets their groceries and goods and gets to work. I'm sure it won't affect state tax money in the first 20 minutes and start starving people in the first days. Go Californiastan go! You have my fist in the air with you in solidarity.
Are there no experienced software developers on this forum at ALL??
For God's sake stop with the HOW and discuss the WHAT. What are the WHATs we're looking for here? Here are some "whats" I'd like to see: Less pollution, less fuel use, fewer traffic deaths, to name a few.
Now we can discuss HOW to get these. Here's how to get these great results without worrying at all about fuel consumption, type of fuel, even to some degree, safety features.
Just make a drivers license really hard to get and keep. Base it on demonstrated skill, tested every few years. Only allow someone to drive who can physically demonstrate superior driving in a hard test. Instant revocation for driving impaired in any way, e.g., any measurable blood alcohol and instant revocation regardless of being in an accident. Massive penalties for driving without a license. I'm sure you all get the point.
Far fewer drivers on the road and the one's that are driving are only the best drivers.
Then, who cares what kind of car you have? Giant SUV gas guzzler? Won't be enough on the road to really matter. Cast iron dashboards or what not? Too bad for you if you have a wreck.
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
Comiefornia governor idolizes communist China.
My uncle has a country place, that no one knows about. He says it used to be a farm, before the Motor Law.
He can come tell us why the flatulent cows are more important than this issue.
tailpipes generate more than one-third of all greenhouse gases
Hah! The tailpipe fell off my shitbox years ago.
Have gnu, will travel.
Most city driving is probably fine for battery work. Highway driving (trips > 100 miles) is likely going to require an infrastructure change.
Redoing the highways to allow for charging of vehicles while enroute is still coming. Once that's done - there won't be a reason for ICEs except for extreme cases.
The first coal powered road engine they meet aught to provoke an interesting reaction.
"The large car is about as sacred as the gun, the flag, and Jesus."
Hey now - I find most of those things sacred and I like electric cars.
Relax - Americans will like electric cars - eventually. Tech people are always on the leading edge of technology, but it takes joe sixpack a while to realize that we are right.
It took my mother almost a decade to realize that a smartphone would make her life better, years after that she is finally getting rid of her landline and cutting the cable TV cord.
Should she have done all of this 5 years go - probably - but she saw the light eventually. Most of America will see the electric car "light" eventually too.
Isn't this a moot point? Many EU countries and China are setting ban dates. Automakers will have to start making electric cars for those markets. Do they really want to run two different plants, one for ICE one for EV. It'll be cheaper for them to switch to all EV. When no one is making millions of ICE cars what is the point of a ban?
California contributes about 1% of the world's greenhouse gases. Therefore, a complete ban on internal combustion cars will have essentially zero effect on global warming. It will, however, have a large effect on the cost of living in California.
Meanwhile, are they talking about banning diesel trucks? I don't think so, because the truckers have a good lobby, and they won concessions in the latest cap-and-trade bill that passed. Diesel exhaust is actually sickening and killing people in California today, not due to some flooding in the year 2050.
LOL!
Brown asks why a Communist Authoritarian Dictatorship can do something , but not California.
What's wrong with this picture?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
So,
everyone is talking about how the car is the issue.. But lets look to the furture, A think most people, politicians, etc cant ore refuse to do..
Well, if these internal-combustion devices are banned, whats going to happen to the infrastructure? I mean, with the strain on california's allready taxed electrical infrastructure, what wil they do to shore up the increased demand?
well they will have to build more power plants, and or devices to help prop up the infrastructure in it's weak areas.,,
What does that do the enviornment?
Physical impacts from having to build new facilities, env impacts stemming from the erection of said facilities, also include all the "new" jobs it will create to support california's demand for electricity (dirty jobs.) Plus all the it also takes away our choices..
I mean with electricity being the only thing in town , ya I'd like to see how car sales get fucked up from that notion.
All I see is te BS in front of us as its presented, but NOTHING ABOUT THE LONGTERM IMPACT, I mean the true LONG TERM IMPACT, not the we are taking 30000000billion tail-pipes out of circulation, but what of the new facilities that will have to be build to support this initiative? what kind of crap will they be spewing into the air, moving past that whats going to power these facilities, ( coal, oil, hydro electrik, solar?) If you think its the last 2, hahah you would be wrong, the last 2 are self sustaining, dont really benefit anyone accept the environment (where is the money in that, I mean Opec doesnt get a piece, distributiors get nothing, oil companies themselves dont get crap from it. So from a person in a suit seeking their own agenda, the last 2 options do not support their business model so therefore why support it? (If they ain't fighting it they is supporting it) So whats really happening, California is putting a new face/perception on environmental destruction, to bolster a new opportunity for an untapped revenue stream. I mean look @ the population of california, is anyone suprised this is happening? typical motto, If we cannot affect change in our own places of origin, lets leverage the US debt issues and buyout california, re create it in our own vision, lets resurrect our failures somewhere else. TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS NOT INTENDED AS A RACIAL ARGUMENT, if you look at the news around you this is not something new, these are observations of the real world as we are seeing it in real time..
BTW there are intentional mispellings in this article.
So, why can china do it and Cali cant..
Hmm.. lets see.
1. they are a country, California is a state within a country. (fucking short sighted)
2. they hold most of our debt
3. look at their acts of forward thinking and tell me what do you see?
4. are any of us going to be around in 2040?
5. what about nuclear weapons?
nukular
6. who's to say california wont be china by then? Look a the housing market in that region.
this is not going to happen, the cake is a lie
^^ This. We'll note that Jet engines don't constitute 'internal combustion' engines.... include the dreaded jet fuel engines and see how the entire state comes to a screaching halt. This is all a pipe dream and I'm all about it. GO FOR IT Californiastan. Show us n00bs all the way to the salvation of enlightenment.
"River, we're not telling people how to think, we're just showing them how." - F.U. Joss
Why can China do something about this and not California?
Dose the governor really have that shallow of an understanding between the US's version of rule by law, and China's version of rule by fiat of the communist party? He and Obama should get together to whine about why they have to go through legislatures to get things done.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
As Cass Sunstein would say, 'no one wants to ban the internal combustion engine, even in California. That would be crazy. We will just raise the taxes on Gasoline pumps to the point where no one will want to own them'.
"There's also no mention of two (or three) wheeled vehicles at this stage." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliant_Robin
At least, according to this:
Tesla car battery production releases as much CO2 as 8 years of gasoline driving
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/20/tesla-car-battery-production-releases-as-much-co2-as-8-years-of-gasoline-driving/
The other two-thirds of all greenhouse gases produced are by people breathing.
So everyone in California needs to stop breathing.
I wouldn't put it past California to do this. Because the state's Constitution is built around only the coastal cities having -any- voice in government (with the senate elected by popular vote), I can see them enacting this law, expecting that everyone should be using BART, LA metro, a bicycle, or a Tesla. If it hurts poorer people, who cares. They don't buy lobbyists.
Plus, they don't really care about what the rest of the US does... they already voted on having secession as a valid ballot referendum. As a republic, who knows what they are going to do, other than perhaps be a garrison for Russian or Chinese troops.
People who have switched to electric vehicles in California are finding out its cheaper to drive gas powered vehicles due to California's mismanagement of public utilities (namely electric companies) which make California one of the most expensive states in the nation to buy electricity from.
To Meet Emissions Goals.
China HAS to do this. I have been there and the pollution there is HORRENDOUS! Mind you, it is primarily from burning coal.
Yet, still, the sooner humans can reduce pollution - of any kind - the better.
Sure, your little pittance of pollution is in itself relatively insignificant.
Yet, if we let you do it, we have to let everyone.
So, then, it is the death penalty for any polluters! Even the assholes that throw trash from the car!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Ha Ha, what a bunch of Dufus BS. Just do away with all fuel stops including diesel and your problems will be over. No cars and trucks, no food, no nothing and California can return to it's pre-statehood desert. Coyotes and Jackrabbits will rule the ruined cities and "undocumented aliens" will no longer lust after entitlement benefits. Multiple problems solved by left wingnuts. Just so the Californians stay home and participate in elitist funded population reductions and you're golden. Like I said before, what a bunch of Dufus BS.
then we should buy stock in horse and ox farms because that's what Californians are going to be riding and using to pull wagons again. Electrics are never going to replace internal combustion UNLESS someone invents the magic battery to make it possible, and that effort is not going well.
1. Most of the West (BC,WA,ID,OR,CA) has access to renewable power for electricity. This may not be true of the buggy whip states to our East, but we use green power here and have recharge stations along our major highways.
2. By next model year, electric vehicles will be cheaper than fossil fuel combustion vehicles.
3. It's fairly easy to limit sales of new vehicles and fleet purchases by business. They save money by going electric, so this not only reduces kid-killing exhaust but saves people money. You just remove the deductibility of non-green vehicles and all exemptions for fossil fuel vehicles. Easy.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --