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.
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
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/
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.
> Not everyone can walk out and afford a 40K brand new electric car.
Well, everyone that counts can. If you can't, you don't count.
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?
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
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.
I suspect the headline is wildly sensationalist (as is tradition, I did not RTFA). It's designed to manufacture outrage.
There's no way they could outright ban existing vehicles, in California or anywhere else. Hell, even California basically lets old vehicles get away with much looser emissions standards, I guess to help out poor people who can't afford newer cars. There's no way they'd tell everyone in 10 years you can't drive the car you currently own.
Even a strict 10-year cutoff is ludicrous. I'm sure if anything were passed, it would be a very gradual phaseout, with lots and lots of exceptions. While the vast majority of Californians could do all of their daily driving on electric, not all can. And there are plenty of "special case" trips (vacations, mountains) that can't either. Or the entire trucking industry. Or any business needing heavy duty pickup trucks.
What I want to see is a vast reduction in local pollution by slowly moving commuter cars over to electric as people replace them in the coming decades. I wish it could happen now so I don't have to choke on smelly exhaust (especially from all those gross polluter exceptions for old cars) when I'm enjoying the outdoors on a walk, run, or bike ride. But now, or 10 years, is not realistic. A few decades is, if properly pushed forward at a reasonable pace.
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...