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.

Comments

Re:ha

[Obfuscant]

So don't buy a car then. There's a lot of people that don't own cars, and for those of us that live in large cities we shouldn't need to.

Is this an implicit claim that within 10 years the entire state of California will be one, huge, densely populated large city environment? That's what it would take to convert the huge amounts of California that aren't currently viable for public buses and trains into the kind of place where "bike" and "walk" are sufficient for everyone.

If the last 50 years has shown us, personal car ownership in any level of density urban area doesn't work.

And it has shown us that personal car ownership in any other environment is almost a requirement.

Face it, Governor Moonbeam has wangled himself a fuzzy feel-good regulation making him look good for cutting emissions by an impossible amount, and now he's got to try coming up with a solution that doesn't make him look like a complete environmentalist wacko suckup. Banning gasoline engines in the state is a "solution" that matches perfectly the "solution" of impossible cuts in emissions.

Re: If they ban existing vehicles I will sue

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm poor. Are you going to pay the cost to replace all my equipment that I bought with my own very hard earned money?? No, you'll just sit in your rich white ivory tower and declare this and that are banned and charge fines and penalties which go back to people like you from people like me.

Thanks.
--poor people

Re:FIrst show me a full replacement car

[serviscope_minor]

For this to happen, the electric car must be roughly equivalent to the combustion engine powered car.

For the car to replace the horse, the car must be roughly equivalent.

It must be largely capable of steering itself and avoiding obstacles with only minimal input from the driver. It also must be powered by grass and be able to cross narrow trails and rough steep terrain. Finally, if you put two of the right type of cars together in a paddock, they need to be able to produce more cars for free.

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.

By far the majority of trips are already within the range of even the weediest electric cars.

Re:What about the working poor?

[mvdwege]

you would have to pay for exhaust of the power plant that produces the electricity your tesla is using.

We already do. Depending on local emissions standards, electricity companies have fairly strong pollution controls on their exhaust. And of course this is reflected in the cost of electricity.

And of course I'm not even talking about what method of generation you use. Some of them are even emissionless.

In short: fuck off with your false equivalency.