CA to Ban Sale of Gas Cars in 2035

[Doc2020GT]

Ya might want to do a search on that topic.

Yeah, I figure it’s somewhere else.

mods, please zap this thread.

Sponsored

 

[Ewheels]

https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/threads/ca-to-ban-sale-of-gas-cars-in-2035.148296/#post-3030436

 

[Ebm]

I feel sorry for you guys in Kalifornia.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/califo...gas-powered-cars-starting-in-2035-11600882738

Feel sorry for the health and safety of everyone in California, not sorry that they are banning gasoline powered vehicles. This is the next logical step in the evolution of the automobile. There are several countries that are implementing this change as well.

I'd give up my Mustang in a heartbeat if it means people will have a longer, healthier, life. Think about future generations as well.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Hoping to pick up a new GT500 on Dec 31st, 2035 for $10k. ($0 for the car and $10k ADM). Actually, I'll go as high as what they could unload the car for scrap the next day (if that is still legal).

What is the definition of "sell"? Can they do 100 year transferable leases with one lump sum payment up front? Can they give a car away if you buy an oil change for coincidentally what a car normally sells for?

 

[Ewheels]

Feel sorry for the health and safety of everyone in California, not sorry that they are banning gasoline powered vehicles. This is the next logical step in the evolution of the automobile. There are several countries that are implementing this change as well.

I'd give up my Mustang in a heartbeat if it means people will have a longer, healthier, life. Think about future generations as well.

Your argument makes complete logical sense and I have no rational way to argue it.....except that the kid in me never wants to give up that V8 rumble

Honestly, I used to be against electric cars until I drove my friend's Tesla. Those things are so damn fast!

 

[NoVaGT]

Feel sorry for the health and safety of everyone in California, not sorry that they are banning gasoline powered vehicles. This is the next logical step in the evolution of the automobile. There are several countries that are implementing this change as well.

I'd give up my Mustang in a heartbeat if it means people will have a longer, healthier, life. Think about future generations as well.

I'm sorry, but that's a huge bunch of PC nonsense. Complete opiate of the masses stuff.

EVs actually harm the environment more, over their life-span, than ICE vehicles. And there's no way California can move to 100% EV, they don't have anywhere near the electrical power generating or distributing abilities. Not to mention all that electricity has to come from somewhere. More coal fired plants? More nuclear plants? Neither are acceptable to the very people that are stupid enough to believe banning ICEs is a good idea.

And what are they going to do about bringing in all the goods that their citizens need? If ICE engines are outlawed, then how does all that stuff get into california and distributed.

There are several countries that are pretending to implement such a change. It's not going to happen. They will all keep pushing back the date of implementation, again and again.

Then you should look at the percentage of green-house gases that vehicles represent. It's like a tiny percent of the total. The vast majority of green-house gasses are natural to the environment.

This is nothing but retarded feel-good bullshit. The real environmental polluters are places like China and India, not the US and it's vehicles.

Lastly, this is the very definition of human hubris; some think we're the be all and the end all on this planet, and everything we do is so important and impactful. It's not, and we're not. When the planet has had enough of us, it will dispose of us. Like a dog scratching a flea off it's ass.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Feel sorry for the health and safety of everyone in California, not sorry that they are banning gasoline powered vehicles. This is the next logical step in the evolution of the automobile. There are several countries that are implementing this change as well.

I'd give up my Mustang in a heartbeat if it means people will have a longer, healthier, life. Think about future generations as well.

You mean like an asteroid was the next logical step in dinosaur evolution? No, if it is the next step in evolution, it doesn't need heavy handed force to achieve it.

Even if you believe that global warming is a killer, only a fool would decide that eliminating internal combustion is the best way to reduce warming. For one thing, carbon in the air isn't the only thing that warms planets. Better to go for a solution that can deal with more/all causes. Killing IC to stop warming is like taking your clothes off instead of using fans or AC to cool your body. We seem to think we will be able to terraform other planets, but we can't adjust our own's temperature by fractions of a degree without massively disruptive measures? Why not seed the stratosphere with particles that can change reflectivity wirelessly and control them with a thermostat only we men can adjust. Takes care of this and all other forms of warming.

We shouldn't subject ourselves to changes that happen to be what enriches the influencers pushing the changes.

 

[sotek2345]

I'm sorry, but that's a huge bunch of PC nonsense. Complete opiate of the masses stuff.

EVs actually harm the environment more, over their life-span, than ICE vehicles. And there's no way California can move to 100% EV, they don't have anywhere near the electrical power generating or distributing abilities. Not to mention all that electricity has to come from somewhere. More coal fired plants? More nuclear plants? Neither are acceptable to the very people that are stupid enough to believe banning ICEs is a good idea.

And what are they going to do about bringing in all the goods that their citizens need? If ICE engines are outlawed, then how does all that stuff get into california and distributed.

There are several countries that are pretending to implement such a change. It's not going to happen. They will all keep pushing back the date of implementation, again and again.

Then you should look at the percentage of green-house gases that vehicles represent. It's like a tiny percent of the total. The vast majority of green-house gasses are natural to the environment.

This is nothing but retarded feel-good bullshit. The real environmental polluters are places like China and India, not the US and it's vehicles.

Lastly, this is the very definition of human hubris; some think we're the be all and the end all on this planet, and everything we do is so important and impactful. It's not, and we're not. When the planet has had enough of us, it will dispose of us. Like a dog scratching a flea off it's ass.

Sorry - you are a bit wrong when comparing environmental impacts of EV vs. ICE vehicles. Here is a good video explaining:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=2rywz73vwKw&usg=AOvVaw184oMPGMPP3yWfUl3mEbYX

 

[Balr14]

There are simply too many people in California for the environment to support.

 

[NoVaGT]

Sorry - you are a bit wrong when comparing environmental impacts of EV vs. ICE vehicles. Here is a good video explaining:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjQweW1loLsAhXClXIEHYlTA_cQtwIwCXoECAQQAQ&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rywz73vwKw&usg=AOvVaw184oMPGMPP3yWfUl3mEbYX

That video has been dissected and torn to shreds in the comments. The creator conveniently left out some very important things, like the mining and production of battery component parts and chemicals.

Once again, and this isn't a debate; EVs are far more harmful to the environment over their life-span. This isn't even a question. Manufacturing the chemicals and components for the batteries is seriously, seriously nasty stuff. Which is why it's done in China.

Musk wants to pretend he manufactures his batteries here in the US with Panasonic. This is as true as US cars are "Made In The USA". Most are made from parts manufactured all over the globe, by the lowest bidder. The sub-assemblies and chemicals in Musk's batteries are made mostly in China, and then assembled here in the US, with Panasonic as a business partner.

And the environmental impact of EVs is nowhere near it's peak right now; where's all that electrical power going to come from? More coal plants? Nuclear plants?

Little things like that shouldn't be ignored in this discussion. EVs are smoke and mirrors, nothing more.

Hydrogen and nuclear power are the real answers.

 

[sotek2345]

That video has been dissected and torn to shreds in the comments. The creator conveniently left out some very important things, like the mining and production of battery component parts and chemicals.

Once again, and this isn't a debate; EVs are far more harmful to the environment over their life-span. This isn't even a question. Manufacturing the chemicals and components for the batteries is seriously, seriously nasty stuff. Which is why it's done in China.

Musk wants to pretend he manufactures his batteries here in the US with Panasonic. This is as true as US cars are "Made In The USA". Most are made from parts manufactured all over the globe, by the lowest bidder. The sub-assemblies and chemicals in Musk's batteries are made mostly in China, and then assembled here in the US, with Panasonic as a business partner.

And the environmental impact of EVs is nowhere near it's peak right now; where's all that electrical power going to come from? More coal plants? Nuclear plants?

Little things like that shouldn't be ignored in this discussion. EVs are smoke and mirrors, nothing more.

Hydrogen and nuclear power are the real answers.

Agreed we need far more nuclear power. I would love to see many new plants built.

I haven't seen any net positive business case for hydrogen however - what leads you to believe that has a future? It is inefficient (energy to concentrate/condense) and storage can be high risk.

 

[watisthis]

EVs actually harm the environment more, over their life-span, than ICE vehicles.

Well you're missing the whole point of what we're going for in the long term. Comparing CO2 emissions from an EV today to an ICE today, is completely missing the point.

EVs are not just about reducing CO2 emissions a little bit. That wouldn't solve the problem. EVs are part of a big long term solution that involves cleaning up the grid, making electric trucks and mining equipment, getting factories to use renewable energy, and so on.

This all builds up to a solution where there is 'zero' CO2 emissions from both production and charging of EVs, which is the only goal that actually matters. EVs is the only solution that can realistically lead to 'zero' CO2 emissions. ICE on biofuels and hybrids are just band-airs that at worst is a distraction that delays real solutions.

If all we did was cut CO2 emissions by 30% we wouldn't really have solved the problem at all.

Moreover, when it comes to materials of construction, that's where pollution can differ. Batteries aren't perfect, and they're not easy to produce and dispose of. THat's an issue that the world is still researching. The good news is that battery technology is still thriving and growing. And this is exactly why we do things like this to speed up processes. THere's lots of room for improvement still, whereas combustion motors have pretty well plateaued.

Then you should look at the percentage of green-house gases that vehicles represent. It's like a tiny percent of the total. The vast majority of green-house gasses are natural to the environment.

Agreed, we need to get harder on the real culprits. Not just the ones that are easiest for us to digest at the time.

The real environmental polluters are places like China and India, not the US and it's vehicles.

Not true, .

This is not a blame game, we are all in this together and we have done more than our fair share of polluting.

 

[NoVaGT]

Well you're missing the whole point of what we're going for in the long term. Comparing CO2 emissions from an EV today to an ICE today, is completely missing the point.

EVs are not just about reducing CO2 emissions a little bit. That wouldn't solve the problem. EVs are part of a big long term solution that involves cleaning up the grid, making electric trucks and mining equipment, getting factories to use renewable energy, and so on.

This all builds up to a solution where there is 'zero' CO2 emissions from both production and charging of EVs, which is the only goal that actually matters. EVs is the only solution that can realistically lead to 'zero' CO2 emissions. ICE on biofuels and hybrids are just band-airs that at worst is a distraction that delays real solutions.

If all we did was cut CO2 emissions by 30% we wouldn't really have solved the problem at all.

1. No one is comparing C02 emissions from an EV and an ICE today. That's not even what's being discussed. Please don't strawman argue with me. My statement was simple; EVs are far more destructive to the environment than ICEs, over their respective life-spans.

2. There will never be "zero Co2 emissions", and "renewable energy" is a fantasy. They're catch-phrases for useful idiots to believe in. Just repeated until the political lie becomes the truth for some people. And legislating EVs does absolutely nothing, especially when there's nothing to replace them.

Honestly, I'm concerned you think energy comes from some magical place of unicorns and Keebler Elves. You're posting above like you don't understand how the creation of energy works. You're talking about "zero emissions", "a big long term solution" and "renewable energy" without the slightest reference as to where the energy is to come from to allow them to happen.

3. There is no problem. The climate is fine, the earth is fine, there's no problem.

Moreover, when it comes to materials of construction, that's where pollution can differ. Batteries aren't perfect, and they're not easy to produce and dispose of. THat's an issue that the world is still researching. The good news is that battery technology is still thriving and growing. And this is exactly why we do things like this to speed up processes. THere's lots of room for improvement still, whereas combustion motors have pretty well plateaued.

I'll opine that ICEs aren't plateaued at all. And like I wrote, hydrogen and nuclear are the power sources of the immediate future, along with ICE's

Agreed, we need to get harder on the real culprits. Not just the ones that are easiest for us to digest at the time.

Are you supporting California's actions? It's nothing but political posturing, and nothing more. It's also a massive waste of tax-payer dollars.

Not true, .

This is not a blame game, we are all in this together and we have done more than our fair share of polluting.

That's history from 1750, and that's not what we're talking about, and just another example of strawman arguing. The US is a damn clean country, far, far better than places like China, India, and many, many other countries.

We're not talking about 270 years ago, we're talking about now.

ETA;

Now, if some can't step away from the enviro-nazi cause, then at least go do something that actually means something. Get on a plane, with all your friends, and go to Beijing or Calcutta, and protest. Go actually do something where a real difference could be made. Don't waste your time here, where your beliefs and actions do nothing but give retarded politicians more political capital to control and manipulate people with.

 

[watisthis]

There will never be "zero Co2 emissions", and "renewable energy" is a fantasy. They're catch-phrases for useful idiots to believe in. Just repeated until the political lie becomes the truth for some people. And legislating EVs does absolutely nothing, especially when there's nothing to replace them.

Honestly, I'm concerned you think energy comes from some magical place of unicorns and Keebler Elves. You're posting above like you don't understand how the creation of energy works. You're talking about "zero emissions", "a big long term solution" and "renewable energy" without the slightest reference as to where the energy is to come from to allow them to happen.

I don't understand why you're talking down to me as if you believe you're the most knowledgable person on this subject.

What you're trying to get at is the long tail pipe theory. https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriqu...hicles-the-long-tailpipe-theory/#6af056567f26

You can change the source of electricity for an electric car. The same cannot be said of a fossil fuel car. As our power grid moves away from fossil fuels, electric vehicles get a lower CO2 footprint. Gas vehicles do not. For example, most EV owners charge their cars at home, and some do it use solar power, which should have a near 'zero' CO2 footprint.

If you're going to account for the source of the electricity for an EV, then don't you also have to account for the source of the energy for a fossil fuel vehicle? Fossil fuels have to be discovered, mined, pumped, transported, refined, transported again, sold at retail and finally consumed. Some of those steps are extremely taxing and unfriendly to the environment, such as, supertankers and the like. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-014-0788-0

I'll opine that ICEs aren't plateaued at all.

They most certainly are as noted by the Otto cycle. The upper theoretical maximum for an ICE for a normal gas powered engine is going to peak at around 40%. Most engines are lower, but Toyota has shown some indication that they've gotten right up to that limit. https://www.greencarreports.com/new...ine-achieves-thermal-efficiency-of-38-percent

Eventually, there's only so much one can do. While ICEs will probably have a long life cycle ahead there theoretical maximum is less than electric. We can generate electrical energy much more cleanly than we can burn carbon, and as production gets more efficient it will tip more and more towards the use of electric.

Then why are you supporting California's actions? It's nothing but political posturing, and nothing more. It's also a massive waste of tax-payer dollars.

Because its a step in the right direction. Yes, CA is politically posturing climate change, lol. I think I found the climate skeptic. I can think of a great number of ways to waste tax dollars, helping the environment isn't one of them.

That's history from 1750, and that's not what we're talking about, and just another example of strawman arguing. The US is a damn clean country, far, far better than places like China, India, and many, many other countries.

We're not talking about 270 years ago, we're talking about now.

Yes, because this all happened over night, nothing we did previously has affected what is happening now.

Also, you're still incorrect - "Average per capita emissions were 4.8 tonnes of fossil fuel carbon dioxide per person last year. This number was considerably higher in Australia (16.9 tonnes per person), China (7.0 tonnes per person), the EU (6.7) and the United States (16.6). Notably, China’s per capita carbon dioxide emissions are now higher than those of the EU (although historically they were not), while India’s per capita emissions (2.0 tonnes per person) are about one eighth of those of the U.S."

My statement was simple; EVs are far more destructive to the environment than ICEs.

This is incredibly false when we talk about scale and life cycle. Think of it this way, it's more efficient, and thus cleaner, to produce electricity at scale than to burn gasoline in a small vehicle engine. Gasoline engines also have a lot of waste, especially though heat. Additionally, with the continued increase in renewable sources of energy, the EVs continue to get cleaner over time. You can not make that same claim with ICE, so no, you are wrong.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Sponsored