California Considers Combustion Engine Ban

3 weeks ago by Christopher Smith 94

Infographic

The measure would be similar to other target dates set by China and several European countries.

With over 2 million new car sales a year, California sells more cars than some European countries like France and Spain. Those two countries, along with China, have established target dates to stop the sale of new cars with internal combustion engines. California hasn’t followed suit yet, but such a move is reportedly on the table according to Bloomberg News.

California electric vehicle registrations (source: The San Diego Union-Tribune)

“I’ve gotten messages from the governor asking, ‘Why haven’t we done something already?’” said California Air Resources Board Chairman Mary Nichols to Bloomberg News.

The  messages come from California Governor Jerry Brown, who is one of the more vocal political figures when it comes to pollution and climate change.

“The governor has certainly indicated an interest in why China can do this and not California.”

Numerous countries have expressed a desire to ban the sale of new gas and diesel-powered vehicles in the next 20 to 30 years, but it’s still unclear if such targets can be met. With the current evolution of all-electric vehicles, many believe it’s absolutely possible. Others believe that setting specific dates will force manufacturers to focus on electric development or risk losing a substantial market.

California already has a goal to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels before the year 2050. Some see the axing of new gas or diesel cars as the only way to meet that target. Of course, the ban only covers new cars – it’s unclear how used or classic gas-powered cars might be affected.

For its part, and not at all surprising, the Association of Global Automakers doesn’t appear to be entirely on-board with the idea.

The Association’s CEO John Bozzella said in a statement that the group has been working on “intelligent, market-based approaches to emissions reductions beyond 2025, and we hope that this doesn’t signal an abandonment of that position.”

The Association of Global Automakers is a trade organization that represents foreign automakers such as Honda and Toyota in the United States.

As it stands right now, a ban is being considered but there are no plans to implement such a measure any time soon.

Source: Bloomberg News

Tags: , , ,

94 responses to "California Considers Combustion Engine Ban"

  1. CDAVIS says:

    From article post: “Numerous countries have expressed a desire to ban the sale of new gas and diesel-powered vehicles in the next 20 to 30 years…”
    ——-

    20 to 30 years from now all new car sales in California will be EV irrespective of if there is a California ban on ICE cars.

    1. eltosho says:

      And it’s not 20 to 30 but rather 15 to 25 ..

      1. Prad Bitt says:

        10 to 20 🙂

    2. Dav8or says:

      Exactly! Let the people vote with their pocketbooks. No need for mandates… unless BEV technology truly is inferior? I don’t think so. Give the new tech a chance and keep your OCD desires to control your neighbor’s choices in check.

      STOP TRYING TO FIX THE WORLD WITH GOVERNMENT MANDATES!

      How about this? Prove your ideas are right by example! If they don’t convince anybody, either you aren’t selling it very well, or they really do suck.

      1. Asak says:

        Yeah, but back here in the real world mandates are effective. Without them EVs would not be where they are today.

        1. Timmy says:

          Asak 1, dav8tor 0.

      2. SparkEV says:

        “stop trying to fix the world with government mandates!”

        I agree with this, except ICE cars are allowed to dump their poison gas behind them for free. Somehow, drivers’ magical thinking is that dumping the poison behind them won’t affect them, yet they are almost always behind some cars that are dumping in front of their faces.

        “Free” leads to abuse, which is exactly what ICE cars are doing. To combat this, they should pay for ways to actively remove the poison gas from the tail pipe like the air that went into then engine (even if you don’t count CO2). Then let’s compare the cost; BEV will cost much, much less than ICE cars.

        But there’s even simpler method where you don’t add much to ICE cost. Just have the tail pipe go straight into the passenger cabin and have people breath the exhaust. Free market will take care of ICE cars disappearing very quickly.

        In the end, what keeps ICE cars cheap is free poison gas dumping and the weird human psychology that other people’s farts (poison gas from car in front of them) is not harmful.

        1. Freedom17 says:

          We need government when so many idiots still out there. Coal anybody ?

      3. Windbourne says:

        And yet, ppl like you approve the massive subsidies for fossil fuels.

  2. DJ says:

    You know what I really wish they would do is apply similar, albeit probably somewha less stringent, emissions testing on older cars.

    It’s ridiculous to me that some car from the 60s-70s can drive around with no emission controls on it. Those cars really aren’t the big issue as there are so many of them but we all know the cars that are just too old and pollute a ton but they’re given a pass because the rules they had 15 years ago weren’t anywhere near as strict as they do today. They could fairly easily put some new hardware in them that would result in them polluting a lot less. Not as little as say a new car but definitely less. Given the amount these older cars pollute I have to think $ would be better spent on cleaning them up actually than giving someone $2,500 to replace a 3 yr old ICE lease with an EV.

    I mean if homeowners are forced to spend an obscene amount of $ inspecting and upgrading their homes to meet current building and EQ requirements why can’t something like that be applied to a car? Sure it’s not “fair” but then again neither is having to spend tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade your home because they didn’t have stringent enough building codes in place back when it was built.

    1. Sublime says:

      Yeah, too bad that whole freedom concept keeps getting in the way.

      1. Mark.ca says:

        So your freedom to pollute trumps my freedom to live a healthy life. I said it many times, i don’t have a problem with badly polluting gassers as long as they have a good air filtration system…like making the exhaust air pass through the cabin so the driver can filter the air.

    2. Paul says:

      I like Sublime’s answer but you cant slap a cat conv on a 1966 Mustang, unless it has a 1980s or later engine technology. Remember the diesel upgrase fiasco in Calif? It’s still only halfway completed, after 10+ years and a dozen lawsuits.

      1. DJ says:

        Well then don’t allow it to be driven anymore 😀 That’s basically what they’ve done in Singapore. It costs so much to get the vehicle entitlement that it’s just not worth it to have a beater.

        Also, I’m sorry but you can do a hell of a lot more to a car than you can do to a house for the $. What’s the cost to replace it with 80s technology? I suspect not in the ball park of 10s of 1,000s.

        I mean I get it, that would go against the whole we love our old cars bit and all but I have to think it would be a better use of the funds. Putting good emission controls on a 20 year old car will likely reduce pollution many times more than someone going from a recent car to an EV.

        1. scott franco says:

          Singapore is a dictatorship. QED.

          1. jimjfox says:

            Benign dictatorship = BEST form of Government.

            http://donellameadows.org/archives/singapore-leads-the-good-life-under-a-benevolent-dictator/

            Freedom is a beautiful ideal. But there are always people who abuse it for their own benefit, to the detriment of the majority.
            Islam is the prime example- an ideology with world conquest as its aim, by whatever means possible. ‘Free’ western democracies have no answer, at present.

            Any ideas?

            1. SparkEV says:

              Only if you can keep that “benign” aspect of dictatorship forever. Singapore is only about 50 years old. Let’s see how “benign” they are after 200 years. If history is any indication, they will turn violent. Indeed, some claim they have already turned violent by denying basic human right to chewing gum.

            2. Windbourne says:

              Yeah, as spark said, keeping it benign. Look at Google. It was once a great company that really worked towards the future and tried hard to avoid ‘evil’. It was a great company to work for. Now, it is no different than MS, and really has that same sets of issues.

              1. Mark.ca says:

                Don’t forget to take your pills…

          2. Freedom17 says:

            Singapore is one of the most advanced civilization on earth, compare that with most of southern states…..

      2. Scott says:

        Convert to electric or don’t drive it.

    3. Texas FFE says:

      Actually cars sold in California in the 60s and 70s had the most extensive emission controls in the country at that time. California cars, just like cars in many states, have to go through annual emission inspection to make sure the old emission controls are working properly. You can’t keep all the smokers off the road but without the original emission equipment and the annual inspections the situation would be much worse.

      1. DJ says:

        Agreed. I grew up in the San Gabriel valley of LA. In the summer time you couldn’t even see the foothills that were all but a couple miles away. Things aren’t great these days but they are admittedly a heck of a lot better.

        Now imagine if they got rid of all the old clunkers and 2-stroke lawn equipment 😀

        1. SparkEV says:

          There’s an old joke in the SGV area, if you can’t see the air, how do you know you’re breathing it?

          1. Mark.ca says:

            Good one!

    4. scott franco says:

      “It’s ridiculous to me that some car from the 60s-70s can drive around with no emission controls on it.”

      Because there are not enough of these older cars running around to justify CONFISCATION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY BY THE STATE.

      Taking 1960s cars off the road would not put a dent in pollution.

      1. Nick says:

        > Taking 1960s cars off the road would not put a dent in pollution

        Are you sure?

        I know that driving behind such vehicles really sucks.

        No single stone believes it’s personally responsible for the land slide.

      2. Spider-Dan says:

        Why do you keep talking about “CONFISCATION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY”? No one is proposing that the government show up to homes with a trailer and haul vehicles away.

        It is certainly within the scope of government authority to determine which vehicles it will license for operation on publicly-owned and maintained roads. Your inability to register an ICE is not confiscation of property; you can drive it on your own private roads as much as you like.

    5. scott franco says:

      “I mean if homeowners are forced to spend an obscene amount of $ inspecting and upgrading their homes to meet current building and EQ requirements why can’t something like that be applied to a car?”

      Because it isn’t true. You are not in fact required to upgrade your house to current building code. Unless the state can prove an eminent threat to life or public safety, they cannot require such upgrades. Do your homework please.

      1. Spider-Dan says:

        Actually, you are required to upgrade your house to current CA building code when you perform any action that requires an inspection (e.g. a permit for new construction).

        I was required to add CO detectors to receive a permit for the electrical work done to install my EVSE 4 years ago, and I was required to install additional smoke alarms to receive a permit for my new HVAC system last year.

        1. devroot says:

          Those upgrades that you were required to do were minor and low cost. What you weren’t required to do is install earthquake bracing, reinforce your foundation and better tie the house to the foundation, upgrade your electrical panel to handle a 200A feed, replace all ungrounded outlets, install GFCI outlets in all water accessible locations, or a host of other changes in building codes.

          When I had an EVSE installed, and later Solar, I also had to do the CO2 and smoke alarm upgrades, too. Big whoop.

    6. Dav8or says:

      You know what I wish? I wish people like you would stop trying to mandate what other people should do to suit your desires! I oppose the idiotic regulations imposed on home owners too, but don’t use them to justify even further stupid regulation.

      Vintage cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats, airplanes and whatever else likely annoys you are such a TINY percentage of what is expelling gasses into the atmosphere that I wish you could see that this example of over reaching government policy is exactly what gets people like Donald Trump elected!

      Let sleeping dogs lay and stop trying to selfishly control all your neighbor’s behavior. Don’t feel so secure in California. It is long over due fro another swing to the right. Check out it’s historical voting record.

      1. Asak says:

        Dream on. California is not going right. It will drag the rest of the country left.

        1. Steven says:

          What’s taking so long?

      2. Nick says:

        It becomes my business as soon as it pollutes my air or fscks up my biosphere.

        Emit as much as you want on Venus, but while we’re sharing the same air, concessions must be made.

        1. Steven says:

          Absolutely

      3. SparkEV says:

        “Vintage cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats, airplanes and whatever else likely annoys you are such a TINY percentage of what is expelling gasses into the atmosphere”

        Imagine those old cars are homeless people, and what they emit are poop and pee. Now if homeless people, what few there are in your area, continually poop and pee in front of your house (public property), cops will come and take them away. Yet, you make excuses for old vehicles doing even worse? Poison gas gets in your lungs, unlike poop that you can scoop up.

        As mentioned in comment above, those old vehicles should have the exhaust piped directly into the passenger cabin, and random checks be done so that exhaust is always going into the cabin. They will a) give up their vehicle, or b) spend the money so that exhaust is clean enough for them to breath.

        Taking a dump in front of your neighbor’s house SUCKS!

    7. Asak says:

      I don’t consider this to be a serious problem because there’s a general life span of a car. There simply aren’t that many 20 year old cars on the road. At some point they just aren’t worth repairing. As time goes by the older, more polluting clunkers go to the wrecker and the fleet gets cleaner.

      If the last ICE car was sold in 2030 by 2050 there would be almost no ICEs on the road, and by 2040 they’d be a distinct minority.

      1. Steven says:

        What state are you in?
        Here I see several “Classic” and “Antique” license plates a day.
        Now it may not be 10%, but they are noticeable.

      2. Bolt driver says:

        At this point in time a 20 year old car is a 1997. A 60’s muscle car is now 50 years old. Now in 2025 any car made in the prior 30 years is pretty clean with efi, catalytic converters, carbon filters on evaporative gasses, etc. at that point in time muscle cars will be pushing 60 years old.
        Yes, those cars pollute a lot, but they won’t be daily drivers. Too rare and expensive and really crude compared to today’s cars.
        with 2 million new cars a year, there is going to have to be a lot better charge infrastructure. 2025 is only 7 years away and look how many chargers Tesla has put in during the past 7 years. Better get going on installing chargers.
        I would guess this will go the same way as the California mandate that 10% of the cars will be electric by 2000? Repealed when reality sets in.
        Personally I think there needs to be another order of magnitude change in enery density to make electric cars replace ic engines. I don’t see how current technology and charge infrastructure can replace the 1 ton pickup towing 15,000lbs.

    8. wavelet says:

      Highly polluting old cars (say, without catalytic converters) are a tiny % of the on-road fleet nowadays, esp. after the various cash for clunkers programs in various countries. They’re not a significant issue in developed countries.
      The sheer amount of cars (many of which could easily be replaced by electric bicycles) is more of an issue.

  3. James P Heartney says:

    Right, all these bans will be irrelevant window dressing by the time they take effect. Imagine if there were a ban on sale of new tube TVs starting 2020.

    1. Mark.ca says:

      What?! That goes against my right to own a pos tv.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      That’s my take on this, too.

      Any ban that far in the future is pretty irrelevant. The EV revolution certainly should have progressed to the point that nearly all new car sales will be plug-in EVs by that time. And if they’re not, if for some reason they remain not fully competitive, then the State isn’t going to be able to force people to buy them. The political resistance to that will be much, much too great.

      The State may impose taxes or impose certain regulatory restrictions on new gasmobiles, but banning them outright simply isn’t politically possible in the USA so long as large numbers of people are still buying new ones.

      I hope, and believe, that within a human generation (~25 years), BEVs will be seen as so superior to gasmobiles that every few people will want to buy gasmobiles. If the State has to force them to buy BEVs, then something is very wrong.

      * * * * *

      AESOP’S FABLE: THE NORTH WIND AND THE SUN

      The North Wind and the Sun had a quarrel about which of them was the stronger. While they were disputing with much heat and bluster, a Traveler passed along the road wrapped in a cloak.

      “Let us agree,” said the Sun, “that he is the stronger who can strip that Traveler of his cloak.”

      “Very well,” growled the North Wind, and at once sent a cold, howling blast against the Traveler.

      With the first gust of wind the ends of the cloak whipped about the Traveler’s body. But he immediately wrapped it closely around him, and the harder the Wind blew, the tighter he held it to him. The North Wind tore angrily at the cloak, but all his efforts were in vain.

      Then the Sun began to shine. At first his beams were gentle, and in the pleasant warmth after the bitter cold of the North Wind, the Traveler unfastened his cloak and let it hang loosely from his shoulders. The Sun’s rays grew warmer and warmer. The man took off his cap and mopped his brow. At last he became so heated that he pulled off his cloak, and, to escape the blazing sunshine, threw himself down in the welcome shade of a tree by the roadside.

      Gentleness and kind persuasion win where force and bluster fail.

  4. Nelson says:

    All CA needs to do is make buying an ICE cost prohibitive via carbon tax.

    NPNS! SBF!
    Volt#671

    1. Ocean Railroader says:

      I’m sick and tried of people talking about having a carbon tax in that it will hit low wage workers a lot worse then the haves who can run out and buy a $100,000 dollar Tesla.

      1. MikeG says:

        A carbon tax + rebate could be beneficial to low-wage workers who are also low carbon emitters, by rebating more money than they pay in carbon taxes.

      2. Nelson says:

        By 2025 they’ll be enough Model 3, BoltEV and Leaf in the used car market under $20k, that a carbon tax on ICE vehicles will pose no problem for low income workers. Currently LA has used Leafs going for a high $16K and as low as $8K.
        Check cars.com
        I’m not a low income worker and I have bought used cars before, nothing wrong with buying used.

        NPNS! SBF!
        Volt#671 + BoltEV

        1. Nix says:

          Nelson, do you think there will be more than 200 million used EV cars and trucks enough to substantially replace the US fleet of ICE vehicles? That’s what it would take for there to be an actual choice for consumers to choose between EV’s and ICE cars.

          This is a 20+ year transition on the macroeconomic level. It isn’t going to happen by 2020.

          There is a time and place for punishing laggards who choose to pollute even though they have valid options to pollute much less. 2020 won’t be that time.

          1. Nix says:

            Edit: %s/2020/2025/g

            My bad. Same logic still applies. 2025 is too early.

      3. Scott says:

        I bought a 2014 used Leaf for $7000!

        1. Nix says:

          There aren’t enough used EV’s to go around. Your solution works great for you as an individual, but it does not scale.

      4. Nix says:

        Ocean — That indeed is the problem of a “Sin Tax” style solution.

        This isn’t like smoking, where it is possible to live your life without smoking.

        Sin taxes are only effective if there is a realistic ability to actually change your behavior to avoid the sin tax. That simply isn’t realistic for 99% of Americans at this point, because there simply aren’t enough EV’s on the road to go around.

        You can’t use the stick when there aren’t viable options. It is like whipping a horse no matter what direction they go. He’s just going to buck you off.

        That’s why successful EV adoption programs around the world have all relied heavily on carrots at this point in EV development and rollout.

        It isn’t just a coincidence this is happening in state after state, city after city, nation after nation. It is simply correct thinking on public policy.

        With that said, working towards a system that slowly ramps up forcing people to actually pay for their pollution has to eventually happen. Letting people pollute for free might be reasonable when 100% of people have no option but to pollute (or to benefit indirectly from pollution). But as choices that drastically cut one’s own pollution footprint become realistic, it only makes sense to put a price tag on choosing the higher pollution option.

        It is really a question of “how and when” we tax pollution, not “if” we tax pollution.

    2. Mark.ca says:

      I will vote for you, Nelson!

    3. SparkEV says:

      Why are people so eager to give money to a-holes like Prez Dump? It’s just matter of time before your tax monies will be spent by a-holes, because single party rule won’t last forever (unless you’re in China).

  5. Ocean Railroader says:

    I found out News that Iceland is quickly gaining EV market share fast.

    Well after driving around Iceland in a Jeep that got the worst gas millage of any car I have ever driven in my life. I ended up spending $250 dollars in gas by only driving 300 miles in two days.

    So naturally the free market will let EV’s win in Iceland with 6 to 7 dollar a gallon gas.

    1. Mark.ca says:

      A free market in US will do the same to gas prices. Count all the money we spend on wars defending our oil interests and our gallon will be close to $10.

      1. Mikael says:

        Goods paying for their external impact is not part of a free market.

        That is part of a highly regulated and taxed market, as it should be.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Big Oil’s highly successful lobbying of Congress and Presidential administrations to get the U.S. to use our military to protect Big Oil’s economic interests in the Mideast, instead of Big Oil funding that with mercenaries, isn’t even remotely an “external cost”. It’s just a cost which, unfortunately, is accounted for differently.

          If it were not for Big Oil, we wouldn’t have any military bases in the Mideast, and we wouldn’t be selling or giving arms to any country there except Israel.

          If you really think that’s an external cost, then Big Oil’s propaganda has been quite successful with you.

        2. wavelet says:

          ??
          Classic free market definitely prices in natural externalities.
          Problem is, people have for centuries ignored the externalities, and it’s finally caught up to us.
          Fun fact not many people know: The world energy usage stopped being sustainable (that is, fuel consumed, fossil as well as wood, was more than could be generated by any method) around ~1760, in the Age of Steam.

  6. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

    This is a politicians “Feel good” ‘look what I’m doing for the environment’ BS.

    First post by CDAVIS has it right.

  7. kubel says:

    Why mandate something that is naturally happening anyway? That’s like government planning in 2000 to ban CRT monitors by 2010. It’s a pointless, “look how your government is protecting you” mandate that allows politicians to take credit for something that the free market has been organically leading towards for years.

    Electric cars aren’t cool now because of government mandates. They are cool because there was market demand for high performance (ie, not golf cart), long distance electric vehicles, and some people decided to take the risk to supply that demand.

    Then you have Senator Ralph Wiggum over there screaming, “Look, I’m helping!”- instead of admitting that they are just late-to-the-party politicians desperately trying to appear useful and legitimate in a world that is quickly becoming disenfranchised from the idea that they are anything other than a parasitical ruling class.

    1. Vexar says:

      It lights a fire under the manufacturers’ feet to do something other than talk about compliance cars. I wish my state would care as much as CA does.

      1. scott franco says:

        Move to CA. Lots of available places, since most are leaving the state.

        1. Mark.ca says:

          What most?! My properties are appreciating like crazy! One of them is close to a x3 from the 2008 purchase price. There is plenty demand and the builders can’t keep up!

        2. Asak says:

          Gotta love these California haters.

        3. Nick says:

          Yep, I had to leave since real estate pricing has gone up so much. 🙁

          You have to be extraordinarily rich to afford the bay now, or be single and live 8 to a rented apartment. All the roads are clogged nearly around the clock. It sucks.

          1. Mark.ca says:

            My first instinct is to fight off Cali bashers because i know how good life can be here and how much wealth you can accumulate but the place is beyond full. We need to do something about this, the freeways are being expanded and still standing still for most of the day.
            So i agree with the bashers…for different reasons…if you want to move to Cali just don’t!

            1. GoBlue88 says:

              Agree. I live in San Diego and I want to get the word out that our weather sucks, we have constant earthquakes, there are zero beautiful women here, you have to be worth more than $10 million to even think about buying an outhouse-sized home, we have no freedoms, there are taco trucks everywhere, and we are being taxed to death. So spread the word: STAY AWAY!

              1. Mark.ca says:

                LOL…i could have not said it better! And much like in other areas in the US there are no jobs here! Stay away! Maybe Trump wall is not such a bad idea after all…if he could pay for it himself with the money he’s saving from the tax bill.

        4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          scott franco said:

          “Move to CA…. most are leaving the state.”

          Really, “most”? So you think the population of California is rapidly dropping year-on-year?

          I think you’ve let your conservative bias trample your common sense here, Scott. I usually find your posts to be interesting, but here you’re just being ridiculous.

          1. Mark.ca says:

            I wish he was right…

          2. JoeP says:

            “It’s so crowded, no one goes there anymore”

            1. Mark.ca says:

              Classic!

    2. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

      Mandates are important because:
      – Consumers don’t care
      – Manufacturers don’t care

      Mandates can be important to make sure that objectively better possibilities actually happen when the seller and buyer don’t _really_ care that it does.

  8. scott franco says:

    “The governor has certainly indicated an interest in why China can do this and not California.”

    Because they are not a one party dictatorship?

    Wait… yes they are…. never mind.

    1. Mark.ca says:

      How would exactly the republicans help in this particular case? By delaying, dragging their feet?

    2. rc368 says:

      And why is that Scott? Because the Repubicans screwed up so bad they got booted out Democratically. Might come to be Nationally too looking at things.

    3. pjwood1 says:

      Funny quote, i thought. No matter how open to regulation you are, elevating Communism is a risky bet.

  9. scott franco says:

    “Of course, the ban only covers new cars – it’s unclear how used or classic gas-powered cars might be affected.”

    No, it isn’t (unclear). California just got slapped by a judge for attempting to confiscate personal property.

    There is a little thing called the “constitution”. Yes, inconvenient, I know.

    1. G2 says:

      Too much “Freedom” is like too much oxygen; it can kill you.

      1. Rightofthepeople says:

        In the 2017 version of these United States we are in absolutely no danger of having “too much freedom.”

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Not with a wannabe dictator and his oil-igarchy cronies in occupation of the White House, that’s for sure.

  10. Jeffrey Spaulding says:

    It’s amazing to me that we are even having this conversation. A year ago, this would be just be pie-in-the-sky. Imagine where we will be in another year after Tesla and Nissan and Chevrolet really start pumping out the EVs.

  11. mzs.112000 says:

    The first thing we need is a state-wide ban on 2-stroke engines.
    It is estimated that due to ever-increasing hybrid market-share and better gas mileage, by 2020, 2-stroke engines will produce more pollution than cars.

    The ban needs to be extensive, no new 2-stroke engines or products that use them, and implement a program to have them all recycled and replaced with electric versions.

  12. mgvt says:

    add 5000$ to ice car price tag, and give that money to ev’s

  13. Steven says:

    How about ending subsidies to Big Oil.
    Let’s pay the real price for gasoline, like most other countries do.

    The problem would eventually work itself out.

  14. Terry says:

    Wow….just realized something after reading most of what was written here. The EV crowd isn’t the same as the “car guy crowd”. It’s more like the MAC vs PC crowd. Check please!….buzzes away in my Nissan LEAF.

    1. pjwood1 says:

      There are plenty of places where the EV crowd is crunchier than Inside EVs.

  15. Windbourne says:

    Rather than removing ICE vehicles, they would be better off not allowing sales of new ICE passenger vehicles, or registration of ICE vehicles from out of state, starting in 2025.
    In addition, require that if you live in CA for at least 3 months/year or own a place there, and do not register, it means $10,000 fine combined with 1 month jail. Drop this after 2040.
    Then in 2030, allow gas/diesel sales ONLY for CA currently registered vehicles. Basically, allow them to die out.

    I would suggest allowing exceptions for collectors cars that are actually worth say $5000+ and older than 20 or 30 years. A 1968 Camero is a collectors car, not say the ’75.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “…if you live in CA for at least 3 months/year or own a place there, and do not register, it means $10,000 fine combined with 1 month jail.”

      Jail time just for not registering a gasmobile? Wow! Maybe you should move to China.

      Now, if you were talking about oil refinery owners and operators who release far more pollution into the air than they claim to, or executives of companies which regularly and illegally dump toxic waste… then jail time might well be appropriate.

      We should take aim at the big polluters, not the little guys.

  16. Don Zenga says:

    Way to go California. You don’t want to suffer the same fate that Texas suffered with Harvey ($70 billion damages) and Puerto Rico with Maria (damages yet to be estimated).

    At least a vehicle should have a mild hybrid and any vehicle which has no motor should be banned first.

    This will automatically lead to hybridization and then pluginization.

    1. Mark.ca says:

      I wonder how long until a hurricane makes up the Cali coast. We need a few warm ocean water years like 2015 to find out. It was mahi mahi fishing time in L.A.

Leave a Reply