Is this really goin to happen?, 2035 Phase Out all new gas cars Options

[76-914]

I finally read this post today and I can't help but think of H. Ford's quote; "If I'd asked people what they wanted they would have said faster horses!". The time for EV's is here.
Speaking as a Horse Power Whore, I love the EV's acceleration. Not to mention their endless possibilities. As Epstein mentioned earlier, the day is coming that one could pull in your drive and take you or your kids wherever. No more looking for spots to go parking with your date. Just activate the auto-darkening windows and have at it.. etc.

I'm sorry @76-914 but this is bulls###. Electric vehicles are NOT going to magically make it possible for me to get a date.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif) When we reach that point in the future we will have come full circle. I'll explain. When my Dad was a young man he was bragging to his dad how he could take his date to a parking spot since he had a car. His Dad replied, "Son, when as was a young man returning from the dance in town we'd tie the reins to the the wagon and climb in the back because the horse knew the way home." (IMG:style_emoticons/default/shades.gif)

[chrisg]

And nuclear IS part of the discussion if we're going to get serious about "clean" energy. It more or less has to be.

Well it's not going to be in CA since we are shutting down the last plant here. A safe and functional plant that had many years of service life left. Besides providing a lot of electricity to the area it also provided a lot of tax dollars to the local economy and schools, plus a lot of jobs that will now be lost.

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-diab...0111-story.html

[Chris914n6]

The mandate would be better overall if he had limited co2 output. Basically take new super-sized DD vehicles off the roads.

2019 GMC Sierra C10 2WD 5.3L - 232,325 sold
543 g/m

2019 Ford Escape FWD 2.5L - 241,387sold
370 g/m

Regular Progress -----

2020 GMC Sierra 2WD 5.3L
448 g/m

2020 Ford Escape FWD 2.5L
220 g/m

2020 Ford Escape FWD PHEV (Hybrid)
77 g/m

In this context Hybrids are a viable solution already in production and not dependent on optimistic tech advances.


Then we have the size/weight and engine factors, which also have been improving.

2007 Toyota Camry base - 473,108 sold
189.2" x 71.7" 3307 lbs
2.4L 158 hp 161 tq
21/30 ave 24 mpg
370 g/m

2020 Toyota Camry base (336,978 sold in 2019)
192" x 72.4" 3241 lbs
2.5L 203 hp 184 tq
29/41 ave 34 mpg
264 g/m

The EV mandate is the worst possible solution to a global issue. Likely the most expensive choice too. It also doesn't change the fact that China is the global pollution leader.

[thelogo]

Every body run out and get an ev such b.s (IMG:style_emoticons/default/screwy.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/stromberg.gif)


If they really gave 2 s#its about the enviroment
They woud have long long ago . made it so every new gasoline car had 4 cylinders or less. No more suburbans
No more ram trucks . etc

And i know this is such common sense . but definitely wrong crowd here. ( including me )

But you wanna reduce gas consumption . make it a 50mph speed limit and strictly enforce it .

Every assclown out their driving 70,75,80 + is wasting a ton of gas . just to cut off some bigrig slam on thier brakes and pretend they get places 2 mins faster. And that their racecar drivers .




(IMG:style_emoticons/default/sheeplove.gif) from Georgia where the men are men and the sheep are nervous (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sheeplove.gif)

[Racer]

Which is greater political suicide.. introducing a goal of Zero Emissions (electric, hydrogen etc) or slap on say a $3/gal gas tax.. That would as above, drive consumer choices for better efficiency AND allow those who can afford it, to enjoy that latest Hellcat hemi! (and it would also pay for road maintenance and other issues.. I bet if gas was $6-9/gallon you might not make the same choices you do today.

But lets not let this get political.

I like the idea of electric.. so long as its not my only car... at least not till I'm really old.

[Tdskip]

It also doesn't change the fact that China is the global pollution leader.

So you'll stop beating your wife and kids as soon as China does?

[rhodyguy]

What?

[Chris914n6]

It also doesn't change the fact that China is the global pollution leader.

So you'll stop beating your wife and kids as soon as China does?

Poor analogy on so many levels.

It's more like that walked dog that poops in my yard when half a dozen feral cats do it almost daily. Ain't going to change the situation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2019/1...oxide-emitters/

"The U.S., in fact has reduced carbon dioxide emissions by more than any other country since the Kyoto Protocol, while China has increased emissions by more than any other country."

"China is therefore the single most important country when it comes to curbing carbon dioxide emissions."

(IMG:https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50397792648_03abf57c3a_z.jpg)

[horizontally-opposed]

^ Problem with the above—and this is nothing political but rather plain fact—is each country's contribution to pollution since, say, the industrial revolution.

Or, say, 1968.

It's measurable, and it's undeniable. And the U.S. was a hot mess until we wisened up. In that regard, we were way ahead. Were being a key point. But we were also the gross polluter, so we should be leading here. And pushing that lead.

Bigger takeaway, for me anyway, is that we're all in it together. Whether it's pollution that travels by air or sea (see: CA smoke in NYC, or Japanese nuclear waste or plastic trash up and down our coast), it really doesn't matter. What matters is figuring out smart ways forward.

Doing nothing isn't a strategy. Nor is saying we can't have an impact so why bother? Perhaps we can't, but I'm not down with going out like that. Things looked dire with the Dustbowl, but solutions were found (even if they may be, in some ways, coming back to bite us), and things looked bad with a giant hole in the ozone. Things looked bad in LA, and here in SF, back in the 1950s-1970s. Changes were made, with big impacts. The air cleared, and house prices—and the economies in general—thrived.

We can do this.

[bbrock]

Poor analogy on so many levels.

It's more like that walked dog that poops in my yard when half a dozen feral cats do it almost daily. Ain't going to change the situation.

Nope on many levels. The target is to reduce total global emissions rather than a contest of which mega polluter reduces pollution the most. Sure, China is a problem and needs to be held accountable, but the US was the #1 CO2 emitter not long ago and we are still the second worst offender. By your metric, a country that was net zero when Kyoto was signed would be worse than the US today because they didn't cut their zero emissions even more. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

We can probably all agree that China sucks, but I think we can do better than to just suck a little less than China. That doesn't smell like American exceptionalism to me. Honestly, I think a big reason the world hasn't nailed China's ass to the wall is because the US would have to have our own asses nailed too and other countries aren't going to risk poking the bear like that.

Finally, let's just review those numbers. The IPCC says we need to reduce global emissions by 45% by 2030 to hold change to 1.5C. A 25% reduction holds change to 2C so there is still value in doing as much as we possible can. China produces 27% of emissions. To say that nothing will change if China doesn't change is not factual. There is enough headroom to even meet the 45% target without China's help at least in theory. Sure, it makes it a helluva lot harder but isn't an excuse for the rest of the world to surrender.

Like Pete said, we're all in this together.

[thelogo]

Poor analogy on so many levels.

It's more like that walked dog that poops in my yard when half a dozen feral cats do it almost daily. Ain't going to change the situation.

Nope on many levels. The target is to reduce total global emissions rather than a contest of which mega polluter reduces pollution the most. Sure, China is a problem and needs to be held accountable, but the US was the #1 CO2 emitter not long ago and we are still the second worst offender. By your metric, a country that was net zero when Kyoto was signed would be worse than the US today because they didn't cut their zero emissions even more. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

We can probably all agree that China sucks, but I think we can do better than to just suck a little less than China. That doesn't smell like American exceptionalism to me. Honestly, I think a big reason the world hasn't nailed China's ass to the wall is because the US would have to have our own asses nailed too and other countries aren't going to risk poking the bear like that.

Finally, let's just review those numbers. The IPCC says we need to reduce global emissions by 45% by 2030 to hold change to 1.5C. A 25% reduction holds change to 2C so there is still value in doing as much as we possible can. China produces 27% of emissions. To say that nothing will change if China doesn't change is not factual. There is enough headroom to even meet the 45% target without China's help at least in theory. Sure, it makes it a helluva lot harder but isn't an excuse for the rest of the world to surrender.

Like Pete said, we're all in this together.

Cut china out of the picture. Especially economically. Now or asap . free ourselves. But as long as were the blank check for china we bear some or all the responsibility

But then where would we get all our brake pads etc (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sheeplove.gif)

[rhodyguy]

Brazil. The good old fashioned way. Oh, that's out.

[pete000]

Doesn't matter to me I wont be living in this crazy sate by then!

[Tdskip]

It also doesn't change the fact that China is the global pollution leader.

So you'll stop beating your wife and kids as soon as China does?

Poor analogy on so many levels.

Nope - perfect analogy, you just don’t like it because it makes it clear you are making excuses for not doing what the physics makes clear we must.

[Chris914n6]

It also doesn't change the fact that China is the global pollution leader.

So you'll stop beating your wife and kids as soon as China does?

Poor analogy on so many levels.

Nope - perfect analogy, you just don’t like it because it makes it clear you are making excuses for not doing what the physics makes clear we must.

I don't like it because it's violent and inappropriate and you are a sick (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sheeplove.gif) for thinking about it.

You are wrong about me.

I installed a cat on my 914. Your 914 have a cat? No? Hypocrite.

I'm willing to bet my carbon footprint is smaller than yours.

EVs are a trillion dollar bandaid to a human race problem.

After reading about the Chinese car industry convention, I believe China will be the first to go full EV, and yet they will still be the largest polluters because of manufacturing all the luxuries humans buy.

PS. physics makes EVs useless in the cold.

[andrewb]

PS. physics makes EVs useless in the cold.

I was kinda with you until this. Firstly define 'cold' - Norway (quite a 'cold' place) is leading the way in EV sales. Partly because of government incentives admittedly but I doubt that the Norwegians would snap up tax breaks if it meant them sitting in 'useless' cars.

Secondly I presume what you are referring to is the reduced range because of the effect of low temperatures on battery chemistry ? So that's reduced range NOT useless.

And as I said previously just because EVs - or anything else - don't work for someone somewhere that is no reason for the rest of us not to reduce our emissions and our costs.

[bbrock]

I installed a cat on my 914. Your 914 have a cat? No? Hypocrite.

I'd love to hear more about this. What MY? Maybe in another thread?

Also, I meant to comment that I agree with you that the mandate would be better if it were tied to carbon output but I also appreciate that it would be a more complicated system more vulnerable to political manipulation or mismanagement. I'll take simple but imperfect solutions over nothing at all.

I think the argument that EV is the most expensive solution or relies on optimistic technology advances is a bit outdated though. When this thread started, I went "shopping" to see what I could buy in an EV. I was shocked at the prices. I could by a new Leaf for the same we paid for our Honda CRV in 2006 once you adjust for inflation. For not too much more, I could get a VW ID.4 which would be a significant upgrade in luxury. Both are getting close to the ranges I'm looking for so the technology improvements needed are really only incremental. In fact, they are so close that my wife and I have decided to put off replacing our aging DD for a couple years just to see where EV are at that time.

[Spoke]

With the move to all EV in the future has the government of California indicated how they would make up the loss of liquid fuel taxes they now collect ($0.69/gal taxes)? How will they tax EVs to make up the difference?

In PA, every township receives liquid fuel grants to do road improvements. With zero liquid fuel tax the EVs have to be taxed somehow as roads will still need to be maintained and improved.

[flipb]

With the move to all EV in the future has the government of California indicated how they would make up the loss of liquid fuel taxes they now collect ($0.69/gal taxes)? How will they tax EVs to make up the difference?

In PA, every township receives liquid fuel grants to do road improvements. With zero liquid fuel tax the EVs have to be taxed somehow as roads will still need to be maintained and improved.

In VA, there's an annual fee as part of registration for EVs, currently $88, in place of paying gas tax. Based on how many miles I drive per year, I'm effectively getting hosed compared to driving a relatively fuel-efficient car and paying gas taxes.

Ultimately, I think the solution should be more directly aligned to road wear & tear rather than fuel consumption. Virginia has a mandatory annual safety inspection. I don't see why they couldn't record the odometer mileage at the annual inspection and send a Highway Tax bill based on a formula of vehicle weight, emissions (perhaps), and miles driven.

It's imperfect -- people can cheat odometers (though it's already illegal to do so) and it's not perfectly equitable for in-state / out-of-state driving, but it seems like a better system than a patchwork of gasoline taxes and fees for alt fuel vehicles.

[Tdskip]

I installed a cat on my 914. Your 914 have a cat? No? Hypocrite.

We are talking about carbon emissions, your cat unfortunately provides zero benefit there. It likely does offer air pollution advantages outside of that and you are to be commended for sure for installing it.

I'm willing to bet my carbon footprint is smaller than yours.

I'll take that bet - tell us, how many hours a day do you run your air conditioning and how much of your overall power consumption is from renewables?

EVs are a trillion dollar bandaid to a human race problem.

They are part of the solution, no one other than those engaging in logical fallacies is claiming they are the solution.

After reading about the Chinese car industry convention, I believe China will be the first to go full EV, and yet they will still be the largest polluters because of manufacturing all the luxuries humans buy.

Likely so...

PS. physics makes EVs useless in the cold.

Compromised, but not useless.

To be super clear here - I am pushing back on common arguments rather than getting personal with you Chris. You are a fine fellow by all of my interactions with you and contributions here, and it is clear your heart and brain are in the right place, trying to make sure mine are as well.