This will stir things up if approved - California's Proposal to Ban New Gas Vehicles

From today's news here in California:
California’s clean-air regulators Wednesday unveiled a far-reaching proposal requiring a ramp-up in sales of zero-emission cars, culminating in a ban on new gasoline-powered cars by 2035.

If adopted by the California Air Resources Board this summer, the regulations will be the first of their kind in the world and could pave the way for nationwide standards. At least 15 other states pledged to follow California’s lead on car standards on previous clean-car rules, and the federal government usually follows.

California Unveils Proposal To Ban New Gasoline-Fueled Cars

If adopted, the rules would be the first of their kind in the world, prohibiting new gasoline or diesel cars by 2035.

laist.com

("Charging a Tesla car.JPG" by Jeffrey Beall is licensed under CC BY 4.0.)

 

[Zorg]

I agree with most of this, but I don't think the mandate should be revised. Imagine the costs to protect areas like the bay area (with all of its reclaimed land) against sea level rise (even the modest 1.6 ft of rise forecasted for 2050). Ditto San Diego and the Long Beach/Seal Beach areas.

The real way to deal with this would be to tax the sh.t out of fossil fuels via a revenue neutral carbon tax, but that's a whole other debate.

 

[AMPd]

You may be surprised but I do think that a substantial portion of the surplus (40 to 50 percent beyond the legal obligations to pay this down) should be used for paying off the states bonded debt and any state underfunded pension obligations. I am not sure that the state should "bail out" local governments who have underfunded their pensions. I would love to see subsidies directed towards making local solar and battery storage more affordable to residents of low income areas.

No subsidies! Instead they should send some of that extra money to CalTrans to get some of these shitty roads fixed.

Anyone from the Sacramento area, would know exactly what Watt Ave means.

 

[73Bruin]

No subsidies! Instead they should send some of that extra money to CalTrans to get some of these shitty roads fixed.

Anyone from the Sacramento area, would know exactly what Wt att Ave means.

Is Watt Ave part of the state highway system or a local road? If the latter wouldn't having Cal-Trans fix it be an example of a subsidy to the local residents?

 

[dipper]

The real way to deal with this would be to tax the sh.t out of fossil fuels via a revenue neutral carbon tax, but that's a whole other debate.

You mean like the solar program?

Government tells people to go solar. Now tries to tax the hell out of the same people that listened to the Government. Government tells everyone that these people going solar is evil against the poor having to pay for transmission infrastructure. Now trying to force solar taxes.

EV will be no different when the poor complains.

So we (whom can afford) go all EV. Then tax the hell out of EV owners because the poor are forced to pay extra gas taxes. Government taxes the hell out of evil EV owners because they don't pay their fair share, forcing the poor to pay all the gas tax since they can't afford to go EV.

So everyone loses. End of the day Government taxes everyone.

 

[AMPd]

Is Watt Ave part of the state highway system or a local road? If the latter wouldn't having Cal-Trans fix it be an example of a subsidy to the local residents?

Is it a subsidy when you pay taxes specifically for this type of program? Aka gas tax or the extra EV fee that’s supposed to go toward repairing and maintaining roads?

 

[israndy]

I don't think you understand how taxes work.

 

[judgecrater]

We heard that deadline a few years back already and some of my neighbors were threatening to leave the "socialist" state of California then. They are still here because unlike others, they don't own a private jet.

We left seven years ago for Georgia. We are now free!

 

[Zorg]

We left seven years ago for Georgia. We are now free!

We need more people like you. Too crowded here

 

[IronHamster]

If you leave California, please don't vote for the same sorts of people that turned your once great state into a shithole. And don't move to Portland. We've already been Californiated.

 

[israndy]

Why would anyone leave if they are the type to vote for the "state-us quo", I am sure people leaving are thrilled to be moving to a weird place and will embrace it.

Unless it's just that there isn't enough California to go around for all the people that wanna live here. At least 13 other states like our emission standards better than the federal one...

 

[ZenRockGarden]

The real way to deal with this would be to tax the sh.t out of fossil fuels via a revenue neutral carbon tax, but that's a whole other debate.

I have to agree that outright bans on things tends to be a very crude and often inefficient way to push for change.

Want folks to favor electric for transport (or leaf blowing)? Make the positive use case delightful land the negative one increasingly annoying. Make a great charging infrastructure, and rate plan for those who go electric, and yes tax the heck out of gas as well as IC engines. Heck just eliminate all the subsidies we give to the oil industry

 

[israndy]

I wasn't sure where you were going with this Delightful Positive Use Case, but you hit the curve into Tax the Heck outta carbon and I came into alignment. Only problem is: 'merica

We put sugar in everything, our portions are big enough to feed a horse, and we ride around in Armored Humvees because we won't fit into a Honda. If the cost to Coal Roll in my monster truck starts to hurt, I'm gonna look for leadership that agrees with me instead of figuring out I AM the problem.

 

[STS-134]

I wasn't sure where you were going with this Delightful Positive Use Case, but you hit the curve into Tax the Heck outta carbon and I came into alignment. Only problem is: 'merica

We put sugar in everything, our portions are big enough to feed a horse, and we ride around in Armored Humvees because we won't fit into a Honda. If the cost to Coal Roll in my monster truck starts to hurt, I'm gonna look for leadership that agrees with me instead of figuring out I AM the problem.

Sounds like we really need to start making some electric trucks with big subwoofers and smoke machines in them. That crowd will think they're pretty neat, until all the kids who grew up in a world without ICE propulsion start laughing at them.

 

[IronHamster]

I have to agree that outright bans on things tends to be a very crude and often inefficient way to push for change.

Want folks to favor electric for transport (or leaf blowing)? Make the positive use case delightful land the negative one increasingly annoying. Make a great charging infrastructure, and rate plan for those who go electric, and yes tax the heck out of gas as well as IC engines. Heck just eliminate all the subsidies we give to the oil industry

No need for taxes. Just make EVs so good and so affordable that it doesn't make sense to use anything else. Change comes when the choice is clear. Alternative energy, for instance is only alternative because it doesn't make economic sense, but, once it is competitive it becomes the standard. It's like shortcuts. There's no such thing as a shortcut, because if the shortcut worked it wouldn't be a shortcut. It would be the way.

 

[Zorg]

No need for taxes. Just make EVs so good and so affordable that it doesn't make sense to use anything else. Change comes when the choice is clear. Alternative energy, for instance is only alternative because it doesn't make economic sense, but, once it is competitive it becomes the standard. It's like shortcuts. There's no such thing as a shortcut, because if the shortcut worked it wouldn't be a shortcut. It would be the way.

If it weren't for the climate change impending doom, I would agree. However, with a catastrophe around the corner, externalities need to be priced properly through taxes.

 

[STS-134]

No need for taxes. Just make EVs so good and so affordable that it doesn't make sense to use anything else. Change comes when the choice is clear. Alternative energy, for instance is only alternative because it doesn't make economic sense, but, once it is competitive it becomes the standard. It's like shortcuts. There's no such thing as a shortcut, because if the shortcut worked it wouldn't be a shortcut. It would be the way.

If the shortest (distance wise/time wise) path is somehow harmful, then you should increase the cost of taking it so that the longer path becomes more desirable and people only use the shortest (distance/time) path when absolutely necessary. Tax gas so that it's $20 a gallon and very few people will want to use it unless it's absolutely necessary to get the task done and there aren't any viable alternatives.

 

[israndy]

$20?? That's gonna play havoc with my two story 40' Airstream Land Yacht with 150 Gallon Diesel Tank

 

[IronHamster]

If it weren't for the climate change impending doom, I would agree. However, with a catastrophe around the corner, externalities need to be priced properly through taxes.

You are assuming two things. First, climate change is anthropomorphic. Second, we can do anything about it. The ChiComs commission a new coal fired plant every week, so how are you going to enforce a climate policy on them, or India for that matter. Three Mile Island happened when I was a kid, and Greenies have adamantly opposed CO2 free nuclear power ever since, which totally destroys the Greenie credibility. Totally. If CO2 is an issue, nuclear is our immediate emergency solution.

 

[IronHamster]

If the shortest (distance wise/time wise) path is somehow harmful, then you should increase the cost of taking it so that the longer path becomes more desirable and people only use the shortest (distance/time) path when absolutely necessary. Tax gas so that it's $20 a gallon and very few people will want to use it unless it's absolutely necessary to get the task done and there aren't any viable alternatives.

How are you going to do that?! You can't consider that unless you intend to kill lots of people. We don't have enough lithium to make an immediate transition. To further complicate things, you cannot mine lithium without fossil fuels. Or nickel, for that matter.

 

[STS-134]

You are assuming two things. First, climate change is anthropomorphic. Second, we can do anything about it. The ChiComs commission a new coal fired plant every week, so how are you going to enforce a climate policy on them, or India for that matter. Three Mile Island happened when I was a kid, and Greenies have adamantly opposed CO2 free nuclear power ever since, which totally destroys the Greenie credibility. Totally. If CO2 is an issue, nuclear is our immediate emergency solution.

Breeder reactors and reprocessing to cut down on the amount of junk you have to store.

How are you going to do that?! You can't consider that unless you intend to kill lots of people. We don't have enough lithium to make an immediate transition. To further complicate things, you cannot mine lithium without fossil fuels. Or nickel, for that matter.

You know there's a lot of room between where we are currently and $20 a gallon right? Getting from here to there doesn't have to be a step function.