House Votes To Block California's Ban On New Gas-Powered Vehicles In 2035 (cbsnews.com) 161
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CBS News: The House of Representatives on Thursday voted to block California from implementing plans to block new sales of gas-powered vehicles in a decade. In a 246-164 vote, members approved House Joint Resolution 88, which seeks to withdraw a waiver granted by the Environmental Protection Agency to California during the Biden administration to implement the ban. Thirty-five Democrats joined 211 Republicans in backing the measure. [...] The House also approved two other measures which withdraw waivers on the state's plans to increase sales of zero-emissions trucks in a 231-191 vote, along with the state's latest nitrogen oxide emission standards for engines in a 225-196 vote.
Following Thursday's vote, Newsom's office issued a statement saying the House illegally used the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to repeal the state's Clean Air Act waivers. The governor's office also said the move contradicts the Government Accountability Office and Senate Parliamentarian who have ruled the CRA does not apply to the state's waivers. "Trump Republicans are hellbent on making California smoggy again. Clean air didn't used to be political. In fact, we can thank Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon for our decades-old authority to clean our air," Newsom said. "The only thing that's changed is that big polluters and the right-wing propaganda machine have succeeded in buying off the Republican Party -- and now the House is using a tactic that the Senate's own parliamentarian has said is lawless. Our vehicles program helps clean the air for all Californians, and we'll continue defending it." Sen. Alex Padilla (D-California) said in a statement: "House Republicans' misguided and cynical attempts to gut the Clean Air Act and undercut California's climate leadership ignores the reality of California's strength as the fourth largest economy in the world...
... If Senate Republicans take up these measures under the Congressional Review Act, they will be going nuclear by overruling the Parliamentarian, all to baselessly attack California."
Following Thursday's vote, Newsom's office issued a statement saying the House illegally used the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to repeal the state's Clean Air Act waivers. The governor's office also said the move contradicts the Government Accountability Office and Senate Parliamentarian who have ruled the CRA does not apply to the state's waivers. "Trump Republicans are hellbent on making California smoggy again. Clean air didn't used to be political. In fact, we can thank Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon for our decades-old authority to clean our air," Newsom said. "The only thing that's changed is that big polluters and the right-wing propaganda machine have succeeded in buying off the Republican Party -- and now the House is using a tactic that the Senate's own parliamentarian has said is lawless. Our vehicles program helps clean the air for all Californians, and we'll continue defending it." Sen. Alex Padilla (D-California) said in a statement: "House Republicans' misguided and cynical attempts to gut the Clean Air Act and undercut California's climate leadership ignores the reality of California's strength as the fourth largest economy in the world...
... If Senate Republicans take up these measures under the Congressional Review Act, they will be going nuclear by overruling the Parliamentarian, all to baselessly attack California."
States Rights! Reeeeee! (Score:5, Insightful)
So what happened to states' rights? Good enough to be able to ban abortions, but not good enough to ban polluting cars, apparently.
More rank hypocrisy from the Republican Party.
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever a politician decries the loss of "states rights", it's a bullshit argument. How do we know this? Because unless you go back to the Constitutional Convention era and the infancy of this country, damn few people have gone to sleep genuinely worried about "states rights" on their own.
Instead, there's always some other dark, hidden motivation lurking behind it.
Re: (Score:2)
Good enough to be able to ban abortions, but not good enough to ban polluting cars, apparently.
Abortion rights only has a slightly slim majority of support, and even then, the 2024 election proved it was not important enough as a single issue to change the outcome.
Banning new ICE vehicle sales though? That's an idea that's probably only popular in California. This poll [pewresearch.org] claims 64% of Democrats support an ICE phase-out, but some of that is probably just idealism and how 2035 seems like a long ways off.
Re: (Score:3)
So if, as you say, it's popular in California, why can't California make that a part of California's policy?
And if it's not popular in California, why can't California's voters let Sacramento know that through electoral feedback processes?
And why did it have to change now, rather than 5 years from now when we could be looking at a completely different mix of personal transportation?
This is political hackery and hypocrisy, no matter how you try to dress it up. Quit putting lipstick on the pig.
Re: (Score:2)
The rush for this is to try and stop the EV tipping point from happening, which is probably in the next 2-5 years, batteries get cheap and available enough to allow unsubsidized EV models in the sub-30k range.
Might be too late though [techcrunch.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I know they COULD make sub 30k EVs, but they won't. I have serious doubts about Bezos "Slate" (despite the fact I love it) because once you "upgrade it" you are going to be paying a lot more, rather quickly.
I highly doubt we'll ever truly see affordable cars in America. Even used cars aren't affordable anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they can now the battery production capacity just is not there yet, it has to fulfill all the other vehicle segments first, thus the factories and 3-5 years. It's the only thing that matters.
If we have enough GW of battery capacity production and no 30k EV then I would consider that a market failure and we need to look at what we expect from capitalism.
Came here for this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't remember the earliest days of Slashdot (or C&D) but this is not even my first account — sadly, the first one has been lost, especially sadly because IIRC it had one fewer digit — but I do remember a time before rsilvergun, and also a time before I was posting as I lurked long, and I do not remember a time when politics were not discussed on Slashdot.
I do remember times when they were not discussed so very much, and there were more technical discussions. But that was a time when more
Re: (Score:2)
What on Earth makes you think the Abortion blocking thing was ever "states rights"? This is what Project 2025 says on the subject [project2025.org], my bolding:
Re: (Score:2)
We need competent, moral, government. The next Democratic administration - if there is one - should, on day one, implement an NHS-style government provided healthcare system. Not just because it gets healthcare to everyone, but because voters might actually start caring about the competence of our elected officials if voting for the wrong one means you die of cancer.
Seeing as how things typically go in America, we will end up with the healthcare system that lets us die of cancer because people were upset over the price of eggs.
We could have single-payer healthcare in the USA if our two political choices weren't between a party that would sabotage the system every time it was given the opportunity, and a party that has proven themselves to be so utterly incompetent they've lost to the likes of Donald Trump, twice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats don't even want single payer and they couldn't muster the voters for single payer even when they had the votes. That's why we got Obamacare, which is expanded, government subsidized insurance.
But sure, keep thinking the Democrats are not just Republican-lite. We have a very conservative party and a moderate party. Neither actually, truly wants single payer healthcare or else we would of had it sometime in the past 25 years.
Re: States Rights! Reeeeee! (Score:2)
Republicans support states' rights only when they disagree with the federal law.
Democrats are the same way, by the way.
Re:States Rights! Reeeeee! (Score:5, Insightful)
And the State of California couldn't have figured that out and changed the date themselves if their analysis showed what you say it will? They had no time to do that before 2035 in Sacramento, and needed the United States Congress, with all the agility and velocity with which they move to do it for them (and 49 other states)?
No, sorry, that's partisan nonsense making excuses for Republican hypocrisy. If they can ban abortions in Texas under the guise of States Rights and make the people of Texas suffer through the consequences, then why can't California ban gasoline powered vehicles and make the people of California suffer through the consequences?
It's the same god damn thing. The only difference here is that you agree with the people that are for States Rights when it suits them, and against them when it doesn't.
Re:States Rights! Reeeeee! (Score:4)
Well, it may be along the lines of, that the Feds can regulate interstate commerce ....and cars are manufactured and sold across the states....an so, CA banning a broad category would have an effect on interstate commerce .
Abortion, really doesn't fit in that category of trade....without a LOT of stretching the legal terms of things....
Re:States Rights! Reeeeee! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not buying that one either.
Fireworks are manufactured elsewhere and sold across state lines, yet nobody has a problem with states banning fireworks due to wildfire danger.
What the hell's the difference, other than that Republicans are in the pockets of Big Oil, Michigan is a swing state, and no Republican ever got in trouble for sticking it to California?
Re: (Score:2)
If the car dealer is in the state, you may not regulate who they buy from out of state, but you can regulate who they sell to in the state. That problem would take care of itself.
I don't believe a state is required to assign license plates to vehicles if they don't want to either.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And the State of California couldn't have figured that out and changed the date themselves if their analysis showed what you say it will?
Lol, no. Mind you, this is the same state that passed prop 49 decriminizalizing shop lifting under 950, resulting ( shockingly! ) criminals shop lifting up to 950...again and again and again. Take a look at our urban centers to get an idea of how that worked out.
So, a decade later, we voted to recriminalize shoplifting ( something our brilliant gov campaigned *against* mind you ), and the gov has been dragging it's feet on implementation ever since.
So...no. I don't think the state of CA could have figure
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You do know the "$950" limit is $2500 in TEXAS??????? Maybe instead of regurgitating false talking points you might actually check what is going on in the real world?
And no, shoplifters do not carefully add up what they are taking and stop at $950. Are you really so dense to believe that would be useful?
Re:States Rights! Reeeeee! (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't recall hearing a ban on using an ICE, just buying a new one within the state of California by 2035. I could still buy one in Arizona or Nevada and drive it on over.
I imagine the price of gas in California will be about double the rest of the country. Once you cross about $6.50 to $7, EVs becoming more affordable then hybrids. California already has gas tax hikes signed into law. Don't listen to a word the state says about high gas prices either. They WANT high gas prices to persuade you away from ICEV.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> I could still buy one in Arizona or Nevada and drive it on over.
Nope. The ban is in the form of prohibiting registration of new vehicles, since it is an extension of their emissions controls legislation (basically pushing emissions requirements to "no emissions at all"). If the vehicle does not comply with the regulation, you can't register it in the state.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3)
You can see where things are headed by looking at Norway. They are ripping out fossil fuel pumps and replacing them with electric chargers. At some point owning a fossil fuel car is going to be very inconvenient.
The choice of fossil fuel models will also diminish as manufacturers wind down production. I expect hybrids will be the main way they keep producing them - a little petrol generator that charges the battery and doesn't drive the wheels directly, similar to a BMW i3 or Nissan ePower vehicle. Basicall
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
IANAL, but in my opinion, having sex with 13-year old russian prostitutes fits perfectly the definition of statutory rape, which is a crime in every jurisdiction of the US.
And if you absolutely want to play the "whataboutism" game, you should have mentionned Trump's old friend, Bill Clinton. Yes, THAT Clinton, the same one he used to attend those partys on Epstein's boat and private island with, along with all their other billionnaire pals. You know that Trump was invited the the Clinton's wedding, right ?
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who actually believes the woman who went on tv talking about how all women have rape fantasies and managed to magically be wearing a dress not made till several years later during the purported rape is at best retarded.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I don't think that anybody really thought that all of the auto manufacturers (with the exception of EV makers like Tesla) were going to be ready to fully transition to electric vehicles by 2035. Many of them are just releasing their 1st generation EV products now, and they are outrageously expensive and have terrible range. The new Dodge Charger EV comes to mind as an example... the Scat Pack version costs $75,000, only has a 240 mile range, and can be outperformed by a $55,000 Tesla Model 3 Performan
Re: (Score:3)
(with the exception of EV makers like Tesla)
Tesla would probably be thrilled though. The world's fourth largest economy and the traditional automakers all caught with their pants down? That's like a license to print money. Goes to show Musk either ain't as clever or influential as he imagines himself to be, since you'd assume he'd be all for California's ICE ban.
Many of them are just releasing their 1st generation EV products now, and they are outrageously expensive and have terrible range.
The real issue though isn't that the cars aren't ready, it's that the charging infrastructure isn't ready. Lots of folks live in apartments where there's no place to charge, and having to
Re: (Score:2)
The real issue though isn't that the cars aren't ready, it's that the charging infrastructure isn't ready. Lots of folks live in apartments where there's no place to charge, and having to do all your charging away from home kind of makes EV ownership a pain in the ass. I was at an EA station one time talking to a mother who was there with her kids (who were obviously quite irate at the ritual of having to wait while the car charged), and she was adamant that as soon as she could, she was trading in her EV for a car that ran on gas. She'd bought it when she had access to charging at work, had changed jobs, and because she lived in an apartment, no longer had any place to plug in.
One of the worst arguments I hear against EV's. If they don't suit a person's lifestyle, buy a petromobile or the the bus.People living in apartments should not control what is or is not made.The same argument might be made that since people in apartments so often use public transportation, the only vehicles allowed to be produced are buses. I mean, they often cannot afford or even have access to parking, so no cars allowed.
The problem of course is the use case. I do a lot of off-roading, so I buy Jeeps
Re: (Score:2)
One of the worst arguments I hear against EV's. If they don't suit a person's lifestyle, buy a petromobile or the the bus.People living in apartments should not control what is or is not made.The same argument might be made that since people in apartments so often use public transportation, the only vehicles allowed to be produced are buses. I mean, they often cannot afford or even have access to parking, so no cars allowed.
Huh? We're not talking about banning EVs, we're talking about a ban of ICE vehicles, which gives people who might not have access to charging less choice when it comes time to buy a new car. Nobody who still wants an EV is being inconvenienced in the least by ICE vehicles still being offered as an option. When I went to buy my Bolt, it's not as if the dealer said "Oh, but we still sell gas cars, you have to buy one of those instead!"
At any rate, expecting someone to move because they can't plug their car
Re: (Score:2)
One of the worst arguments I hear against EV's. If they don't suit a person's lifestyle, buy a petromobile or the the bus.People living in apartments should not control what is or is not made.The same argument might be made that since people in apartments so often use public transportation, the only vehicles allowed to be produced are buses. I mean, they often cannot afford or even have access to parking, so no cars allowed.
Huh? We're not talking about banning EVs
Where did I write about banning EV's? An argument against them is not a call for banning EV's, just that I don't find the apartment living a valid reason for complaining about them. They are not a good use case if you have no place to charge them. Others do.
Re:States Rights! Reeeeee! (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't find the apartment living a valid reason for complaining about them. They are not a good use case if you have no place to charge them. Others do.
Again, ICE vehicles being available takes nothing away from people who do have access to charging at home. This situation was entirely about California mandating by force of law that by 2035, your new vehicle purchase will be an EV whether you've got a place to plug it in or not.
I related my situation of being at an EA station and encountering a mother who was quite unhappy with her EV, because what was I supposed to say to her? "Sucks to be you, I've got charging at home, only have to use DCFC during my rather infrequent longer trips, and don't have kids so the 30 minute charging stop doesn't involve rug rats throwing a temper tantrum." Yeah, that would've gone over well. /s
Sometimes it's better to just nod and agree that maybe, EVs really aren't ideal for every situation, and the people in those situations might not be wrong to complain.
Re:States Rights! Reeeeee! (Score:4, Interesting)
Sometimes it's better to just nod and agree that maybe, EVs really aren't ideal for every situation, and the people in those situations might not be wrong to complain.
Of course EV's are not the best solution for all situations. Like people who live in apartments and had two options - use a charger, or charge at work, Then loses one of them.
I suppose my answer to the lady who has no charging setup in her apartment would be a noncommittal "I know, right", without saying what I was actually thinking, which is - "If you thought that buying an EV, where your only options was charging at work or here, and it stresses you out because you left that job, and you don't want to wait at at a charger because you have bratty children, and are impatient, you made a poor decision."
I know that it is popular to never judge in these modern times, but prick that I am - I do judge, andmy judgement is that she bears a rather large part of the responsibility for her problem. She bought a car that wasn't made for her, with limited charging options.
If I bought a Bugatti Veyron, and tried to take it off-roading and it was damaged, whose fault is it? Bad use case. I take my vehicle off-roading because it's built for it. I looked that up, it fit my needs, and the make and model fit my use case. PS, buying a bad choice for use case would be 100 percent my fault. I suppose I overplay though, and look things up. And no, I'd not buy a EV if my only choice was work or a Tesla Charger. And If she doesn't have control over her children, well, I don't think that's the EV makers fault. Another case - perhaps more applicable is if you bought a car that you had to travel 20 miles to get Diesel, there's none in your town, then the station 20 miles away closes, and you now have to drive 50 miles away, perhaps a single point of failure (which it is) tells my that the judgement was a mistake.
Which, I guess we're at an impasse, where I say that her use case doesn't fit her reality, so it's not the manufacturer, and you are saying that it is. Okay, it is what it is. Although I think being proactive about determining the suitability for purpose is never a bad thing to engage in. Don't people do that?
The good news is, perhaps in the future she'll make better decisions. I know, I'm a prick.
Re: (Score:3)
Then that sounds like a problem the market will sort out for them. Make better products. You have 10 years.
Or, alternatively I suppose, make some well-placed financial contributions to a few Congress critters and then you don't have to make better products while trampling the wishes of a few million people.
California has all the tools they need to adjust this policy in the next 10 years right there in Sacramento. And if the people of California don't like it, they have all the tools to adjust this policy
Re: (Score:3)
LOL, ballot initiatives don't work. We passed one last year to crack down on retail crime while increasing drug rehabs and now the state refuses to fund it. Lot of good THAT did us.
So we as voters can pass anything we want, but if the politicians refuse to fund it we're boned.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect that the PHEV will be the most common option for cars and light trucks fairly soon.
The problem with PHEVs though, is that quite often their owners do not actually plug them in. [insideevs.com] When run entirely in hybrid mode, they're generally not anything special in the efficiency department.
Granted, most PHEVs can realistically be charged from a standard 5-15 outlet, so access to charging becomes a case of "can I trail a cord out to the car?" rather than "I need to hire an electrician". Never underestimate people's ability to be lazy, though.
Re: (Score:3)
My coworkers prius prime gets 60mpg without plugging it in, though he religiously plugs in every day (why not). So, even a PHEV that's never plugged in is still vastly preferable to any ICEV on the road today.
Re: (Score:2)
No Dem expected the ban to actually happen (Score:2)
The democrats should be secretly celebrating this; the ban was always a remarkably stupid virtue signal that was going to come back to bite them. There is no way the state could possibly be ready for the ban in 10 years ( look at their rail project lol ). The republicans just saved the democrats from themselves. If they're smart they'll bitch, whine and moan but not do anything to try to overturn this.
No Dem expected the ban to actually happen. It was always just a PR stunt. As 2035 approached and too many people were still buying ICE, they would extend the deadline, or they would morph the ban into a supplemental tax on ICE, or otherwise change the plan.
Politicians like to create plans that give them good PR today but whose "bill" will come due on some future politician's term. Corporate CEOs do this too. It's why we get f'd over by short term thinking all the time. These future politicians and CEOs
Re:States Rights! Reeeeee! (Score:5, Insightful)
So democrats are both feckless enough to pass a bill they would secretly oppose enough to undermine it but also that would suggest they are all powerful and coordinated enough to do both actions in an intentional and duplicitous manner.
Spot on of one of Umberto Eco's 14 points; “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say it's more a case of that outside of heavily blue states, Democrats tend to share more traits with Republicans. Hell, here in Florida at our last gubernatorial election, the Democratic candidate previously was a Republican.
As to why other states' representatives care about what goes on in California, they're worried that the ICE ban might have further reaching effects beyond California's borders.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, see now that's a reasonable deduction considering the history with CARB and doesn't require secret conspiracies.
And as a fellow Floridian... Yeah it's rough out here for Democrats and the Florida Dem party infrastructure ain't exactly put together right.
Re:States Rights! Reeeeee! (Score:4, Insightful)
Proof that the left can be anti-science, too (Score:2)
Yes, we know you've been hanging out in /r/fuckcars and believe every straw they've grasped at in order to demonize even sustainable personal transportation options. Human-created smog is primarily the result of nitrogen oxide compounds (NOx) reacting with unburned hydrocarbons. It's the reason why you'll even see things like low NOx gas furnaces [lennox.com] on the market, because that's where the smog is coming from.
Guess what electric cars don't produce at all? NOx and hydrocarbon emissions. In fact, if you truly
Re:Devil's Advocate here, (Score:5, Informative)
Because electric cars don't eliminate or even reduce smog.
Yes, they do.
Most of that smog you see is tire particulate.
No, it's not.
It is true that most particulate emissions from cars is tire and break particulates. However, the nasty shit you see as photochemical smog are nitrogen oxides and various VOCs.
EVs will not increase smog. Nor will they eliminate it entirely. They will reduce it.
Re:Devil's Advocate here, (Score:5, Insightful)
Because electric cars don't eliminate or even reduce smog. Most of that smog you see is tire particulate. We've been running zero emissions cars from most vehicles for a while now. We do have a problem with idling semi trucks but they mostly do that outside city limits. Most of the smog you're seeing is coming from little bits of tire. It's one of those things where scientists wondered for years were tires went because they aren't on the roads and it turns out the answer is in your lungs. Electric cars if anything are going to make smog worse. They're heavier and they burn through tires faster because of it. Nobody wants to hear this because this is a forum full of old farts and we don't like change and we want to keep driving our cars and our SUVs. There are some upsides to electric cars, specifically it drastically reduces our dependency on foreign oil which is a good thing for all kinds of reasons. And in theory if we all switched to renewables and we might get a small but noticeable improvement to climate change. Although keep in mind the energy needed to build out and maintain electric cars means it's not going to be night and day. If you actually want clean air and to fight climate change you need walkable cities and public transportation. Try not to worry about the government controlling where you go because give it a few years and you'll be stuck in a self-driving car anyway, never mind that the government still needs to build the roads so they still decide where you're going to go. But again change sucks and we all grew up playing with toy cars so nobody wants to hear it. And because most of us are older we are probably going to be dead before the problems really hit. Kind of fucked up to leave the mess to our kids though...
So, while what you point out is true, or at least true-adjacent, the devil is in the details.
First up, the assertion that BEVs don't eliminate or reduce smog is incorrect. I can find plenty of studies indicating that tire particles pollute soil, water, and air, I couldn't find any that indicate the air pollution is in the form of smog. And I couldn't find anything indicating what amount of the tire particle pollution is airborne. Or for how long it lingers. Or how far it travels. Doing a little digging I found that smog actually has specific chemical properties, which rubber compounds are not. Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide - for instance - are gasses, which will mix with air while solids - no matter how small - will not.
Again, I grant that tire pollution is in many cases more abundant than tailpipe emissions. But again, the studies I found indicated that based on mass. Grams and tonnes. That doesn't directly translate to how concerning something is. Some pollutants are more impactful than others for a given mass. The studies are clear that there are "toxic chemicals" released from tires, but not so clear about the relative harms. Yet. I accept more study is warranted.
Worse though, is that bringing this up disregards a few things. For instance that the mass comparisons are against modern engines, which are massively less polluting than older engines. The process of making engines less polluting is important and got us where we are. Also, it really depends what is being compared. CO2 is a pollutant that is still being emitted in large quantities by ICE cars, but not by BEVs (depending on the electricity generation source).
Finally there's the unfortunate logical fallacy that because one thing is a problem, other problems can be disregarded. There are in the ballpark of 8 billion people. We can work on improving/eliminating tailpipe emissions simultaneously with reducing/eliminating tire pollution and simultaneously looking for cures for cancer. To follow up, that cancer exists does not justify stopping looking for cures for diabetes.
The bottom line being that what your post is interesting, it's also distraction. I know there's more in there and that you too are encouraging looking at the big picture, but the tire stuff sets an unfortunate tone.
So the research about tire particulate (Score:3)
The point of the studies and articles that you've read is that the tire particulate isn't being found in the soil and it's not being found on the ground and it's not covering our buildings and cars and that means it's got to
Re:So the research about tire particulate (Score:4, Insightful)
The point of the studies and articles that you've read is that the tire particulate isn't being found in the soil and it's not being found on the ground and it's not covering our buildings and cars and that means it's got to be somewhere else.
Did you literally just forget that storm drains are a thing?
Re: (Score:2)
No, smog is not "tire particulates". That is a different type of pollution.
Inconsequential.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The House of Representatives on Thursday voted to block California from implementing plans to block new sales of gas-powered vehicles in a decade.
While this may seem like a victory for Oil and ICE it is really quite inconsequential. ICE tech is going away just like horse drawn carriages did, it may take a bit longer now but there is no stopping it despite heroic last stands like this one.
Re: (Score:2)
ICE tech is going away just like horse drawn carriages did
Cars were a considerable improvement over horse drawn carriages. BEVs are not such an improvement over ICEVs. They are a tradeoff with some better and some worse properties. I expect them both to co-exist for a long, long time.
That said, I agree with you insofar as if most people find them better, then BEVs will replace ICEVs organically without any need for legislation or time limits, so I'm not seeing any big deal here either.
Re: Inconsequential.... (Score:5, Insightful)
- Faster acceleration
- Fewer parts
- Less noise pollution
- Less localized pollution
Re: (Score:2)
- Lower center of gravity means improved handling
- Far less fluids to replace (gear oil, brake fluid and coolant are about it and those all last longer in an EV)
- More storage space
- Regenerative braking means less brake pad wear
Re: Inconsequential.... (Score:3)
- Far less fluids to replace (gear oil, brake fluid and coolant are about it and those all last longer in an EV): I haven't had to do that with any fluid other than oil since 1992. For oil, the reminder comes on and you go to a quick oil change place. No big deal.
- More storage space: I haven't found one with as much as m
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not aware of EVs beating ICEs regularly at the Nuremberg ring
You probably mean Nurburgring, which is not in Nuremberg; it's in a different city named Nurburg (the first u is supposed to have an umlaut, but Slashdot doesn't do umlauts).
In any case, the fact you're not aware of any EV's beating ICEs only shows what you know. From here [autoexpress.co.uk]: the unrestricted record holder at Nurburgring is the Porsche 919 Evo, which is a hybrid car. The second fastest lap was done by a full-electric: a Nurburgring edition of Volkswagen's ID4.
The fastest production car was also a hybrid: a F1
Re: (Score:2)
They do in the ways normal drivers care about and and their love of top heavy vehicles. Also plenty of EVs have set very fast ring times. At the hypercar levels the weight penalty still factors in.
You haven't changed any of those fluids in 33 years? Oil changes are hot and annoying and considering if this magic fluid happens to leave the engine has a good chance of stopping forever. You might not find it a big deal but the fact they are *eliminated* is a plus in the EVs favor. Quick change places ain't exa
Re: (Score:2)
- A smooth ride is much better than a jerky ride.Stop-start traffic is much, much, much nicer in an EV than in an ICE car, for example. It just strains credulity to imagine that you truly believe that no-one finds value in a smooth ride.
- Pretending that cars don’t make engine noise — ditto.. surely you can’t truly think that’s credible? For example, people buy pickup trucks with big V8s in droves, and specifically love that these are really noisy engined machines
Re: (Score:2)
Holy crap, have you ever driven an EV? Our Prius Prime blatantly obviously accelerates smoother in EV mode than when it is using its engine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What positives do EVs have over ICEs besides being able to charge at home?
Enough that lots of people like them, sometimes for that reason alone. Not my thing but so long as nobody is being forced it is all good.
Re: Inconsequential.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well Canada has the same law of no ices after 2035 that hasn't been removed yet, so...
Yes. Fortunately I'm old enough it does not matter to me. I'll buy my last car before that and if I'm lucky I'll be that old guy driving the minty classic car that we have all seen. This is assuming they don't start banning existing cars of course. I would not at all put it past the bunch we currently have in government, but we'll fight that battle when we get there.
Re: Inconsequential.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All I can say if there is to be a ban in '35, manufacturers better be prepared for a massive rush in 33-34, and buyers should be planning well ahead as well. Or maybe e-fuels will be a thing by then and it will all be moot. 10 years is still a long time from now.
Re: (Score:2)
What positives do EVs have over ICEs besides being able to charge at home?
Don't have to deal with fluctuating gas prices, no oil changes, and here's the absolute craziest thing - there are even a few places you can plug in for free.
Re: Inconsequential.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, nobody should complain about gas prices? That's a unique take, I guess.
Re: Inconsequential.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The savings can sometimes be quite substantial. Some folks are in a situation where a PV system on their home was doable, and the sun powers their car. Free charging at workplaces is also a possibility. And while it's not free, some utilities do have discounted or flat rate nighttime EV charging plans.
Of course, it's entirely possible that none of these things apply to someone's living situation and the nearest place to juice up their car is the EA station that charges an arm and a leg per kWh. In that
Re: (Score:2)
But.... these are either possibilities you're talking about OR solar energy on one's house, which costs a lot of money! Spedning more money, then spending even MORE on an EV? that's not free as in beer energy.
At the end of teh day EVs just don't make sense yet, especially in cold weather climates. In another 5-10 years I'm hoping they do, but we need WAY better technology and a lot more infrastructure before ditching ICE vehicles makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
So, nobody should complain about gas prices? That's a unique take, I guess.
No, you don't understand the subtleties here. Under a Democrat administration, gas prices are the most important thing ever and any slight increase is clearly presaging the end of the world (of Warcraft). Under a Republican administration, such as the current one, gas prices are inconsequential details nobody should complain about.
Re: (Score:2)
same as eggs it seems
As long as we get to zero emission economy (Score:2)
So I don't care what policy changes you make, as long as your policy is clearly aimed at zero emissions economy by 2050.
Oh, and your policy should probably have metrics that clearly measure the rate of change of emissions say every 5 years til we get there.
That's how I'll evaluate your policy, because anything else is knowingly evil bullshit, as far as your mo
The CA ban was never going to happen (Score:2)
While this may seem like a victory for Oil and ICE it is really quite inconsequential. ICE tech is going away just like horse drawn carriages did, it may take a bit longer now but there is no stopping it despite heroic last stands like this one.
The CA ban was never going to happen. It was always just a PR stunt. As 2035 approached an too many people were still buying ICE, they would extend the deadline, or they would morph the ban into a supplemental tax on ICE.
Politicians like to create plans that give them good PR today but whose bill will come due on some future politician's term. Corporate CEOs do this too. These future politicians and CEOs feel no need to complicate their lives, take bad press, for some predecessors' PR stunt. And the plan
There's always a way (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps instead of an outright ban, California could just raise the registration fee on model 2035 and newer ICE vehicles to something so absurdly high that it may as well be a ban. Call it an environmental impact fee.
I should probably mention I'm only pointing this out in the interest of California getting exactly what it voted for. Personally, I'm of the belief that the government should encourage EV adoption by improving charging infrastructure and offering incentives to convince motorists to make the switch, but an ICE ban ignores the reality that EVs are not ideal in every situation. Basically: carrot = good, stick = bad.
Re: (Score:2)
With the way California is treating the POL industry, internal combustion engines are likely going to get VERY expensive to operate. California is losing refineries as operators decide to shut them down instead of deal with all the regulatory crap that has been piled on lately.
No further taxes will be needed to get people to move to EVs, public transportation (heh) or out of the state.
Re: (Score:3)
No worries, California already has a scheduled gas tax increase for the next couple years.
On November 8, 2024, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) passed new special blend mandates for California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). The new standards require that refiners produce, and retail gas stations sell, a new California special blend in 2025. The CARB contends that the new special blend is necessary to achieve carbon and methane emission reduction targets and is consistent with Governor Gavin Newsom’s 2035 mandate to eliminate the sale of internal combustion car sales and 2050 targets. By its own admission, the CARB projected that the new special blend could increase the retail price of gasoline by $0.47 a gallon. However, in hearings, CARB staff noted that “Any estimate of cost from the LCFS regulatory proposal are inherently uncertain because they involve conducting estimates and speculative projections about what may happen in the future.”
https://californiaglobe.com/fl... [californiaglobe.com]
So you see, we are already working on making ICEV painful to drive. Sadly, we also have the most expensive electricity in the country as well. Until gas breaks $6.50, my hybrid will be cheaper to drive then your standard EV. EVs would be amazing in the rest of the country, since energy prices are significantly less pretty much everyone outside of California.
Biggest problem is not enoug
sTates rIGhTs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Temporary win (Score:3)
The flame bait comment is this assumes that you guys will actually be allow to have votes that are counted in future, as it is pretty high up the GOP list to ensure they stay in power without the need to worry about what the population actually wants.
That's silly grandstanding (Score:3)
The obvious response is just to radically increase that tax on gasoline. Since every state is doing that, it would be hard to justify overruling it. But a limit on generated pollution is better, and less damaging to those who bought gas cars in prior years.
(That said, there should also be a weight based tax on tires, as that's another form of pollution.)
Re: (Score:2)
10,000% sales tax, equally outrageous registration fees, tolls at roads entering the state, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious response is just to radically increase that tax on gasoline.
Then you're just punching down at the poor. The only fair way to phase-out ICE vehicles is based on model year, which is much easier to do at the time of registration rather than at the pump.
Eventually, the existing grandfathered ICE vehicles will age out and that'll be that, with no harm done to people who are just trying to commute to their crappy paycheck-to-paycheck job.
Re: That's silly grandstanding (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So if a person has an all original 1970 Chevelle SS worth $30k then too bad for them?
Grandfathering means that your 1970s classic should (ideally) not be subject to the higher environmental impact fees assessed on registering a 2035 and later model year vehicle. As long as you don't mind paying California's outrageous gas prices, you should be allowed to keep driving it as long as you maintain it in roadworthy condition.
Of course, this is California we're talking about. They may very well go ahead and find some way to make ICE vehicle ownership unaffordable across the board; I wouldn't pu
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious response is just to radically increase that tax on gasoline.
Or sales tax, or anything else that actually would stay in California. The issue is that California is part group of states [ca.gov] that coordinate vehicle emission standards, so California banning ICE would be a widespread problem in a lot of places.
Declera independence or join Canada... (Score:2)
Intrusive federal government is squashing freedom of people of California ...
Time for Zorro...
How about some reverse propoganda (Score:2)
More electric vehicles and renewable energy projects saves more of our oil for military use making the U.S. more secure. The fact that it also makes our air and water cleaner is just a nice bonus for being an energy patriot.
California should secede! (Score:3)
I'm sure we in Canada would be happy to have them as the 11th province!
Re:California should secede! (Score:4, Interesting)
It would only be a territory. hehe
Unfortunately its democratic loss would make the US even more fascist.
And it would confuse them about how the PM is elected, or more accurately not elected but more appointed-ish.
Re: (Score:2)
More like Canada could join the Pacific States of America (California, Oregon and Washington would all leave together). Considering your population is barely more then California, that seems the more likely outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
More like Canada could join the Pacific States of America (California, Oregon and Washington would all leave together). Considering your population is barely more then California, that seems the more likely outcome.
And if we talked New England into joining the alliance, the US would be down to 42 states! Woohoo!
Ok...soo... (Score:3)
California's GDP alone is the 4th largest in the world with a faster growing economy than the rest of the U.S. If California wants to ban the creation of new gas-powered vehicles within the state, they still can. If they want to block/confiscate the import of new gas-powered vehicles at the border, they still can. If they want to fine owners or sellers of gas-powered vehicles, they still can. They could just revoke the business licenses of any company selling gas-powered vehicles if they wanted. They could add taxes out the wazoo on gas-powered vehicles, if they wanted. The feds can't help with any of that.
Democrats (Score:2)
Well, there's also the part where 35 Democrats voted to block as well, with 14 not voting. That's a quarter (24%) of the Democrats not siding with Newsom.
Project 2025 (Score:3)
Re:Why do people take such mandates seriously? (Score:4, Interesting)
And this is why the U.S. keeps flailing. Instead of long term goals we seek short ideas. Whereas China has plans for 100 years in the making [forbes.com]. They even have designated five year plans [wikipedia.org] which stretch for decades.
Even if they're not wholly successful at implementing these plans, who do you think will be more successful? Someone who only looks 2 years out or someone who looks decades into the future?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't give me a 10 year plan, give me one for the next 2 years.
That explains so very much, lol. I imagine you can't even see the irony.
Further, you're not even correct.
Kennedy entered office on Jan 20, 1961.
He would have left office, had he served 2 terms, on Jan 20, 1969.
He would have missed the moon landing by half a year.
That's ignoring the 6 new Congresses he would have had to deal with in the interim, all with their own "2 year plans".
He didn't say, "by the end of this decade" because he planned on being in office. He said it because it was a good date far
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Don't give me a 10 year plan, give me one for the next 2 years.
Guess MacMann has given up on nuclear power, since it takes more than 10 years to build one.
Meanwhile solar and wind projects can get approved and under construction in under 2 years, so at least that fits their preferred timeline!
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Hybrids are neat but are the most complex systems versus the other two options and all those things you mention add even more weight and complexity to already heavy vehicles reducing the advantages they are built for to begin with.
Hybrids are what they were intended to be, a transition technology. They'll hang around but they only remain relevant until EV's get cheap enough then they will remain as the minority vehicle but they will have their uses cases.