2040 No new solely gasoline powered new cars in California.
09-29-2017, 09:47 AM
#1
Thread Starter
2040 No new solely gasoline powered new cars in California.
I imagine it's only a matter of time before the evil internal combustion "used" cars are put onto the junk heap of history.
Ban on gas car sales proposed by California lawmaker The Sacramento Bee
Ban on gas car sales proposed by California lawmaker The Sacramento Bee
09-29-2017, 10:30 AM
#3
As long as it's just a ban on new car sales and not banishing all gas cars altogether (which would be very hard to implement), I'm not all that concerned. I'll probably never buy a used car anyway due to depreciation (unless it's a model like a GT3/4, GT350R, etc. that I am confident will hold value or even appreciate). In 2040 I'll be 56. That'll give me a good enough stream of gas cars to drive out into the sunset.
What does concern me more is these proclamations will gradually divert a mostly fixed R&D budget away from ICE cars and toward electric and other fuels. So we may very well be seeing "peak ICE" very soon.
What does concern me more is these proclamations will gradually divert a mostly fixed R&D budget away from ICE cars and toward electric and other fuels. So we may very well be seeing "peak ICE" very soon.
09-29-2017, 10:31 AM
#4
Used will not fly. Unless the govt's of the world have a means for providing cars to all the people that cant afford new cars. It doesnt surprise me coming from lawmakers (especially those in CA) that they have no thought for people with little money. Just like the horrible crap program they tried for "Cash for Clunkers" which did nothing but reduce the number of used cars on the market, so more new cars (which produce WAY more pollution to make than those used ones create for the remainder of their lives) had to be produced, and reduced options for those that cant afford new cars.
Way more people are well below the point of affording new cars than most people account for. Most of my family have not been able to afford a new car in the last 25 - 30 years and depend on 20 year old used cars to get by. And since they also cant always afford to pay shop rates and have to work on their own, you can bet a used hybrid is not an option either (They know how to work on gasoline cars). I have been blessed and can afford a new car, although I have ever only bought one brand new one (and likely that will continue as I hate new cars more and more :P ) . Not to mention, unless the batteries have been replaced, buying a used hybrid is not that appealing in that regards either.
My thought is that most places with somewhat sane voters will end up banning NEW car sales that are totally gasoline powered and the gasoline only vehicles will eventually go away through attrition. Even if 50% of cars on the road were not gasoline it makes a huge improvement. There is no reason for a hard cutoff.
Now, if the govt had smart people in it they would be looking at mandating that for jobs it is feasible for, companies provide means for employees to work from home instead of commuting every day. I actually tried to get this started at a previous (Very, very large) company I worked for. The crabby old managers who think for some reason that you are more productive if they can see you (Aka monitor you like a child instead of being real managers) killed it. My math was very conservative and would have saved a few hundred thousand gallons of fuel per year, just looking at the number of employees at that one company in the Twin Cities. Again, that was very conservative even. I found that 1000 local employees at that company were in roles that easily could be done mostly from home. If you figure 25 mpg average fuel economy (which it is likely lower in MN where so many of use drive 4X4's in the winter or all year) and an average commute of 15 miles (mine is 25 miles, many people drive more than that easilly) each way, that is 1.2 gallons of fuel per day per employee. Do the math, that adds up to a LOT of fuel. Imagine if every company did that for roles that do not need to be in the office all the time. Even if they just did a few days a week from home it would help a ton with fuel usage and emissions AND traffic which also means less need to keep adding more capacity to roadways which costs money and uses natural resources. You would still have growing populations, but it sure takes a strain off the grid if you start taking tens of thousands of cars off the roads every morning and afternoon.
But those types of plans take actual logic and work to put into place. Eaiser for some blowhard in CA to say "We shall ban all gas engines by 2040" which is likely after they are dead or close to it, so they dont have to worry about dealing with it, or dealing with their investments in the oil companies losing value before they stop caring
But what do I know ... I am just some dumb engineer and not a politician
Way more people are well below the point of affording new cars than most people account for. Most of my family have not been able to afford a new car in the last 25 - 30 years and depend on 20 year old used cars to get by. And since they also cant always afford to pay shop rates and have to work on their own, you can bet a used hybrid is not an option either (They know how to work on gasoline cars). I have been blessed and can afford a new car, although I have ever only bought one brand new one (and likely that will continue as I hate new cars more and more :P ) . Not to mention, unless the batteries have been replaced, buying a used hybrid is not that appealing in that regards either.
My thought is that most places with somewhat sane voters will end up banning NEW car sales that are totally gasoline powered and the gasoline only vehicles will eventually go away through attrition. Even if 50% of cars on the road were not gasoline it makes a huge improvement. There is no reason for a hard cutoff.
Now, if the govt had smart people in it they would be looking at mandating that for jobs it is feasible for, companies provide means for employees to work from home instead of commuting every day. I actually tried to get this started at a previous (Very, very large) company I worked for. The crabby old managers who think for some reason that you are more productive if they can see you (Aka monitor you like a child instead of being real managers) killed it. My math was very conservative and would have saved a few hundred thousand gallons of fuel per year, just looking at the number of employees at that one company in the Twin Cities. Again, that was very conservative even. I found that 1000 local employees at that company were in roles that easily could be done mostly from home. If you figure 25 mpg average fuel economy (which it is likely lower in MN where so many of use drive 4X4's in the winter or all year) and an average commute of 15 miles (mine is 25 miles, many people drive more than that easilly) each way, that is 1.2 gallons of fuel per day per employee. Do the math, that adds up to a LOT of fuel. Imagine if every company did that for roles that do not need to be in the office all the time. Even if they just did a few days a week from home it would help a ton with fuel usage and emissions AND traffic which also means less need to keep adding more capacity to roadways which costs money and uses natural resources. You would still have growing populations, but it sure takes a strain off the grid if you start taking tens of thousands of cars off the roads every morning and afternoon.
But those types of plans take actual logic and work to put into place. Eaiser for some blowhard in CA to say "We shall ban all gas engines by 2040" which is likely after they are dead or close to it, so they dont have to worry about dealing with it, or dealing with their investments in the oil companies losing value before they stop caring
But what do I know ... I am just some dumb engineer and not a politician
09-29-2017, 12:07 PM
#6
All these regulators must have much better crystal balls than mine... I don't know what the state of technology, the economy, social needs, or infrastructure will be in twenty years but these self important bureaucrats do.
The following users liked this post:
Mr.E.G. (10-04-2017)
10-01-2017, 01:20 PM
#7
I can not count on ten hands the numbers of times, back in the earlier days of the board when we had tons of traffic, that people who lived in Cali made comments about how torturous it would be to live here in Minnesota, or elsewhere in flyover country. And don't get me wrong, California is a TREMENDOUSLY beautiful piece of real estate, but you could not pay me enough to live there. The overcrowding, the super high home prices, the super high taxes (Minnesota is pretty high too), the hoards of homeless in the cities, and the regulatory nightmare that seems to hit you on a daily basis.
God bless em for whatever they decide to so with their freeways, but I will take a few months of cold weather over the seemingly increasing goofyness that seems to be growing daily. I understand the flight that has taken place from that state to Washinton, Oregon, Idaho, etc, etc, etc. Everytime I see an episode of Flip or Flop and people are paying $700,000 for 1500 square feet and all the nonsense that comes with it boggles my mind. All that for some nice weather? Lots of places have nice weather.
But hey Cali, do whatever you want. It is a ways off, but I am sure it will put absolutely NO financial burden on your already strapped citizens.
God bless em for whatever they decide to so with their freeways, but I will take a few months of cold weather over the seemingly increasing goofyness that seems to be growing daily. I understand the flight that has taken place from that state to Washinton, Oregon, Idaho, etc, etc, etc. Everytime I see an episode of Flip or Flop and people are paying $700,000 for 1500 square feet and all the nonsense that comes with it boggles my mind. All that for some nice weather? Lots of places have nice weather.
But hey Cali, do whatever you want. It is a ways off, but I am sure it will put absolutely NO financial burden on your already strapped citizens.
The following 2 users liked this post by vader1:
Mr.E.G. (10-04-2017),
WolfpackS2k (10-02-2017)
Trending Topics
10-01-2017, 04:42 PM
#10
2 things.
1. not gonna happen and
2. from my cold, dead hands. no. really.
The oil industry is powerful. read, they will kill whoever they need to in order to keep the stock holders happy. They make millions of dollars in the short time it took me to write this.
Countries with unstable governments and wars, who rely on oil to fund bullets and tanks are not going to be happy. The thousands of emplyee's in the North American oil industry and the vast spin off economies will not sit still either. this is nothing more than one person's attempt to get their name in the media.
And now, us petrol heads are talking about it.
darcy
1. not gonna happen and
2. from my cold, dead hands. no. really.
The oil industry is powerful. read, they will kill whoever they need to in order to keep the stock holders happy. They make millions of dollars in the short time it took me to write this.
Countries with unstable governments and wars, who rely on oil to fund bullets and tanks are not going to be happy. The thousands of emplyee's in the North American oil industry and the vast spin off economies will not sit still either. this is nothing more than one person's attempt to get their name in the media.
And now, us petrol heads are talking about it.
darcy