Summary
The Biden administration will allow California to ban new gas-powered car sales by 2035, with 11 other states following. This uses a Clean Air Act waiver permitting stricter state-level pollution controls to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Trump plans to revoke the waiver, roll back EV tax credits, and fight California’s climate policies, potentially sparking legal battles.
California, leading the U.S. in EV adoption, aims to “Trump-proof” its agenda, bolstered by automaker deals and strong market influence.
The ban could accelerate EV investments, shaping nearly half of the U.S. auto market and global climate policy trends.
Funny how they care about the rights of states selectively.
I didn’t see anything in the article about this, but does the regulation also ban hybrid vehicles? Just curious.
It would be a bit funny if like… Chevy bolt = cool, Chevy volt = illegal
So, used prices go up more?
I can’t see any issues with the pending affordability among people who can not afford a $60k plus car in a car dependent nation like the states…
The solution is public transit. Climate change will hurt the poor even more.
When was the last time any US state expanded its public transit…
California allocated over $1.3 billion in October 2024 for 27 public transportation projects under its Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program.
How’s that transit in California doing?
Pretty well, I’m literally about to commute by rail right now. How do you think climate change 🔥 has been working out for us?
It would be better if people under stood that the solution needs to be cheap for people so they can afford it. People don’t pay for things they can’t afford for very long.
It’s a good thing that funding public transit is cheaper than the massive, civilization-ending cost of climate change.
Cool, what does that have to do with making cars needed for most low income houses (if you have transit available you are very lucky in NA) then banning the cheap ones while subsidizing the costly and more environmentally damaging ones to produce all while gaslighting the public into thinking climate change is their fault and not on the massive companies (who also get exemptions and loopholes us little guys don’t)?
Damn, I never should have said the solution was more cars and gaslighting the public.
Methane can and should be made with renewable energy
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction
What we need to do is ban the sale of hydrogen and gas that’s extracted from the ground, not attack machines that can burn carbon neutral chemical energy
Edit: article is about petrol. Silly US Americans referring to liquid as gas
Edit2: can we not all agree the headline should say “ICE cars”?
article is about petrol. Silly US Americans referring to liquid as gas
Petrol is short for “petroleum” which can be many products
Gas is short for “gasoline” which is a specific product
Gas is long for gas. A state of matter that isn’t solid, liquid or plasma.
The “states rights” people surely will be happy about this!
“Will allow.”
Can’t prevent.
Even if forced to “sell” them, CA still controls which vehicles may receive title and registration.
still controls which vehicles may receive title and registration.
And what the registration fees/taxes are, ez pz loophole, just make the registration fee 50k for all gas vehicles or some shit lmao
2035 is so far away, it’s basically just postering at this point.
People used to say that about 2025 too
And look at how many politicians and businesses have gone back on their promises in the past decade.
Better do something than do nothing.
Just posturing is right. Why not in 5 years? Why wait til we can almost name a new generation of adults?
Probably because the more aggressive the timeline, the more willingness to fight rather than just adapt
Personally, I’d like to see more of a transition - maybe a tax that starts small and quickly scales into something crazy over the course of the decade or something else to heavily motivate early compliance
This isn’t nothing though, it’s mostly just late. Paris did something similar and is already reaping the rewards
I don’t live in California, but I’m going to guess to expand the charger network more.
It makes a difference - corporations move and adapt slowly. They now know in 10 years, the ICE market will probably be completely dead in big chunks of the US market, and if they aren’t competitive by then they’ll lose a lot of market share
It’s not enough to sell electric models by 2035 - they need to be established as good electric manufacturers by then. It’ll push them to move the electric transition forward, either giving up on hydrogen or speeding up their plans
It’s not the greatest timeframe, but it’s not nothing
According to this article, some automotive companies have already stopped further research and development on ICE engines.
https://www.hotcars.com/car-companies-no-longer-investing-in-ice/
What is Elon going to do? Sell cars or kiss Trump’s ass?
Why not both?
Introduce a hypothetical Tesla Backcountry, Elon’s “unique” solution for people with range anxiety. Instead of worrying about charge stations, the Backcountry can be recharged at any old gas station by filling it up with “liquid x power,” which the car burns to recharge its battery while running. It’s not a hybrid, it’s electric /s
This just made me think of Petrol electric vehicles, more specifically the Ferdinand/Elefant. Knowing how flammable Teslas already are I feel like a gas powered one would be outright explosive.
Knowing how flammable Teslas already are I feel like a gas powered one would be outright explosive.
You might be interested in looking up ICE vehicle fire statistics in your area every year. It’s going to be more than every electric vehicle fire to date. They are common, so they don’t make headlines, no one would click on the link for the advertising revenue.
They dont make the headlines because they are generally easy to put out, ive seen an outright burning car put into containment by two fire extinguishers. Ya cant do that with Lithium Ion batteries, ya need atleast one fire engine to put the bastard into containment and even then itll probably burn for quite awhile afterwards.
Also I am making a joke about Tesla build quality being compared to late WW2 Germany, I have yet to hear about a VW, GM, Toyota, Ford, Mazda, et cetera bursting into flames like a fucking Elefant tank destroyer.
I have yet to hear about a VW, GM, Toyota, Ford, Mazda, et cetera bursting into flames like a fucking Elefant tank destroyer.
I see Chevy is conspicuously missing from that list. Those were bursting into flame just by sitting there.
Chevy is umbrella under GM, I also didnt list dodge. Frankly speaking I could have made a far more exhaustive list.
TIL
The two Porsche Type 101 15-litre gasoline V-10 air-cooled engines each developing 310 PS in each vehicle had considerable problems with cooling difficulties and excess oil consumption during testing.[5] An improved type 101/2 engine with better cooling seems not to have been installed.[6] The Porsche engines were replaced by two 300 PS (296 hp; 221 kW) Maybach HL120 TRM engines. The engines drove a single Siemens-Schuckert 500 kVA generator each, which powered two Siemens 230 kW (312.7 PS) individual-output electric motors, one each connected to each of the rear sprockets. The electric motors also acted as the vehicle’s steering unit. This “petrol–electric” drive delivered 0.11 km/L (909 litres/100 km or 0.26 miles per gallon) off-road and 0.15 km/L (667 litres/100 km or 0.35 mpg) on road at a maximum speed of 10 km/h off-road and 30 km/h on road. In addition to this high fuel consumption and poor performance, the vehicle was maintenance-intensive; the sprockets needed to be changed every 500–900 km.[7] Furthermore, the radiators for the water-cooled Maybach engines took up extra space in the cramped engine compartment, and the engines often over-heated.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elefant
TIL also why I think the Soviets won the Battle of Kursk.
The Elefant is such a succinct summary of everything Nazi Germany did wrong in WW2. Fun fact they just kinda exploded when going uphill, so the Germans stationed them in famously flat Italy.
So the state can ban the sale? Ban the usage? What exactly can they ban?
They can ban the sale. They can also refuse to register the car, so no license plate. You’d get in a fair amount of trouble if caught driving an unregistered vehicle.
They can also refuse to register the car,
Virginia has a model for this that can be a tad regressive; not sure about CA. On the one hand, there’s regular safety and emissions tests that must be passed or you cannot (re)register your car for the coming year or two. This more or less keeps deathtraps and oil-burning-smog-machines off the road. On the other hand, it has absolutely crippled plenty of households just scraping by where that old car is needed to just break even every month. Depending on where one stands on car-dependent culture and if owning/operating a vehicle is a necessity, it can be quite the contentious issue.
Point being, I can easily see how a higher bar for registration, and re-registration, can change the makeup of what’s on the road. I can also see how that can suddenly prevent a whole chunk of the population from participating.
Virginia is one of the worst states to motorists in the entire Union, if not the worst.
They’re talking about new vehicles only. Used gas cars will still be available for purchase.
They can restrict the sale and the registration (license plate/tabs) of new gas cars within the state. Someone can still go to another state to buy one, but they can’t get a CA plate for it. And that’s on top of trying to figure it how to get insurance coverage for it.
So essentially its a law that only effects the poor who cant afford to get out of state sale/rego/insurance?
Yeah, the poor who buy brand new cars.
If everyone could get easy, cheap car insurance outside of their home state or region, don’t you think it would be a widespread phenomena already?
Exactly its a law that only effects the poor
I’m not sure exactly what it is you’re going after here, the issue is reducing the number of ICE vehicles being produced and sold. Unless your argument is that most people will just go elsewhere, then I don’t see how it isn’t a net win (ignoring the glaring issue that EVs are still cars)
If you’re complaining about the inequity of laws, that’s a real issue, but this isn’t a good example to go after.
I wasnt aware tgat if people went elsewhere it didnt effect the environment. Perhaps we should just put all the environmentally damaging activities elsewhere and problem solved?
Im simply saying its a law that effects the everyday wage slave while the millionaires and billionaires get to keep doing as they please fucking the environment while u cant because u cant afford to register ur car out of state.
Most people can’t afford EVs anyway. At this point, there will just be older and older gas-powered vehicles on the road.
Would love it if Musk could actually solve a fucking problem every once in a while, instead of running his mouth about the hundred other things he claims to have a solution to. Make a functional and cheap EV, no stupid bells and whistles, no gimmicks.
I know there are other car manufacturers, but they are too concerned about the bottom line. Musk effectively has more money than god. He can afford to take a loss for the greater good. He just never will.
Most people can’t afford EVs anyway
Well yeah, most people buy used cars. But a used ev of a given year is likely to be in a similar price range as a comparable gas engine car. The question is, is there sufficient availability of used electric cars? From the sound of it, there will be in CA by 2035. Certainly, if everyone buying new cars is buying electric, then the number is used EVs available will skyrocket.
And either way, I’m sure this regulation is about new cars, nobody is going to stop you from buying a used 2025 civic in 2035, that’s fine. I mean the car already exists, it would be environmentally negligent to replace it as long as it still runs. You just can’t buy a new ice car after that.
I’m curious though, does this regulation ban hybrids?
nobody is going to stop you from buying a used 2025 civic in 2035, that’s fine
This is what I meant, cars already in circulation having longer lives. I frankly don’t know anything about used EVs, but plenty of people I know can list reliable gas powered cars that will run for incredibly long times with a little love. We need EVs to be manageable cars of the people that can be maintained at home on a budget and not proprietary dealerships.
It wasn’t my aim to discredit the bill, only to complain that Musk is useless and will line his pockets before actually creating something that is useful for the public.
But the thing is, you’ll also be able to buy a 2025 Tesla in 2035, and the price probably won’t be far off from the civic. In other words, there’s no problem here.
Except Honda and those Civics have established a reputation of running forever. Tesla cannot claim the same.
So the taxi duty Teslas with 1,000,000+ miles don’t count?
Which one is that? The one you made up or the one that was famous for it and needing the drive motor replaced over a dozen times?
PS the average new car is $47k. Please tell me how that $55k EV with the $7.5k tax rebate is expensive?
Source: https://www.kbb.com/car-news/average-new-car-price-tops-47000/
I have never in my life purchased a new car. They are too expensive. Most normal people that I know also have only ever bought a car from a used car lot. I have always considered leasing a car to be throwing away money. So, like a lot of people, I drive beaters that I can actually afford.
The $55k might be reasonable compared to the average new car, but look around you on the road. Lots of 7+ year old cars…most people can’t afford $55k with or without a rebate. I know that is just the price of doing business, and nothing is likely to suddenly cost $10k. But for the average person, this just means driving their fossil fuel burning car longer until they can figure something out.
I have always considered leasing a car to be throwing away money.
I was in the market for a car back in the start of 2023. I was floored at how leases were at the same monthly cost as just financing new for the same exact car. As in, there was practically zero advantage in doing so. Why do people do this?
this just means driving their fossil fuel burning car longer until they can figure something out.
The cost of new and used are at a point where if you own your car outright, it’s far cheaper to just keep it on the road. I know not everyone can afford the downtime for big repairs, and keeping $1000-2000 on hand for repairs is not easy. But it can work out to a lot less per year which is the trick. Sadly, economics got us into this mess and without some kind of intervention, they’re gonna keep us here for a while.
Why do people do this?
So they can get a new car every 3 years when the lease expires.
As much as I sympathize, that doesn’t automatically mean (perceived) expensive EVs are the issue, though.
I don’t really care for this given the trend of newer car design.
I want to support the environment and all, but an EV car is going to be even worse than an ICE car with having everything controlled by touchscreens and collecting data that the car companies sell off to the highest bidder. It’s harder (if not impossible to customize or repair since the whole thing is based on proprietary software, and the average mechanic isn’t a software engineer.
Why can I just have an EV with a damn button for volume and AC controls?
everything controlled by touchscreens and collecting data that the car companies sell off to the highest bidder
This has nothing to do with the engine type. This is a (valid) concern about new cars. But citing it as a reason to avoid EVs is misplaced.
Its a reason to avoid all new cars as a whole. That and all the unnecessary crap like motorized seats, LED headlights, or cruise control. Also I really dont need my car to be able to communicate with anything not actively plugged into it.
Fair enough. Maybe my concern is more with newer cars in general.
Are there affordable EVs being mass-produced that do not suffer from an overabundance of touch-based controls?
Hyundai and GM / Chevy are the two biggest examples of automakers producing affordable EVs with traditional buttons and knobs. Audi, BMW, and Porsche are all moving back in that direction, but generally those aren’t in the affordable category you mentioned.
Recent articles suggest many automakers swinging back towards the physical control side of the spectrum. It’s a very good thing, touchscreens for basic auto controls was a terrible idea.
I’m gonna guess China
Needs to happen!
