Jump to content

California regulator threatens ban on gasoline engines


Recommended Posts

Sounds like a reasonable response.  California and the states that follow are moving forward  in the 21st century.  The minority of people that control Washington want to move backwards.  However, the rest of the world, China and Europe are also all moving forward.  The United States will be left behind if the masters in Washington get their way.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, msm859 said:

Sounds like a reasonable response.  California and the states that follow are moving forward  in the 21st century.  The minority of people that control Washington want to move backwards.  However, the rest of the world, China and Europe are also all moving forward.  The United States will be left behind if the masters in Washington get their way.

It's not about moving backward or forward.  It's the "I want B, so lets ban A and force everyone to have B now" mentality that people have a problem with.

Let the market transition to electrics if that's indeed the future.  Don't ban 98% of cars on the road with a snap of the finger because.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When vehicles powered by alternative powerplants are superior to current vehicles, people will happily buy them.

Henry Ford I didn't push for a ban on horse-drawn wagons to get people to buy Model Ts.

Edited by grbeck
  • Like 12
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, msm859 said:

Sounds like a reasonable response.  California and the states that follow are moving forward  in the 21st century.  The minority of people that control Washington want to move backwards.  However, the rest of the world, China and Europe are also all moving forward.  The United States will be left behind if the masters in Washington get their way.

The U.S. is already behind. A couple years ago, another California elected official expressed concern that China was beating California (and the U.S. in general) with deployment of EVs.

Mark Phelan from Detroit Free Press brought up the same concern. The move to EVs is inevitable, and opportunities for leadership in this area are out there. But the U.S. federal government and to a certain extent the U.S. auto industry doesn't seem to be onboard. https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/mark-phelan/2019/03/27/china-electric-vehicles-production/3217195002/

Quote

"The U.S. auto industry risks becoming an isolated technical backwater while China surges into the global lead in a technology its government has targeted as a key to leadership for the 21st Century.

China accounted for 60 percent of global electric vehicle sales and production at around 876,000 last year, when just 361,307 EVs were sold in the United States.

China’s lead is only likely to grow, thanks to a range of financial incentives and regulations that encourage buyers to choose EVs."

Edited by rperez817
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rperez817 said:

The U.S. is already behind. A couple years ago, another California elected official expressed concern that China was beating California (and the U.S. in general) with deployment of EVs.

Mark Phelan from Detroit Free Press brought up the same concern. The move to EVs is inevitable, and opportunities for leadership in this area are out there. But the U.S. federal government doesn't seem to be onboard. https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/mark-phelan/2019/03/27/china-electric-vehicles-production/3217195002/

 

 

From whom did China steal that IP from?  Japan perhaps?  Tesla?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

It's not about moving backward or forward.  It's the "I want B, so lets ban A and force everyone to have B now" mentality that people have a problem with.

Let the market transition to electrics if that's indeed the future.  Don't ban 98% of cars on the road with a snap of the finger because.

It wouldn't be a ban on current cars, it would be a ban on the sale of new ICE cars.  And we are transitioning there, except scientist tell us that if we do not do it quicker there will be catastrophic consequences.  This "threat" was in response to Washington wanting to go backwards on fuel economy mandates. And it is not about a "want" it is about a "need". 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, msm859 said:

Sounds like a reasonable response.  California and the states that follow are moving forward  in the 21st century.  The minority of people that control Washington want to move backwards.  However, the rest of the world, China and Europe are also all moving forward.  The United States will be left behind if the masters in Washington get their way.

And so many of us here were looking forward to this.  Elections have consequences and this beauty might turn out to be one of them if we aren't careful...

 

Ford V8.JPG

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, msm859 said:

It wouldn't be a ban on current cars, it would be a ban on the sale of new ICE cars.  And we are transitioning there, except scientist tell us that if we do not do it quicker there will be catastrophic consequences.  This "threat" was in response to Washington wanting to go backwards on fuel economy mandates. And it is not about a "want" it is about a "need". 

I guess it depends on which scientists you listen to doesn’t it. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, grbeck said:

When vehicles powered by alternative powerplants are superior to current vehicles, people will happily buy them.

Henry Ford I didn't push for a ban on horse-drawn wagons to get people to buy Model Ts.

grbeck -  that is one of the most sensible posts I have ever read!  There is so little common sense around any more that when we finally hear it it seems like some kind of revelation!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, grbeck said:

When vehicles powered by alternative powerplants are superior to current vehicles, people will happily buy them.

Henry Ford I didn't push for a ban on horse-drawn wagons to get people to buy Model Ts.

At the time there was no evidence that horse-drawn wagons were causing pollution or were a threat to the earth.  In the 80's scientist told us about the problem with the depleting ozone layer so CFC's were banned and alternatives found.  It wasn't enough to simply say the people will buy something else when something better comes along.  Even Ronald Reagan who was uncertain about the science thought it was cheap insurance at the time.  If you believe in climate change or at least recognize the consequence of being wrong in your disbelief would be catastrophic, then moving backwards on mileage standards is the wrong answer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, msm859 said:

At the time there was no evidence that horse-drawn wagons were causing pollution or were a threat to the earth.  In the 80's scientist told us about the problem with the depleting ozone layer so CFC's were banned and alternatives found.  It wasn't enough to simply say the people will buy something else when something better comes along.  Even Ronald Reagan who was uncertain about the science thought it was cheap insurance at the time.  If you believe in climate change or at least recognize the consequence of being wrong in your disbelief would be catastrophic, then moving backwards on mileage standards is the wrong answer.

Not true. Dust from horse droppings was a major problem in cities (it also attracted disease-carrying insects), and runoff from horse manure and urine was polluting streams and rivers. It was said at that time that a person could smell New York City before he or she could see it.

Plus, horses were regularly dropping dead in the streets from pulling heavy loads in the summer months (and the disposal of horse carcasses was a major problem). That is why animal welfare organizations of the time applauded the adoption of cars and trucks.

When it's my money, yes, you need to offer me something superior to buy. Shrieks of gloom and doom are not sufficient. The world has been coming to an end for one reason or another since my high school days. It's your responsibility to offer me something better, if the world really is coming to an end. Otherwise, I prefer my to fulfill my weekly need for histrionics by watching The Bachelor/Bachelorette.

Edited by grbeck
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, grbeck said:

 Dust from horse droppings was a major problem in cities, and runoff from horse manure and urine was polluting streams and rivers. Plus, horses were regularly dropping dead in the streets from pulling heavy loads in the summer months (and the disposal of horse carcasses was a major problem). That is why animal welfare organizations of the time applauded the adoption of cars and trucks.

There's much more to that story. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/12/reality-check-cars-didnt-save-our-cities-horse-manure/7742/

"History loves smooth transitions," writes Brandon Keim in the new Nautilus, in an essay debunking one of the more endearing tales about technological transformation in American cities. According to this simple history lesson, cars saved our cities from horses. Until they came along, city streets were ankle-deep in manure. Thankfully, by eliminating the need for horse-drawn carriages, cars eliminated all that unsanitary waste, too.

In this telling, the motor vehicle was a kind of environment solution for another century's sustainability problem. That's a tidy narrative we've come to think of today, when cars pose their own environmental problems in need of yet more technological innovation.

The real story was, of course, much more complicated. This history of cars replacing horses forgets the intervening rise and fall of the streetcar. It forgets those long decades after the invention of the automobile but before its widespread adoption. It forgets all the laws and infrastructure and social mores that we needed to construct around the car. It forgets the influence of industry in devising new deviant behaviors like "jaywalking."

It also forgets that most of our sanitation problems a century ago had nothing to do with horse shit. In fact, Keim writes that we repaved many urban roads with asphalt for the first time only after digging them up to lay modern sewer systems. That infrastructure made our cities cleaner. It also happened to make them more convenient for cars. But that doesn't mean that cars cleaned up our cities."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

It doesn't dispute anything I've posted.

Note this: The car emerged with an orchestrated push by the auto industry, and its reign was paved by a rising demand for gasoline and government investment in highways, roads, and zoning regulations. Similarly it was a democratic drive, with legislation to follow, that gave us sanitation laws and cleaned up our streets.

It was the widespread adoption of the automobile, and the concurrent virtual elimination of horse-drawn vehicles, that made possible those sanitation laws and clean streets. Not to mention the greater wealth generated by the rise of the automobile industry, and associated industries.

Sewer systems and paved roads cost money. That money has to come from somewhere, and that "somewhere" is wealth generated by economic activity.

Then there is this: The march of progress also depends on social engineering as much as technological change:

It's the technological change that makes the social engineering possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, grbeck said:

It's the technological change that makes the social engineering possible.

It works in both directions. Social engineering and the government regulation that goes with it can facilitate technological change too. China's leadership in electric vehicles today is an example of social engineering and technological change working in tandem.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

It works in both directions. Social engineering and the government regulation that goes with it can facilitate technological change too. China's leadership in electric vehicles today is an example of social engineering and technological change working in tandem.

Government regulation at that time reacted to technological change. It did not anticipate it. The bottom line is that, during that era, clean streets and sanitation efforts were made possible by the adoption of the automobile, and the wealth generated by the automobile industry and other industries.

As for China's leadership in electric vehicles - those vehicles are charged with electricity largely generated by fossil fuels (including coal, which is being displaced by much cleaner natural gas in the U.S.). Their overall impact on the environment therefore may not be that beneficial:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-coal-powered-china-electric-car-surge-fuels-fear-of-worsening-smog/?redirect=1 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, msm859 said:

It wouldn't be a ban on current cars, it would be a ban on the sale of new ICE cars.  And we are transitioning there, except scientist tell us that if we do not do it quicker there will be catastrophic consequences.  This "threat" was in response to Washington wanting to go backwards on fuel economy mandates. And it is not about a "want" it is about a "need". 

 

1 hour ago, msm859 said:

At the time there was no evidence that horse-drawn wagons were causing pollution or were a threat to the earth.  In the 80's scientist told us about the problem with the depleting ozone layer so CFC's were banned and alternatives found.  It wasn't enough to simply say the people will buy something else when something better comes along.  Even Ronald Reagan who was uncertain about the science thought it was cheap insurance at the time.  If you believe in climate change or at least recognize the consequence of being wrong in your disbelief would be catastrophic, then moving backwards on mileage standards is the wrong answer.

But that's just it - customers will still demand efficient vehicles.  I don't suddenly want to pay more for gas/fill up my car twice as often because some government regulation was relaxed.

37 minutes ago, Deanh said:

don't even take this seriously in even the minutest amount.

Eh, it's California.  I don't put anything crazy past you guys/them haha.

18 minutes ago, grbeck said:

Government regulation at that time reacted to technological change. It did not anticipate it. The bottom line is that, during that era, clean streets and sanitation efforts were made possible by the adoption of the automobile, and the wealth generated by the automobile industry and other industries.

As for China's leadership in electric vehicles - those vehicles are charged with electricity largely generated by fossil fuels (including coal, which is being displaced by much cleaner natural gas in the U.S.). Their overall impact on the environment therefore may not be that beneficial:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-coal-powered-china-electric-car-surge-fuels-fear-of-worsening-smog/?redirect=1 

Yeah, you're just transferring pollution from city centers to wherever the power plant is.

That said, I get the argument that you can then use a cleaner source to generate that power, but we're not there yet, and the electrical grid/infrastructure will not support all of the US' vehicles being electric, which is another factor to consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rperez817 said:

It works in both directions. Social engineering and the government regulation that goes with it can facilitate technological change too. China's leadership in electric vehicles today is an example of social engineering and technological change working in tandem.

You are seriously using the PRC as example of good public policy?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tbone said:

You are seriously using the PRC as example of good public policy?

Yes sir. In this case, China's public policy goal was to increase adoption of EVs. And be the #1 market for EVs in the world. On that measure, they succeeded.

Top_PEV_global_markets_stock_2017_final_

Edited by rperez817
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

But that's just it - customers will still demand efficient vehicles.  I don't suddenly want to pay more for gas/fill up my car twice as often because some government regulation was relaxed.

Eh, it's California.  I don't put anything crazy past you guys/them haha.

Yeah, you're just transferring pollution from city centers to wherever the power plant is.

That said, I get the argument that you can then use a cleaner source to generate that power, but we're not there yet, and the electrical grid/infrastructure will not support all of the US' vehicles being electric, which is another factor to consider.

I'll take your comment about us Californians as a compliment.  California only has 1 small coal power plant left.  By 2026 it will be gone, as well as not allowing ANY electricity to be imported that is produced by coal.  I have solar panels on my roof that supply almost 100% of my electricity.  Last year I added more along with a heat pump water heater for my domestic hot water - further reducing my natural gas use. For heat in the winter I have radiant heat along with a boiler that is so efficient it vents out of PVC pipe.   I am primarily on this forum because of the new Lincoln Aviator PHEV coming out and plan to add even more solar panels to feed it.- or some other PHEV.  There is nothing wrong with pushing green.  It is one of the reasons California on its own is the 5th largest economy in the world.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

Yes sir. In this case, China's public policy goal was to increase adoption of EVs. And be the #1 market for EVs in the world. On that measure, they succeeded.

Top_PEV_global_markets_stock_2017_final_

China produces more than twice the amount of cars that the USA does. This is roughly the same percentage of EV cars per capita that the USA currently sells.

Edit: and last time I checked, CA is still a part of the USA, so if CA's sales weren't included in the whole US output, then the USA has a higher adoption rate (%) among cars sold.

Edited by atomcat68
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...