Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Saturday September 30 2017, @12:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the ban-gas-instead-of-passing-it dept.

France and the United Kingdom are doing it. So is India. And now one lawmaker would like California to follow their lead in phasing out gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles.

When the Legislature returns in January, Assemblyman Phil Ting plans to introduce a bill that would ban the sale of new cars fueled by internal-combustion engines after 2040. The San Francisco Democrat said it's essential to get California drivers into an electric fleet if the state is going to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets, since the transportation sector accounts for more than a third of all emissions.

"The market is moving this way. The entire world is moving this way," Ting said. "At some point you need to set a goal and put a line in the sand."

California already committed five years ago to putting 1.5 million "zero-emission vehicles," such as electric cars and plug-in hybrids, on the road by 2025. By that time, the state wants these cleaner models to account for 15 percent of all new car sales.

Could the hills surrounding Los Angeles one day become visible?


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2, Troll) by crafoo on Saturday September 30 2017, @12:49PM (13 children)

    by crafoo (6639) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 30 2017, @12:49PM (#575270)

    Yes, at some point we need to put a line in the sand! Everyone needs to pay another $5000+ for transportation in the state with the worst metro transportation. And fuck everyone that lives outside a city. Everything is great here if they can't afford a car in a rural area why aren't they forced to move to a city and live and work here? Everything is great here! Everything outside a city is just like a city, just worse! Never mind that automobile prices have been steadily ramping up due to safety and environmental laws. Everyone should be able to afford a $30,000 vehicle. If not, well shouldn't we have a UBI or a Vehicle Purchase Program, or can't they just take an uber everywhere or, I don't know, something?

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 30 2017, @01:15PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 30 2017, @01:15PM (#575275) Journal
      The higher minimum wage laws ($15 per hour by 2022) will eliminate the people in California's rural and poor areas anyway. They'll move, if they want to work.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @01:45PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @01:45PM (#575279)

      http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829 [mit.edu]

      In a state-by-state analysis, the researchers found that California suffers the worst health impacts from air pollution, with about 21,000 early deaths annually, mostly attributed to road transportation and to commercial and residential emissions from heating and cooking.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @03:30PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @03:30PM (#575294)

        California suffers the worst mental health impacts from all causes.

        • (Score: 4, Touché) by slap on Saturday September 30 2017, @07:27PM

          by slap (5764) on Saturday September 30 2017, @07:27PM (#575352)

          I think Florida has something to say about that.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @03:47PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @03:47PM (#575301)

      Yes, at some point we need to put a line in the sand! Everyone needs to pay another $5000+ for transportation in the state with the worst metro transportation.

      I think by 2040 you'll have a choice of self-driving "taxi" rental services to such extent that it will be stupid to own your own car unless you commute to work 6h each day.

      Everyone should be able to afford a $30,000 vehicle. If not, well shouldn't we have a UBI or a Vehicle Purchase Program, or can't they just take an uber everywhere or, I don't know, something?

      Then again, how do you know what the cost of a car will be at that time?? There is only ONE expensive part in an electric car - the battery. Electric motors are free compared to the combustion engines. And maintenance is nil. So... the only problem is batteries, and no one is even making these at any scale until Musk's Gigafactory. And then compare the costs of 80kWh battery in 30 years ago with today -- fucking night and day.

      So, stop your pre-emptive panic about shit that doesn't even exist. The purpose of this law is to guide the car manufacturers into specific direction. You know, these guys tend to plan things decade or two in advance. So this gives them a decade to start planning their plans.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @03:59PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @03:59PM (#575311)

        The purpose of this law is to guide the car manufacturers into specific direction.

        That's a funny use of the word "guide". During my night job as a mugger, I guess it's fair to say that my weapon "guides" people into sending their money and valuables into a specific direction, namely mine.

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01 2017, @04:52AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01 2017, @04:52AM (#575478)

          I have known that. The rectum of your's was turned into cum dump by them three. Fuh, you are rectum, it's dope. I couldn't get enough of it.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @08:00PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @08:00PM (#575362)

        Anything in the 100+ KW range is at least 3-5k. For reference, basically every engine from a 1.4L Turbo to a 5L non-performance V8 is in the 8-15k range, crate or domestic replacement motor. That may or may not include an ECU and in some cases even missing sensors.

        On the other hand, bare carb v8 crate motors are 1500ish. Throw some gas and an ignition on it and you have a (poorly) running v8.

        So in regards to both individual part pricing and whole package part pricing, neither MODERN gasoline engines, nor partial/complete electric car packages are a financially affordable package for anyone below upper middle class.

        Junkyard diving could get them set up cheaper, ASSUMING you can find all the parts. And unlike most of the engine parts for combustion vehicles, electric vehicle parts have not been as tightly regulated and many of them in fact have proprietary communications protocols in them (as in some cases do less well regulated automobile parts, notably some of the new drive by wire components.)

      • (Score: 2) by crafoo on Sunday October 01 2017, @12:24AM

        by crafoo (6639) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 01 2017, @12:24AM (#575418)

        You're exactly the kind of person I was making fun of in my post. I know it's difficult for you to imagine, but not everyone lives in a city or suburb. You feel entitled to make decisions for everyone based on your very narrow experience and environment and do not acknowledge how supremely arrogant and annoying you are.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by RedBear on Saturday September 30 2017, @08:45PM (2 children)

      by RedBear (1734) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 30 2017, @08:45PM (#575377)

      Yes, at some point we need to put a line in the sand! Everyone needs to pay another $5000+ for transportation in the state with the worst metro transportation. And fuck everyone that lives outside a city. Everything is great here if they can't afford a car in a rural area why aren't they forced to move to a city and live and work here? Everything is great here! Everything outside a city is just like a city, just worse! Never mind that automobile prices have been steadily ramping up due to safety and environmental laws. Everyone should be able to afford a $30,000 vehicle. If not, well shouldn't we have a UBI or a Vehicle Purchase Program, or can't they just take an uber everywhere or, I don't know, something?

      By 2025 at the very latest, EVs will reach price parity with fossil fuel vehicles. Even without the kind of tax rebates California has been offering, it will be cheaper to buy a new EV than a new ICEV. And that's just the sticker price. Add the reduction in cost-per-mile for "fuel" over the lifetime of the vehicle and it will be a no-brainer for most people to go EV. That's by 2025.

      By 2035 there will be tens of millions of good used EVs going for low prices. Long before 2040 it will be far easier and cheaper for low-income people to own an EV than a fossil fuel vehicle. "But the batteries!" EV batteries for the most part have been lasting very well in real-world usage. Much longer than anyone expected. Most are estimated to last 20-25 years now before significant degradation happens. They will also be much less expensive to replace or upgrade by that time.

      I don't know exactly what you mean about city vs. rural, but I assume you're referring maybe to early EVs having sub-100 mile range? By the time 2025 rolls around the average range of an EV will be 200-plus miles. By 2035 even the most affordable EVs will likely have more than 250 miles of range as standard. Combine that with the fact that there will be fast-charging stations everywhere you look in this country by 2025 and I'm not sure why EVs would only be good for "city folk". Plenty of people outside metro areas already own Volts and Bolts and Leafs and BMW i3s and Teslas, and they get around just fine. And public fast-charging stations are only necessary for road-tripping. Most EV owners recharge most of the time at home while they sleep.

      Of course all of this is far less relevant than the fact that we HAVE TO STOP PUMPING POLLUTION AND GREENHOUSE GASES INTO OUR ATMOSPHERE. But the "free market" will eventually take care of that on its own, right? Right after the planet becomes nearly uninhabitable.

      The truth is that China, India and parts of Europe are already planning the end of fossil fuel vehicles by 2030 or EARLIER, and the rest of Asia, Europe, and Southeast Asia will be following right along. This means that by 2030 it will already be quite difficult to find a car maker still wasting their time manufacturing pollution-mobiles even here in the US. The fact that Cali wants to ban ICEVs by 2040 isn't really going to mean squat by the time 2040 actually gets here. China is now the largest car market on the planet and they are already telling car makers they need to be selling 10% plug-in vehicles by 2019 if they want access to the Chinese market.

      I know there are a bunch of you who want to hyperventilate over this imagined "tyranny" but the reality is that by 2040 you won't even notice the ban finally being enacted. By that time there will hardly be anyone left alive that won't think of using a fossil fuel vehicle for personal transportation as morally repugnant. A lot is going to happen over the next quarter century. The migration to EVs is happening and there's nothing you can do about it.

      --
      ¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
      ... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01 2017, @10:04AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01 2017, @10:04AM (#575513)

        I know there are a bunch of you who want to hyperventilate over this imagined "tyranny" but the reality is that by 2040 you won't even notice the ban finally being enacted. By that time there will hardly be anyone left alive that won't think of using a fossil fuel vehicle for personal transportation as morally repugnant.

        Because scientists and futurists have been so successful in the past at predicting the course of technology, why not double down! Make laws based on it! After all, it is inevitable that these predictions will be correct!

        It's nice that your crystal ball is so perfectly accurate that you are happy to pass laws based on it. Others might think that is hubris.

        If this reality is so inevitable why does there even need to be a ban?

        • (Score: 2) by RedBear on Sunday October 01 2017, @09:05PM

          by RedBear (1734) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 01 2017, @09:05PM (#575677)

          Because scientists and futurists have been so successful in the past at predicting the course of technology, why not double down! Make laws based on it! After all, it is inevitable that these predictions will be correct!
          It's nice that your crystal ball is so perfectly accurate that you are happy to pass laws based on it. Others might think that is hubris.
          If this reality is so inevitable why does there even need to be a ban?

          Score: 5, Missing the Point

          What you seem to be severely misunderstanding is that these global bans on the sale of fossil fuel vehicles are not about promoting one specific technology over another for no particular reason. They are about limiting particulate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

          Any type of zero-emission vehicle such as hydrogen fuel-cell cars and plug-in hybrids (with a minimum amount of electric-only range) are also accepted in most countries as part of the quota of non-ICE vehicles that must be sold. If you were to invent (in the next few years) a transportation technology that was cheaper and easier to manufacture while still being as clean as battery-powered electric vehicles, the world would go with that instead. It's mere chance that BEVs are the most practical choice we have available to help save our environment.

          The hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle is finally being recognized as impractical by most of the world because nobody is going to spend the trillions of dollars it would take to build the extensive hydrogen refueling station network that would be necessary for it to be practical to use for personal transportation. Plus there's the fact that most hydrogen still comes from "cracking" fossil fuels like natural gas, so it really does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions. And then there's the fact that every HFCV is actually a BEV anyway. They have to have a fairly large battery in order to store energy for acceptably quick acceleration and regenerative braking. So you might as well just throw out the big 10,000 PSI hydrogen tanks and the absurdly expensive fuel-cell and just put in more batteries to make it a BEV.

          The switch to BEVs is inevitable because the people of the world are demanding that their governments crack down on pollution and do something to reduce the threat of global warming. The inevitable consequence of that is that we will move to any functional zero-emission transportation and energy generation options that are available to us. That means battery-powered electric vehicles and zero-emission energy options like wind and solar, hydro and geothermal. Most people on this planet actually want all this to happen. The regulations are just helping it happen faster so that we can minimize the damage to the environment. Which, again, is what most of the population of the planet actually wants.

          Why else would the ban be necessary? I'm sure it's not because the traditional car manufacturers are wrapped around the little fingers of the fossil fuel industry and have been resisting the change to low-emission and zero-emission technologies for decades. No, I'm sure that has nothing to do with why the bans are needed to kick the auto industry in the ass and get them to start making the zero-emission cars people actually want.

          --
          ¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
          ... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
    • (Score: 4, Touché) by forkazoo on Saturday September 30 2017, @08:59PM

      by forkazoo (2561) on Saturday September 30 2017, @08:59PM (#575380)

      I agree! The next few decades of development can't possibly change the situation in transport in any significant way.

      That's why I am posting this comment from my ZX Spectrum while I watch only VHS tapes of the first two seasons of Star Trek The Next Generation.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Saturday September 30 2017, @02:18PM (16 children)

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Saturday September 30 2017, @02:18PM (#575284) Journal

    Seems that running combustion engines on fuel produced from atmospheric CO2, or accelerated living biomass to hydrocarbon transformations (which ultimately comes from atmospheric carbon), rather than fossil fuel, should be okay. What's wrong with using ethanol produced from corn? Supposedly, current methods of ethanol production use a lot of fossil fuel, but I see no reason why they have to. Clean up ethanol production, and maybe that will ultimately prove better than the electric car.

    Battery production can be plenty unfriendly to our health and the environment. For instance, I know of a lead-acid battery facility that was caught polluting the surrounding area with lead. Lithium is cleaner, but too much of anything generally causes problems. Short lived batteries are another problem. Takes so much energy and material to produce them that if they don't last at least 5 years, it's not worth doing.

    A blanket ban on internal combustion engines lacks nuance.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by RS3 on Saturday September 30 2017, @03:41PM (13 children)

      by RS3 (6367) on Saturday September 30 2017, @03:41PM (#575297)

      I strongly agree. One question: does some of the carbon in ethanol come from the ground, or all from atmospheric CO2?

      Although I strongly support wind and solar power (and have installed many PV systems), still much electricity comes from coal and natural gas burning, so rushing to electric cars will not stop CO2 emissions. I'm sure someone will argue (correctly) that electric cars cause less CO2 emission due to electricity generation from fossil fuels being more efficient than IC engines...

      My beef with the IC ban is: hydrogen-fueled vehicles. They can be run very cleanly. The only problem is NOx production and there are many ways to minimize that problem.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @03:52PM (12 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @03:52PM (#575304)

        My beef with the IC ban is: hydrogen-fueled vehicles.

        These don't even exist and are dead before they even exist.

        The world is moving to battery power, whether we like it or not. The positive thing about electric cars is you can charge them during the day from all that PV power. It may be crazy enough that it may just work.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @04:03PM (10 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @04:03PM (#575313)

          The world is moving to battery power, whether we like it or not.

          Says who, you? 'Cause last I'd checked, the battery-powered vehicle market is so niche as to be effectively nonexistent. People do not seem to be eager to spend their hard-earned money on EVs with severe limitations compared to ICE vehicles. That doesn't seem to be in danger of changing until something incredible happens, like an improvement of an order of magnitude or two in electrical storage technology.

          • (Score: 4, Interesting) by mhajicek on Saturday September 30 2017, @04:16PM (5 children)

            by mhajicek (51) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 30 2017, @04:16PM (#575315)

            I've been seeing a fair number of Volts on the road here, and a couple Teslas. The trend is indeed in that direction.

            • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @06:32PM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @06:32PM (#575333)

              Have you considered in conjunction with your fair Volts and few Teslas the amount of subsidized funds extracted from taxpayers that affected the financial decisions of the people who bought said Volts and Teslas (not to mention the subsidies handed out to the manufacturers)?

              How do you see that trend being affected in the absence of such artificial subsidies?

              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @07:38PM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @07:38PM (#575354)

                Have you considered in conjunction with your fair ICE vehicles the amount of subsidized funds extracted from taxpayers that go to fossil fuel industry?

                Aside from the (already enormous) direct monetary subsidies, don't forget to include a large percentage of the military budget, as well the entirety of anti-terrorism related spending. You should also factor in the millions of lives lost or destroyed in the Middle East, countries plunged into civil wars, support of oppressive regimes, the erosion of our civil liberties enabled by the "threat" of terrorism, environmental destruction (oil spills, hundreds of earthquakes caused by fracking)...

                So, how do you see fossil fuel availability being affected in the absence of such artificial subsidies?

                • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday September 30 2017, @10:25PM

                  by maxwell demon (1608) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 30 2017, @10:25PM (#575394) Journal

                  And where does the electricity for the EVs come from?

                  --
                  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
                • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01 2017, @12:43AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01 2017, @12:43AM (#575429)

                  You raise very valid points. All subsidies need to be abolished immediately, along with the Nuclear Regulatory Committee. ICEV and EV can then fight it out in the marketplace when we have fail-safe nuclear molten salt reactors producing a wild surplus of zero-emission electric energy along with all the Fisher-Tropsch-produced gasoline, diesel, and other petrocarbons making use of the high industrial heat of MSRs and the waste product of domestic thorium mining: coal.

                  Tear down all the illegal economic kickbacks.

            • (Score: 4, Touché) by slap on Saturday September 30 2017, @07:30PM

              by slap (5764) on Saturday September 30 2017, @07:30PM (#575353)

              I've seen more PT Cruisers than Bolts, Volts, or Teslas in my neighborhood. Must mean that PT Cruisers are coming back in a big way.

          • (Score: 2) by tekk on Saturday September 30 2017, @04:50PM (3 children)

            by tekk (5704) on Saturday September 30 2017, @04:50PM (#575321)

            Every time I take a trip across the (not massive) state I see a few EVs. I've never seen a hydrogen car in my life despite the fact that half of the car companies pushed it hard before it became clear that electric was the way to go.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @06:53PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @06:53PM (#575342)

              And how many ICE vehicles do you observe during those same trips?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @07:44PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @07:44PM (#575356)

                Mass-market ICE vehicles had about a century of head start.

                How many smartphones have you seen around in the first two decades or so of their existence? And how about a year or two after iPhone was introduced?

                • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Sunday October 01 2017, @01:40AM

                  by Unixnut (5779) on Sunday October 01 2017, @01:40AM (#575442)

                  > Mass-market ICE vehicles had about a century of head start.

                  How so? The first cars were EVs, there was a time when both ICE and EV vehicles new tech, and were competing for market share.

                  ICE won because it was better and more convenient than EVs. The poorer engine efficiency of the prime mover was dwarfed by cheap, easy to refill fuel, making the car have a longer range, and a faster fill up time.

                  Over a hundred years of investment, both in battery and fuel/ICE tech, and the results haven't changed. Best answer would be a liquid fueled EV. An ethanol fuel celled EV would have the benefits of liquid fuel (fast refill, long range), with the benefits of EVs. Nothing beats liquid fuels for energy density, and batteries won't ever reach it.

                  This battery EV just seems like a gimmick that just won't scale, and an overall bad idea.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01 2017, @07:58AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01 2017, @07:58AM (#575496)

          > [Hydrogen-fueled vehicles] don't even exist and are dead before they even exist.

          They exist. There are laughably few of them, but they exist.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fuel_cell_vehicles#Production [wikipedia.org]

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @03:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @03:50PM (#575303)

      There is not enough biofuel capability on the planet for that.

      Also, I'm sure in year 3000 you'll find some old VW that runs on whale oil, so don't panic. Laws like this are to give guidance to manufacturers. That's all.

    • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Sunday October 01 2017, @01:32AM

      by Unixnut (5779) on Sunday October 01 2017, @01:32AM (#575441)

      This is a good point. It isn't the CO2 that is the problem, it is the open carbon cycle, where we are digging up locked in carbon and releasing it to the atmosphere.

      If we then locked up the carbon and burned it again in a closed cycle, there would be no net increase in CO2. The fuel would just be an ultra dense energy storage medium, that can be used in EVs or ICE without problems. Using something like BioEthanol would work, and would have the benefit of decentralising fuel production (because humans have been making Ethanol for millennia.

      This whole "Ban ICE" and force battery EVs just goes to show the distinct lack of knowledge on the part of the proponents and politicians about how this works. It is treating the symptom, not the cause. Assuming it it ignorance, and not just corruption with a side of authoritarian power grab (which I suspect it is, but the motives don't really matter to the results).

      The irony is all this energy put into researching batteries, which never will be able to store the same energy density as chemical fuel (as that energy is stored in chemical bonds), where they could be working on improving the efficiency of production/conversion of said fuels and fuel cells.

      Imagine an EV with an ethanol fuel cell. All the benefits of current cars (long range, using existing infrastructure and quick refill time), but with the benefits of EV. Not to mention giving a way for a transition from old tech, and a way to keep ICE cars on the road for those who want them, while no longer dumping excess CO2 into the atmosphere. Seems like a win all round to me.

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 30 2017, @03:28PM (13 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 30 2017, @03:28PM (#575293) Journal

    Assholes. It's alright to push a new tech out. Subsidize it if you like. But, ban an old tech? Bullshit. And, with all the ancient vehicles ambling up and down California's highways? Consider that not ALL Californians have given up their guns. I foresee an untimely death for politicians who enact any such law.

    --
    On the plus side, I am completely immune to flash-bang grenades. - Helen Keller
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @03:59PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @03:59PM (#575310)

      Sounds like you huffed too much leaded gasoline.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @08:36PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @08:36PM (#575373)

        Sounds like you huffed too much leaded gasoline.

        That's just unfair. We all know that Runaway [soylentnews.org] doesn't huff gasoline (leaded or otherwise), he prefers booty bumping [tweaker.org] meth.

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @04:10PM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @04:10PM (#575314)

      ban an old tech? Bullshit. And, with all the ancient vehicles ambling up and down California's highways? Consider that not ALL Californians have given up their guns. I foresee an untimely death for politicians who enact any such law.

      But but that would be murder! There is no Constitutional right to own an internal-combustion vehicle! The politicians who would enact such a law draw their authority from various constitutions, with authority drawn directly from We the People, so we HAVE to obey such a ban!

      Yes, I'm being facetious. I'm stalking you from another thread [soylentnews.org] where you appeared to show blanket support for "government authority", where such "authority" included the ability to do things that the sole source of said authority could not do.

      After all, what's the root difference between a republican government banning you from land you owned so it can be used be someone else, and banning you from owning or using an ICE vehicle you owned?

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 30 2017, @05:42PM (4 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 30 2017, @05:42PM (#575325) Journal

        "appeared to show blanket support"

        Perhaps it appeared that way. But, no, no blanket support. Eventually, the assholes answer to "we the people". Right now, I believe that an overly large number of them have forgotten that important fact. They do need reminders from time to time. How's that saying go?

        The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. -Thomas Jefferson

        --
        On the plus side, I am completely immune to flash-bang grenades. - Helen Keller
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @06:28PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @06:28PM (#575331)

          But, no, no blanket support. Eventually, the assholes answer to "we the people".

          What delineates a patriot from a tyrant, or a citizen-soldier from a murderer? I'm trying to push your viewpoints, which I perceive through your words as being hazy at its foundations, into sharper relief.

          Who are "we the people"? This is a deadly serious question. Are "We the People" 50%+1 of the specific subset of all humans within the USA's borders who are allowed to vote? That would necessitate things like the stupid ICE vehicle ban as being perfectly legitimate, and that any watering of the tree of liberty would in fact be murder by thugs angry at justified government agents. If in fact "We the People" are 50%+1 of the voting populace, then there are effectively no limits on "legitimate government authority" as anything that 50%+1 can be bamboozled into voting for becomes justifiable for government to enforce at gunpoint. Therefore, I assert that "We the People" are no greater than a single human individual in terms of authority: "We the People" are just ordinary lone humans writ large

          This is why I harp repeatedly about the original source of authority, which starts at a single individual human and his right to life. The mechanics of a right to life require that the human who inhabits the body is the exclusive and sole owner of that body, because ownership includes and necessitates the ability to destroy, and if someone else has authority to destroy a human's body, then that human can't very well have a right to life. (Please excuse me if I don't address conjoined twins or pregnant women at this time.) If you are the ONLY owner of your body, then all you do with your body also belongs to only you: your work, your artistic creations, and all derivative works are yours alone with no one else having a legitimate claim to any portion of it.

          This means that you and I are exactly equal in authority. I have 100% authority over myself and 0% authority over you, and vice-versa. I can offer to buy your land if I want to build a road over it, and if you consent, I can proceed with proper authority as you have sold your land to me which I can then build my road on. If you refuse to sell me your land, then NO amount of neighbors I gather together to support my cause will have any more authority than I do to take your land without your consent. Likewise, I cannot delegate authority to seize your land to my enforcer, Brutus, nor to my band of neighbors, nor to a gaggle of people I refer to as a government

          I can't delegate what I don't have.

          Thus US government authority is FAR diminished from what most people perceive it to be, and anyone using power against others without authority is aptly described by a common term: criminal.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 01 2017, @06:40PM (2 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 01 2017, @06:40PM (#575644) Journal

            Hey, AC. I haven't forgotten you. I'm thinking. Or, at least putting my thoughts in order. Maybe I'll have a good answer for you, maybe I won't, but I haven't forgotten you.

            --
            On the plus side, I am completely immune to flash-bang grenades. - Helen Keller
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @09:57PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @09:57PM (#576237)

              Awesome. I'm still stalk- er, watching this thread.

              I'd be very much interested in your thoughts after having them mulled over. I'm encouraged to have engaged with you on this topic, and am quite interested in the outcome, even if it means you find a flaw in my assertions that I hadn't thought of myself. It's fun when two minds meet to dissect a topic.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @06:44PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @06:44PM (#589162)

              I've still got an eye on this thread. Though my ultimate goal isn't to solicit further responses from you, but to find a "better truth". I hope the ideas we talked about have had some merit, and can be used to bash away some of the weaker aspects of your ideology. Likewise, I hope to have the weak bits bashed off of mine, so I'll keep pitching them to seemingly-interested folks and see what comes of it.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Saturday September 30 2017, @08:41PM

        by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 30 2017, @08:41PM (#575375) Homepage Journal

        After all, what's the root difference between a republican government banning you from land you owned so it can be used be someone else, and banning you from owning or using an ICE vehicle you owned?

        A minor point, but perhaps an important one: Where exactly does it say in TFS or TFA that ICE vehicles on the road or sold before 2040 would be banned?

        IIUC, the proposal to to ban the sale of *new* ICE vehicles after 2040, not to ban the use of them or even to ban the sale of used ones.

        But perhaps I missed something somewhere.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by tfried on Saturday September 30 2017, @05:19PM (3 children)

      by tfried (5534) on Saturday September 30 2017, @05:19PM (#575324)

      Not trying to stop your righteous fury, but you did note that the proposed ban is about sale of new gas cars?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @06:47PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @06:47PM (#575339)

        How does that distinction make a difference? All I see is an attempt to soften the backlash against the ban by spreading its effects out over time.

        • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Saturday September 30 2017, @06:52PM (1 child)

          by isostatic (365) on Saturday September 30 2017, @06:52PM (#575341) Journal

          Because it doesn't affect anyone who owns a gas car.

          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01 2017, @12:46AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01 2017, @12:46AM (#575430)

            Yes, parts and supply lines for the same won't be affected by a ban on new ICE vehicles AT ALL.

            Now imagine me rolling my eyes at you.

  • (Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Saturday September 30 2017, @08:29PM

    by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Saturday September 30 2017, @08:29PM (#575370)

    California used to have a zero emission mandate on the books back around 1998. I can't remember if the auto companies sued and had it struck down or if they made some deal with Cali to get it overturned.

    Who Killed the Electric car [imdb.com]

    --
    "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @11:48PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @11:48PM (#575407)

    I disagree with this idea. This is actually an item where a free market style solution is better. Instead of outright banning sales of new internal combustion powered vehicles, tax them, and tax the fuel. Set your tax rate based on how bad the environmental problem is. Then the market takes care of the rest.
              Actually, what I think would REALLY help out the environment and the country, is the crash development of synthetic fuels made from atmospheric carbon – synthetic gasoline and synthetic diesel. This has already been done in the laboratory. Admittedly, this is currently a very inefficient process, but with some development that problem can likely be solved. Then you can use renewable energy, and perhaps even properly managed nuclear, to produce these synthetic, carbon neutral fuels. Viola! You've put a dent in the following major problems: climate change, entanglement in foreign wars to secure fossil fuel production, and our balance of trade (we can produce these fuel domestically). Furthermore, synthetic gasoline and diesel will run in our current cars with no modification necessary. They can be shipped and stored in our current infrastructure with no modification necessary. Pour synthetic gasoline in your 20 year old car, and viola, its carbon neutral, no modification necessary. How about funding this? Our country figured out how to go to the Moon in a decade. We figured out the atom bomb in less than five years (Manhattan Project). I think we can crack this one too.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by pe1rxq on Sunday October 01 2017, @12:08AM (2 children)

      by pe1rxq (844) on Sunday October 01 2017, @12:08AM (#575412) Homepage

      If you left it to a free market murder would still be a profitable business.
      Sometimes you need to use laws to make sure something does or does not happen.

      The Apollo and Manhattan projects were not done by the free market, they were funded by the US government with tax money.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01 2017, @12:31AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01 2017, @12:31AM (#575423)

        Original poster here.
        I wasn't thinking of an overall "free market" solution. I was thinking free market in regards to taxing new production of ICE powered vehicles, and associated fossil fuels. Synthetic fuel production and technology would be government funded. A combination of government funding and free market style solutions.
        The faster we develop synthetic fuel tech, the better off we'll be. I believe that private industry will be unwilling to fund/invest in a crash development program of this tech. Its too expensive. Thus, government funding and national commitment will be necessary.

      • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday October 01 2017, @05:38PM

        by maxwell demon (1608) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 01 2017, @05:38PM (#575615) Journal

        If you left it to a free market murder would still be a profitable business.

        The difference is that with murder, the correct solution is obvious: It should not be done. While with cars, all we know for sure is that we want to get out of fossil fuels. It is a bet that electric cars are the right solution. It might turn out that the right solution is fuel produced (in whatever way) from CO2. In that case, banning gas cars may be the exact wrong step.

        A possible solution would be to forbid selling fossil fuel after 2040. Taxing it sufficiently high gives almost the same effect, but with much less enforcement effort (the tax enforcement that already exists would automatically cover it).

        The point is: Regulate only the part the free market is bad at (reduce/eliminate fossil fuel consumption), but allow it to do what it is best at (find the most efficient solution to do it).

        The Apollo and Manhattan projects were not done by the free market, they were funded by the US government with tax money.

        That's something completely different: Those were projects developing something, not decisions to prohibit something. And yes, spending government money on the development of alternatives to fossil fuels could also be helpful.

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by KiloByte on Sunday October 01 2017, @12:06AM (1 child)

    by KiloByte (375) on Sunday October 01 2017, @12:06AM (#575410)

    The article says "gasoline and diesel", not gas. Gas might be little used as car fuel in the US, but is very popular in Poland, Australia, Lithuania, Turkey, Italy -- around 18% of cars in Poland, 3% worldwide.

    Using some weird US slang that conflicts with both "gas" as a state of matter and with a car fuel (when talking about car fuels!) is not appropriate. The article got it right, it's either the submitter's or editor's error.

    --
    Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01 2017, @03:21AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01 2017, @03:21AM (#575460)

      The overwhelming majority of personal vehicles (cars, trucks, motorcycles, etc.) in the USA run on gasoline (or more accurately gasohol, which is gasoline adulterated with corn-based ethanol). Diesel cars are relatively rare in the USA, and diesel pickup-style trucks are common, but also likely in the minority.

      Diesel fuel is, however, in huge demand in the US transport industry, in terms of cargo trucks and freight trains.

  • (Score: 2) by Entropy on Sunday October 01 2017, @11:19AM

    by Entropy (4228) on Sunday October 01 2017, @11:19AM (#575532)

    reading "California wants"

(1)