California moves to ban sales of fossil-fueled cars from 2040

California moves to ban sales ...
If adopted, the Clean Cars 2040 bill would require all new passenger vehicle registrations to be zero-emissions
If adopted, the Clean Cars 2040 bill would require all new passenger vehicle registrations to be zero-emissions
View 1 Image
If adopted, the Clean Cars 2040 bill would require all new passenger vehicle registrations to be zero-emissions
If adopted, the Clean Cars 2040 bill would require all new passenger vehicle registrations to be zero-emissions

California Assembly member Phil Ting, a Democrat out of San Francisco, has introduced a bill to ban the sale of fossil-fueled vehicles in California from 2040.

If adopted, the Clean Cars 2040 bill would require all new passenger vehicle registrations to be zero-emissions, and would take effect on January 1, 2040. It doesn't apply to commercial vehicles over 10,000 lbs, and it doesn't ban existing combustion cars or prevent people from moving into California and registering their pre-owned combustion car with California plates.

The move brings California, if not the rest of the United States, into line with plans several other regions are making. India, China and the EU, among other players, are looking to ban new combustion engine sales for passenger vehicles around 2030 to 2040, and the UK is following this up with a plan to get all existing fossil burning cars off the road by 2050.

These plans represent an enormous challenge to the automotive industry, and rely on some pretty significant technology and infrastructure progress. So the lead times are long, and allow plenty of years for gasoline enthusiasts to enjoy their remaining fossil-burning years.

Source: Clean Cars 2040

Derek Howe
I'm a big fan of EV's, but these bans are dumb. It's like banning VHS when DVD came out.
This is why California is a failing state, they think they can legislate a small subset of the population's views on to everyone else. I really don't think it is up to the state to pick and choose what technologies can or can't be sold in a state. People will just buy gas cars out of state and drive them. I have lived in California and the best thing I ever did was leave that pathetic nightmare of liberal and socialist thinking.
This argument is academic, it is market forces that will signal the end of the ICE and not legislation.
I think what the legislators in all countries are trying to do is show the population in general that they have a plan to reduce emissions - they'll know full well that market forces will sort it all out for them way sooner than their legislation kicks in.
Derek Howe-- a red herring argument, zero similarity between those examples. Tommo-- best & most logical comment
Ok. Now where is that 20 year plan to triple electric power production?
This decision on the part of California will not work. There will simply be not enough electrical power on the grid to sustain this, not enough quality product that will be for sale at the time, not enough Lithium in the world to build that many batteries, and with the mass exodus of the people of California (and all other liberal states), not enough customers to buy the car!
Derek Howe, you are right. Tommo, that is not logical. Banning one technology does not automatically show any evidence that there is any king of reliable plan to fully implement a replacement technology that will work just as good, or better then the one being replaced.
Besides my comments to Derek Howe and Tommo, another point is that the same ones pushing for such bans are also the same types that want no fossil fuel power plants, or nuclear, and are against hydroelectric because they mess up the environment for fish and other water dwelling life. They don't like wind energy because the spinning blades kill birds, and solar power is limited in scope (a given panel, produces less energy in the North, then it would if it were closer to the Equator, for example ) so what is the viable, approved power source they plan to use to power charging stations for EV's
california had better starting figuring out where the transportation energy is going to come from. i'm betting that the bill doesn't cover most every vehicle; motorcycles, delivery trucks, people that own vans and get them declared as commercial vehicles even though they aren't. i'm for EVs myself, although i live in an area and work with vehicles that have to be ICE powered for now...i'm hoping someday EV trucks with long range and pulling power do become common and cheap.
So is no one making the connection that Asia, and mostly China holds the market stranglehold on almost 100% of the rare earth metals needed for rechargeable batteries. I would argue that if the consumer could justify an EV over a PV (petroleum vehicle) purchase they would probably do it. But, the consumer probably just doesn't see the EV able to replace the PV yet. But, when it does consumers can logically make the switch easily. Perhaps a "moon shot" in rechargeable batteries and not legislative bans that make china the next "Saudi Arabia" holding the market hostage are the answer.
Uncle Robot
Excellent move but the timeline should be sooner - say 2025. The industry will deliver better EVs fast. Even better would be to add an additional excise tax to the sale of private vehicles to fund public transportation and better bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Man made CO2 from fossil fuel combustion is driving climate change. We MUST stop dumping our garbage into the atmosphere of our only home - Earth!
Load More