California to Ban the Sale of New Gasoline Cars by 2035

Maxxam

Rising Star
Platinum Member


The decision, to take effect by 2035, will very likely speed a wider transition to electric vehicles because many other states follow California’s standards.

WASHINGTON — California is expected to put into effect on Thursday its sweeping plan to prohibit the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035, a groundbreaking move that could have major effects on the effort to fight climate change and accelerate a global transition toward electric vehicles.

“This is huge,” said Margo Oge, an electric vehicles expert who headed the Environmental Protection Agency’s transportation emissions program under Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. “California will now be the only government in the world that mandates zero-emission vehicles. It is unique.”

The rule, issued by the California Air Resources Board, will require that 100 percent of all new cars sold in the state by 2035 be free of the fossil fuel emissions chiefly responsible for warming the planet, up from 12 percent today. It sets interim targets requiring that 35 percent of new passenger vehicles sold in the state by 2026 produce zero emissions. That would climb to 68 percent by 2030.

The restrictions are important because not only is California the largest auto market in the United States, but more than a dozen other states typically follow California’s lead when setting their own auto emissions standards.


“The climate crisis is solvable if we focus on the big, bold steps necessary to stem the tide of carbon pollution,” Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, said in a statement.

California’s action comes on top of an expansive new climate law that President Biden signed last week. The law will invest $370 billion in spending and tax credits on clean energy programs, the largest action ever taken by the federal government to combat climate change. Enactment of that law is projected to help the United States cut its emissions 40 percent below 2005 levels by the end of this decade. Still, it will not be enough to eliminate U.S. emissions by 2050, the target that climate scientists say all major economies must reach if the world is to avert the most catastrophic and deadly impacts of climate change.

To help close the gap, White House officials have vowed to couple the bill with new regulations, including on automobile tailpipe emissions. They have also said that reducing emissions enough to stay in line with the science also will require aggressive state policies.

Experts said the new California rule, in both its stringency and reach, could stand alongside the Washington law as one of the world’s most important climate change policies, and could help take another significant bite out of the nation’s emissions of carbon dioxide. The new rule is also expected to influence new policies in Washington and around the world to promote electric vehicles and cut auto pollution.

“It’s the action we must take if we’re serious about leaving this planet better off for future generations,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement on Wednesday.
At least 12 other states could potentially adopt the new California zero-emissions vehicle mandate relatively soon; another five states, which follow California’s broader vehicle pollution reduction program, are expected to adopt the rule in a year or so. If those states follow through, the restrictions on gasoline-vehicle sales would apply to about one-third of the United States’ auto market.

That would have a major effect on addressing climate change, since emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles are the nation’s top source of planet-warming greenhouse-gas pollution.

John Bozzella, president of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents large U.S. and foreign automakers, said California’s new electric vehicle sale mandates would be “extremely challenging” to meet. “Whether or not these requirements are realistic or achievable is directly linked to external factors like inflation, charging and fuel infrastructure, supply chains, labor, critical mineral availability and pricing, and the ongoing semiconductor shortage,” Mr. Bozzella said by email.

He said automakers wanted to see more electric vehicles on the roads, but called on the state and the federal government to do more to address issues such as the ability to mine critical minerals like lithium and cobalt in the United States, the affordability of electric vehicles and equitable access to fast charging.

The governments of Canada, Britain and at least nine other European countries — including France, Spain and Denmark — have set goals of phasing out the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles between 2030 and 2040. But none have concrete mandates or regulations like the California rule.

“This regulation will set the global high-water mark for the accelerated transition to electric vehicles,” said Drew Kodjak, executive director of the International Council on Clean Transportation, a research organization.

In Washington, President Biden last year signed an executive order calling for the government to try to ensure that half of all vehicles sold in the United States be electric by 2030, up from 6 percent today, although the order has no binding legal force.

President Biden at the Ford Rouge Electric Vehicle Center in Dearborn, Mich., last year.Doug Mills/The New York Times
Mr. Biden has also sought to enact federal policies that would further scale up the nation’s use of electric vehicles. The new climate spending bill includes $14 billion in tax incentives for buyers of new and used electric cars. Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency restored and slightly strengthened an Obama-era fuel economy rule that had been set aside by the Trump administration. It requires passenger vehicles to get 55 miles per gallon by 2026, from just under 40 miles per gallon today.

That national regulation is much less ambitious than California’s rule coming into effect this week, but it was the Biden administration that allowed California to press forward with its ambitious policy: It restored a Clean Air Act waiver giving California legal authority to set auto pollution and mileage rules that are tighter than federal standards, a potent climate policy that had been halted by former President Donald J. Trump.

It is that authority that allows California to enact the new rule. Once in place, the California rule is expected to influence a new federal standard that the E.P.A. expects to introduce next year, further encouraging automakers to build and sell more electric vehicles.

But there is already fierce legal pushback against those plans.

The attorneys general of 17 Republican-led states have sued to revoke the California waiver, which would undo the new policy. The lawsuit, which will be heard before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, considered the nation’s second most powerful bench after the Supreme Court. Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled.
 
shutterstock_520789864-736x449.jpg


p8713477-2.jpg


It is highly suspect how they designed everything, concentrating us into cities, while they commute in from the suburbs breathing clean air. Diesel exhaust is a known carcinogen. The technology to build EV has been around for decades.

The Nazis used car exhaust to kill Jews in the Holocaust.

deathslinked.jpg
 
the future is here... time to buy EV, EV battery and EV charging station stocks... FREE MONEY
Buy the components of the batteries and cars, the companies aren’t making money and most will fail and get absorbed. Chips, lithium, aluminum, etc. Most of these cars will be 80k and up and won’t sell many for years, if ever.
 
Bold.

But that's 13 years from now. Plenty of time for revisions or even repeal of the bill. Let's see what Big Oil has to say.
 
So people that can't afford a brand new car will be on gas for the most part...or are they expected to buy used EV cars with months left on the battery and then replace for 10 grand?
usedcarsalesman.jpg

Quietly buys used car lot in California. Cholos aint going green no time soon.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: PJN
In 13 years, EV's will be as cheap as a regular car and cheaper when you figure in gas savings. Cali is leading the way as usual. As the largest automotive market and worlds eight largest economy, they will drive market forces.



They said that
same shit 20 years ago.
Electric cars have been around for 100 years.

Batteries are worse than gas because it takes fuel to make them and disposal is a pain.

You aren't getting rid of the cabon footprint just shitting to were the batteries are made.

Once the first generation of these cars are retired worldwide, please explain were are we going to put a half billion car batteries?

At $80k a car it clear that the ca4 will have a rich first owner then be rideshared for the general public. Selling you less and making you more dependent on the car company.
 
Some folks will be shocked by the changes that we will experience over the next ten years. This is why I say live these years to the fullest and appreciate what we have now, there is no guarantee that you'd be able to do the same five much less ten years from now.
 
They said that
same shit 20 years ago.
Electric cars have been around for 100 years.

Batteries are worse than gas because it takes fuel to make them and disposal is a pain.

You aren't getting rid of the cabon footprint just shitting to were the batteries are made.

Once the first generation of these cars are retired worldwide, please explain were are we going to put a half billion car batteries?

At $80k a car it clear that the ca4 will have a rich first owner then be rideshared for the general public. Selling you less and making you more dependent on the car company.
They are working on making batteries safer and cheaper, another technology to look out for is, flow batteries for industrial-grade power storage, Fission Reactors (the holy grail of renewable energy, Salt Thorium reactors (for clean safe nuclear energy), and many other technologies that can make EV's better at reducing our carbon footprint.



 
Too soon!!

I'd say 2045 is more realistic.

You are not a scientist, and in reality, carbon emission needs to be dropped in half by 2030, and as early as 2044 the world needs to be carbon neutral, in order to prevent the runaway greenhouse effect that once started there is no reversing.










Editor's Note: This article was updated in January 2022 to include WRI’s latest research and information about new national net-zero targets.

The latest climate science is clear: Limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) is still possible. But to avoid the worst climate impacts, global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will need to drop by half by 2030 and reach net-zero around mid-century.

Recognizing this urgency, a rapidly growing number of national government, local government and business leaders are making commitments to reach net-zero emissions within their jurisdictions or businesses. To date, over 80 countries have communicated such “net-zero targets,” including the world’s largest emitters (China, the United States, the European Union and India). On top of that, hundreds more regions, cities and businesses have set targets of their own.



But what does a net-zero target mean, what’s the science behind net-zero and which countries have already made such commitments? Here are eight common questions and answers about net zero:

1. What Does It Mean to Reach Net-Zero Emissions?
Net-zero emissions will be achieved when all GHG emissions released by human activities are counterbalanced by removing GHGs from the atmosphere in a process known as carbon removal.

First and foremost, human-caused emissions (such as those from fossil-fueled vehicles and factories) should be reduced as close to zero as possible. Any remaining GHGs should then be balanced with an equivalent amount of carbon removal, which can happen through things like restoring forests or using direct air capture and storage (DACS) technology.



2. When Does the World Need to Reach Net-Zero Emissions?
Under the Paris Agreement, countries agreed to limit warming well below 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F), ideally to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F). Global climate impacts that are already unfolding under the current 1.1 degrees C (1.98 degrees F) of warming — from melting ice to devastating heat waves and more intense storms — show the urgency of minimizing temperature increase.

The latest science suggests that reaching the Paris Agreement's temperature goals will require reaching net-zero emissions on the following timelines:

  • In scenarios limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C, carbon dioxide (CO2) needs to reach net-zero between 2044 and 2052, and total GHG emissions must reach net-zero between 2063 and 2068. Reaching net zero earlier in the range avoids a risk of temporarily overshooting 1.5 degrees C. Reaching the top of the range almost guarantees surpassing 1.5 degrees C for some time before it eventually drops down.
  • In scenarios limiting warming to 2 degrees C, CO2 needs to reach net zero by 2070 (for a 66% likelihood of limiting warming to 2 degrees C) to 2085 (with a 50-66% likelihood). Total GHG emissions must reach net-zero by the end of the century or beyond.

The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5˚C, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), finds that if the world reaches net-zero emissions by 2040, the chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C is considerably higher. The sooner emissions peak, and the lower they are at that point, the more realistic achieving net zero becomes. This would also create less reliance on carbon removal in the second half of the century.

This does not suggest that all countries need to reach net-zero emissions at the same time. The chances of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C, however, depend significantly on how soon the highest emitters reach net-zero emissions. Equity-related considerations — including responsibility for past emissions, equality in per-capita emissions and capacity to act — also suggest earlier dates for wealthier, higher-emitting countries.

Importantly, the time frame for reaching net-zero emissions is different for CO2 alone versus for CO2 plus other GHGs like methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases. For non-CO2 emissions, the net zero date is later because models suggest that some of these emissions — such as methane from agricultural sources — are more difficult to phase out. However, these potent but short-lived gases will drive temperatures higher in the near-term, potentially pushing temperature change past the 1.5 degrees C threshold much earlier.

Because of this, it's important for countries to specify whether their net-zero targets cover CO2 only or all GHGs. A comprehensive net-zero emissions target would include all GHGs, ensuring that non-CO2 gases are also reduced.

3. What Needs to Happen to Achieve Net-Zero Emissions?
Policy, technology and behavior need to shift across the board. For example, in pathways to 1.5 degrees C, renewables are projected to supply 70-85% of electricity by 2050. Energy efficiency and fuel-switching measures are critical for reducing emissions from transportation. Improving the efficiency of food production, changing dietary choices, halting deforestation, restoring degraded lands and reducing food loss and waste also have significant potential to reduce emissions.


It is critical that the structural and economic transition necessary to limit warming to 1.5 degrees C is approached in a just manner, especially for workers tied to high-carbon industries. The good news is that most of the necessary technologies are available and increasingly cost-competitive with high-carbon alternatives. Solar and wind now provide the cheapest power available for 67% of the world. Markets are waking up to these opportunities and to the risks of a high-carbon economy, and shifting accordingly.

Investments in carbon removal techniques are also necessary. The different pathways assessed by the IPCC to achieve 1.5 degrees C all rely on carbon removal to some extent. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere will compensate for emissions from sectors in which reaching net-zero emissions is more difficult, such as aviation. Carbon removal can be achieved by several means, including through land-based approaches and technological approaches.

4. Is the World on Track to Reach Net-Zero Emissions on Time to Avoid the Worst Climate Impacts?
No — despite the enormous benefits of climate action, progress is happening far too slowly for the world to hold temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F).


Significant gains have been made to reduce emissions, such as increasing the share of renewables in electricity generation. However, efforts to phase out unabated coal remain well off-track and must decline five times faster by 2030. Similarly, the share of electric vehicles in light-duty vehicle (LDV) sales hit 4.3% in 2020, increasing at a compound average growth rate of 50% over the last five years. Although promising, such progress still needs to accelerate significantly to help reduce the transport sector’s emissions and reach 75-95% of LDV sales by the end of this decade, a target aligned with limited warming to 1.5 degrees C.

Additionally, action must be taken to reverse course in cases, where change is at a standstill or headed in the wrong direction entirely. For instance, the world needs to drastically slow deforestation and increase tree cover gain three times faster by 2030.

5. How Many Countries Have Net-Zero Targets?
Global momentum for setting net-zero targets is growing quickly, with key economies like China, the United States and the European Union articulating such commitments. Bhutan was the first country to set a net-zero target in 2015. Now over 80 countries, representing more than 70% of global emissions, are covered by a net-zero target.


Climate Watch’s Net-Zero Tracker shows how these targets were set, such as through nationally determined contributions (NDCs), long-term low GHG emissions development strategies (long-term strategies), domestic laws, policies or high-level political pledges from heads of state or other cabinet members. The tracker also includes information on the scope of the targets, providing information about the GHGs and sectors covered by each, the extent to which the target relies on international offsets and more.

6. Does the Paris Agreement Commit Countries to Achieving Net-Zero Emissions?
In short, yes. Specifically, the Paris Agreement sets a long-term goal of achieving "a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty." This concept of balancing emissions and removals is akin to reaching net-zero emissions.

The Glasgow Climate Pact, signed at COP26 and marking the five year anniversary of the Paris Agreement, urges countries to move “towards just transitions to net zero emissions by or around midcentury, taking into account different national circumstances.” To this end, the pact encourages parties “that have not yet done so to communicate…long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies” that set the country on a pathway toward net zero. The shift from “in the second half of this century” to “by or around mid-century” reflects a notable increase in perceived urgency.

7. Why and How Should Countries Align Their Near-Term Emissions-Reduction Targets with a Net-Zero Emissions Goal?
Countries typically set net-zero targets for around 2050 — nearly three decades from now. However, in order to ensure that the country gets on the right track toward realizing this ambition, the long-term objective must guide and inform near-term action today. This will help avoid locking in carbon-intensive, non-resilient infrastructure and technologies. Countries can also cut near- and long-term costs by investing in green infrastructure that will not need to be phased out later, designing consistent policies and sending strong signals to the private sector to invest in climate action.

Under the Paris Agreement, countries agreed to submit climate plans every five years, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs). NDCs, which currently target 2030, are an important tool to align near- and long-term goals. When informed by a country’s long-term vision, these documents can help governments implement the policies necessary in the nearer term to realize an ambitious mid-century objective.

Many countries with net-zero targets are beginning to incorporate them directly into their near-term NDCs, particularly now that the Glasgow Climate Pact “notes the importance of aligning nationally determined contributions with long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies.” Ultimately, it is critical that countries act today and set near-term plans that will put them on the right track toward realizing their long-term objectives.

8. Are Net-Zero Targets a Form of Greenwashing?
No, but they can be if used as an excuse to not take bold climate action in the near-term.

Although net-zero targets continue to gain traction with governments and companies, skeptical voices have emerged, from academic journals to campaign groups to Greta Thunberg’s speech in Davos. Critiques of net-zero targets include:

a. The “net” aspect of net-zero targets could dampen efforts to rapidly cut emissions.
Critics are concerned that this could foster an overreliance on carbon removal, allowing decision-makers to use net-zero targets to avoid emission reductions in the near-term. Decision-makers can address this concern by setting ambitious gross reduction targets (targets that do not rely on removals) alongside their longer-term net reduction targets.

b. Some countries’ net-zero targets rely on purchasing emissions reductions, delaying reductions within their own boundaries.
Some countries are setting net-zero targets that rely on investing in or paying for emissions reductions from other countries to use toward their own targets. There’s concern that government leaders might use this strategy to avoid reducing their own emissions in the long-term. Decision-makers can address this concern by setting deep emission reduction targets that explicitly avoid or limit using offsets to achieve their goals.

c. The time horizon for net-zero targets — typically 2050 — feels distant.
Today’s infrastructure can last for decades and have a major impact on mid-century targets. Decision-makers must take this into account by establishing near- and mid-term milestones for their path to net-zero emissions, including by setting ambitious 2030 emission reduction targets as part of their NDCs. NDCs are subject to transparency and accountability mechanisms under the Paris Agreement that can foster implementation in the near term, which is critical for a long-term net-zero goal to be credible.

In short, net-zero commitments must be robust to be effective and advance climate action. Countries must take concrete steps to ensure this if they are to effectively address the challenge at hand.
 

Not a opinion!
This is not a choice!
There isn't a chance to do over!
Not something you can simply pray away!
Not something you can cancel or pull up and shoot away!
Not a situation that PaPa government bucks can buy you out of.
Not something eating vegetables, almonds, or doing exercise is gonna help you!
Nothing Jesus, Budah, Muhammad, Moses, Abraham or Mother Ma'at, or Melanin can do to help!
Now, are you guys starting to get it? If we don't do a whole lot of change within the next 20 years we might lose everything!
If we fuck up everybody will die plus not looking up isn't going to help!!!!
 
um, what are you going to do with the batteries?

man, a lot of cats wont ever get a new car. the price alone would keep them out and the battery is a grip, which cost about 10 g's

About to be cuba in this bish, everyone rolling in 92 civics and shit.

they are going to have to make these cars way cheaper. and they need to build a lot of new charging stations. right now, its already crowded
 
Last edited:
fun fact. when your battery dies with your tesla, you can't put it in neutral.

tow truckers have fun
 
I mentioned about how in texas they had that winter where the power went out with below 30 degree Temps

A lot of ppl fled to their cars for heat becuase their homes had no power and there was no wood to burn

That power outage went on for a week maybe more - you had to refill your tank if you wanted to stay warm - but if you had an electric car? After about a day you'd be screwed
 
Whatever happened with that car that runs on used cooking oil? Dude was getting his oil from McDonald's and riding off that for free.
 
California is the most progressive and forward thinking state in the country. If the cost of living and taxes weren't so high I'd move there. :hmm:
 
California wasn’t first. NY Gov signed the same bill in September 2021

 
Got a piece of property it wouldn't be a bad idea to put a couple charging stations on it either.
:money::money:

My thoughts exactly. How can I capitalize on this "new trend". Get in early in states that don't have that law. Make money once laws hit in those states.
Fam, any ideas?
 
I mentioned about how in texas they had that winter where the power went out with below 30 degree Temps

A lot of ppl fled to their cars for heat becuase their homes had no power and there was no wood to burn

That power outage went on for a week maybe more - you had to refill your tank if you wanted to stay warm - but if you had an electric car? After about a day you'd be screwed
Some of those people died of carbon monoxide poisoning. This guy was prepared:

 
I mentioned about how in texas they had that winter where the power went out with below 30 degree Temps

A lot of ppl fled to their cars for heat becuase their homes had no power and there was no wood to burn

That power outage went on for a week maybe more - you had to refill your tank if you wanted to stay warm - but if you had an electric car? After about a day you'd be screwed
I lived thru it. I remember very well
 
Back
Top