Newsom eradicating sales of new gas powered cars by 2035 (apartments, car registration)

[roadwarrior101]

Originally Posted by Mike930

A little bit of both.

Have you thought of the impact on the electric grid or are you just wanting a touchy-feely solution that has no practical application but makes you feel good?

I have, believe me. I've never argued that the infrastructure we have today is sufficient. That is the case whether we have this mandate or not. I think you and I agree its insufficient, but have different views on how we solve for this. My view is that we need to be doing everything we can to beef up our infrastructure and set ourselves up to combat climate change the best we can. Yes, this will cost us a lot of money, but I look at the opportunity cost of doing nothing and that is truly terrifying.

I think the green economy does and will create more jobs and we need to adjust to this rather than trying to fight internally. The US has had a lot of opportunities to be the world leader here, but because of all of our political infighting, we've seriously dropped the ball and have made things worse for all of us.

[luv4horses]

If you already own a gas powered vehicle in 2034 it's okay to use it. After 2035 it looks like only electric (?) would be sold.

But you can be sure that if there is not enough availability or something else changes the ruling would be adjusted.

I'm thinking it's just an incentive for companies to strive to build cheap, efficient, electric cars. Or maybe nuclear powered (?)

[Mike930]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior101

I have, believe me. I've never argued that the infrastructure we have today is sufficient. That is the case whether we have this mandate or not. I think you and I agree its insufficient, but have different views on how we solve for this. My view is that we need to be doing everything we can to beef up our infrastructure and set ourselves up to combat climate change the best we can. Yes, this will cost us a lot of money, but I look at the opportunity cost of doing nothing and that is truly terrifying.

I think the green economy does and will create more jobs and we need to adjust to this rather than trying to fight internally. The US has had a lot of opportunities to be the world leader here, but because of all of our political infighting, we've seriously dropped the ball and have made things worse for all of us.

Years ago I went to an event that showcased electric cars. I was genuinely interested in buying one. At that time, the guy told me the range was 125 miles or so and it would take 2 hours to charge. I would never buy one because it was just not feasible at that time. You couldn’t go very far and would have to wait to long to get back home. It was also severely limiting on where you can go (at that time).

I’m not opposed to going electric but you have to do it the right way. This ain’t it. You have to develop the infrastructure first, then talk about the cars. That’s why I think the California politicians are not really serious about this as much as wanting the news headline about being the first state to do it.

If they were serious, you’d see them mandating an upgrade in the electric grid or doing something to incentivize the power companies to do so. Something to go in stages to make electric cars practical without a strain on the grid.

Instead, they just pass a law outlawing new gas car sales. That’s pretty short sighted. This is headed down the wackadoodle AOC green deal road.

[roadwarrior101]

Originally Posted by Mike930

Years ago I went to an event that showcased electric cars. I was genuinely interested in buying one. At that time, the guy told me the range was 125 miles or so and it would take 2 hours to charge. I would never buy one because it was just not feasible at that time. You couldn’t go very far and would have to wait to long to get back home. It was also severely limiting on where you can go (at that time).

I’m not opposed to going electric but you have to do it the right way. This ain’t it. You have to develop the infrastructure first, then talk about the cars. That’s why I think the California politicians are not really serious about this as much as wanting the news headline about being the first state to do it.

If they were serious, you’d see them mandating an upgrade in the electric grid or doing something to incentivize the power companies to do so. Something to go in stages to make electric cars practical without a strain on the grid.

Instead, they just pass a law outlawing new gas car sales. That’s pretty short sighted. This is headed down the wackadoodle AOC green deal road.

People were questioning Elon Musk's pie in the sky idea of developing a midpriced Tesla and he's developed a the Model 3 to appeal to a much larger consumer base. You've also noted above that the range was 125 miles. Now its 300-400 miles. The point is that the technology has and will continue to improve. It will get there within the next few years to where it is commercially viable for most consumers, both from an affordability as well a range perspective.

No argument that we should be planning for an infrastructure upgrade. However, if people have a better idea on how to do it, they should provide this as a counter argument. No isn't an argument. This is like the Republican argument for the ACA. They love to poke holes in it but don't offer a better alternative. And no, removing the coverage for tens of millions (in the middle of a pandemic nevertheless) is not a better alternative.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior101

No argument that we should be planning for an infrastructure upgrade. However, if people have a better idea on how to do it, they should provide this as a counter argument. No isn't an argument. This is like the Republican argument for the ACA. They love to poke holes in it but don't offer a better alternative. And no, removing the coverage for tens of millions (in the middle of a pandemic nevertheless) is not a better alternative.

Who is "they"? This isn't the private sector here. This is our state govt doing this, THEY should be the one providing a viable, workable plan.

[Mike930]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior101

People were questioning Elon Musk's pie in the sky idea of developing a midpriced Tesla and he's developed a the Model 3 to appeal to a much larger consumer base. You've also noted above that the range was 125 miles. Now its 300-400 miles. The point is that the technology has and will continue to improve. It will get there within the next few years to where it is commercially viable for most consumers, both from an affordability as well a range perspective.

No argument that we should be planning for an infrastructure upgrade. However, if people have a better idea on how to do it, they should provide this as a counter argument. No isn't an argument. This is like the Republican argument for the ACA. They love to poke holes in it but don't offer a better alternative. And no, removing the coverage for tens of millions (in the middle of a pandemic nevertheless) is not a better alternative.

The better idea is to make sure the infrastructure, technology and price point is there so everyone can afford it. I’m not sure why that’s so hard to understand.

As I said before, you plan ahead instead of a knee jerk “solution” that causes more problems than it solves.

[roadwarrior101]

Originally Posted by Mike930

The better idea is to make sure the infrastructure, technology and price point is there so everyone can afford it. I’m not sure why that’s so hard to understand.

I'm in agreement there. We have 15 years to get the infrastructure upgraded and have the auto companies continue to innovate. Some studies are showing that in about 5 years, we'll reach a point where it'll be cheaper to manufacture electric vs gas powered vehicles.

[roadwarrior101]

Originally Posted by sav858

Who is "they"? This isn't the private sector here. This is our state govt doing this, THEY should be the one providing a viable, workable plan.

I never said otherwise. Not sure where you got that impression.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior101

I never said otherwise. Not sure where you got that impression.

Ok so who is "they" that you refer to that should be presenting some sort of counter plan/argument you suggested?

[roadwarrior101]

Originally Posted by sav858

Ok so who is "they" that you refer to that should be presenting some sort of counter plan/argument you suggested?

People like yourself who are objecting to this type of green movement. If you think this is such an acute issue, maybe you should write a letter with your "grand plan" to your state representative, rather than shooting down all ideas for environmental improvement on CD? That would be a more effective way for you to 1 - vent your frustration and 2 - be part of the solution.