Summary

The Biden administration will allow California to ban new gas-powered car sales by 2035, with 11 other states following. This uses a Clean Air Act waiver permitting stricter state-level pollution controls to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Trump plans to revoke the waiver, roll back EV tax credits, and fight California’s climate policies, potentially sparking legal battles.

California, leading the U.S. in EV adoption, aims to “Trump-proof” its agenda, bolstered by automaker deals and strong market influence.

The ban could accelerate EV investments, shaping nearly half of the U.S. auto market and global climate policy trends.

Non-paywall link

    • pivot_root@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Why not both?

      Introduce a hypothetical Tesla Backcountry, Elon’s “unique” solution for people with range anxiety. Instead of worrying about charge stations, the Backcountry can be recharged at any old gas station by filling it up with “liquid x power,” which the car burns to recharge its battery while running. It’s not a hybrid, it’s electric /s

  • Subtracty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    Most people can’t afford EVs anyway. At this point, there will just be older and older gas-powered vehicles on the road.

    Would love it if Musk could actually solve a fucking problem every once in a while, instead of running his mouth about the hundred other things he claims to have a solution to. Make a functional and cheap EV, no stupid bells and whistles, no gimmicks.

    I know there are other car manufacturers, but they are too concerned about the bottom line. Musk effectively has more money than god. He can afford to take a loss for the greater good. He just never will.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Most people can’t afford EVs anyway

      Well yeah, most people buy used cars. But a used ev of a given year is likely to be in a similar price range as a comparable gas engine car. The question is, is there sufficient availability of used electric cars? From the sound of it, there will be in CA by 2035. Certainly, if everyone buying new cars is buying electric, then the number is used EVs available will skyrocket.

      And either way, I’m sure this regulation is about new cars, nobody is going to stop you from buying a used 2025 civic in 2035, that’s fine. I mean the car already exists, it would be environmentally negligent to replace it as long as it still runs. You just can’t buy a new ice car after that.

      I’m curious though, does this regulation ban hybrids?

      • Subtracty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        nobody is going to stop you from buying a used 2025 civic in 2035, that’s fine

        This is what I meant, cars already in circulation having longer lives. I frankly don’t know anything about used EVs, but plenty of people I know can list reliable gas powered cars that will run for incredibly long times with a little love. We need EVs to be manageable cars of the people that can be maintained at home on a budget and not proprietary dealerships.

        It wasn’t my aim to discredit the bill, only to complain that Musk is useless and will line his pockets before actually creating something that is useful for the public.

        • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          But the thing is, you’ll also be able to buy a 2025 Tesla in 2035, and the price probably won’t be far off from the civic. In other words, there’s no problem here.

          • JamesTBagg@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Except Honda and those Civics have established a reputation of running forever. Tesla cannot claim the same.

              • JamesTBagg@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                Which one is that? The one you made up or the one that was famous for it and needing the drive motor replaced over a dozen times?

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      They can ban the sale. They can also refuse to register the car, so no license plate. You’d get in a fair amount of trouble if caught driving an unregistered vehicle.

      • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        They can also refuse to register the car,

        Virginia has a model for this that can be a tad regressive; not sure about CA. On the one hand, there’s regular safety and emissions tests that must be passed or you cannot (re)register your car for the coming year or two. This more or less keeps deathtraps and oil-burning-smog-machines off the road. On the other hand, it has absolutely crippled plenty of households just scraping by where that old car is needed to just break even every month. Depending on where one stands on car-dependent culture and if owning/operating a vehicle is a necessity, it can be quite the contentious issue.

        Point being, I can easily see how a higher bar for registration, and re-registration, can change the makeup of what’s on the road. I can also see how that can suddenly prevent a whole chunk of the population from participating.

  • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I didn’t see anything in the article about this, but does the regulation also ban hybrid vehicles? Just curious.

    It would be a bit funny if like… Chevy bolt = cool, Chevy volt = illegal