[Capricio]

"They mandate 35% of new cars sold must be electric or plug-in hybrid by 2026. That proportion will rise to 68% by 2030 and 100% by 2035."

...but again, nobody is MAKING you buy an EV! keep telling yourself that. I don't know what else you will be able to buy when your legacy ICE vehicle finally throws a rod, but NOBODY will force you to drive something. You can always walk, or ride high speed rail from San Diego to San Francisco, or whatever.... Stop spreading lies.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Capricio

"They mandate 35% of new cars sold must be electric or plug-in hybrid by 2026. That proportion will rise to 68% by 2030 and 100% by 2035."

...but again, nobody is MAKING you buy an EV! keep telling yourself that. I don't know what else you will be able to buy when your legacy ICE vehicle finally throws a rod, but NOBODY will force you to drive something. You can always walk, or ride high speed rail from LA to SF, or whatever.... Stop spreading lies.

I’ll assume that is directed to me and will answer accordingly. First, when the California Ban thing first came up I said two things about it. One, was that it didn’t make sense. The other was that since it was an Executive Order it did not have the force of law behind it and was therefore not a mandate, but a directive from the governor to study it. The governor doesn’t make law, they sign into law bills passed by the legislature. To my surprise, the California Legislature actually made it law, so it is what it is. At least until it changes.

From that point on my position is that the Federal Government has not mandated anything. Much like the governor of California, the president of the United States is executive branch and their saying they would like to see 50% EV by 2030 does not make it law. Congress would have to do that. If that happens I’ll really have to start wondering just what reality we are living in. It is simply not actionable and thus not a mandate.

So, unless you live in California or one of the other 11 states that follow CARB rules, nobody’s telling you that you have to buy anything. And quite frankly, by 2035 reality will kick in and the “ban” will be modified. And in California and the other states, buy what you want until 2035. Then you’ll have to buy in an adjacent state or buy a gently used vehicle (the ban is only for NEW vehicles). Again, at least until the law changes.

[Evergreen6]

Words matter with regard to the law, and as such, there is no mandate to purchase an EV. Even as these pipe-dreams are written, there's still nothing that prohibits the people of California from owning or operating an ICV, or even buying one out of state, or buying certain kinds of ICV's in state, let alone requiring them to own an EV.

So, yes, stop spreading lies.

[Evergreen6]

That's hilarious. Maybe they'll serve bugs as a snack on the bus.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by MSS1LE

You’re correct. California doesn’t plan to force anyone to buy an EV. They plan to make it impossible to buy or operate an ICE vehicle. I suspect they would prefer commoners not be allowed EVs either and be forced to use mass transit. But they’re taking the boiling a frog approach and many folks are buying into that. Others are actively participating in the farce.

Not correct. The law restricts the sale of NEW vehicles with ICE starting in 2035. It DOES NOT restrict the sale of used vehicles. It DOES NOT restrict operation of any ICE vehicles. So you can drive what you own and you can still buy used ICE vehicles in California. Expect a boom of sales for one year old cars from Nevada and Arizona in 2035.

[Capricio]

Originally Posted by Evergreen6

That's hilarious. Maybe they'll serve bugs as a snack on the bus.

Not at first, more likely they'll start ginning up fear about cow farts producing methane or nitrogen emissions and go after farmers in places like the Netherlands with crazy environmental regulations. Gradually the price of proteins like beef, chicken, and pork will become less affordable and harder to find. Then we'll start to see campaigns promoting "cricket flour" to convince us how healthy, affordable, and sustainable bug eating is.


They won't make us eat the bugs, or outlaw other meats, just restrict their production and ensure they are only affordable to the wealthy and WEF members at Davos that fly on solar powered private jets.



Eliminating alternatives is ultimately the same as forcing through coercion. I know you guys must realize this, but want to cling to a technicality so you can act as if this EV "revolution" is taking the world by storm with consumer demand. If you take away consumers other choices, even gradually, eventually you'll force them to comply with your agendas.

[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by Capricio

Not at first, more likely they'll start ginning up fear about cow farts producing methane or nitrogen emissions and go after farmers in places like the Netherlands with crazy environmental regulations. Gradually the price of proteins like beef, chicken, and pork will become less affordable and harder to find. Then we'll start to see campaigns promoting "cricket flour" to convince us how healthy, affordable, and sustainable bug eating is.


They won't make us eat the bugs, or outlaw other meats, just restrict their production and ensure they are only affordable to the wealthy and WEF members at Davos that fly on solar powered private jets.



Eliminating alternatives is ultimately the same as forcing through coercion. I know you guys must realize this, but want to cling to a technicality so you can act as if this EV "revolution" is taking the world by storm with consumer demand. If you take away consumers other choices, even gradually, eventually you'll force them to comply with your agendas.

Pork is incredibly efficient as far as resources, fish even moreso. Beef, not so much.

[Mr_Draco]

Everyone thinking "just go across state lines and buy" needs to know it won't be just that easy. From what I can find, 17 states currently has legislation passed that bans new ICE's in 2035. Nine states currently has legislation in the states House or Senate that bans new ICE's in 2035. Two states has passed legislation that bans ICE's but has not determined a year yet. That's 28 states that currently has banned or is getting ready to ban new ICE's and more are being added to the list every year. By the time the ban goes into effect, it won't be as simple as "go across the state line". It'll be more like "drive 5-6 states away".

I agree with Martin above that the 2035 timeline is unrealistic and will eventually be pushed back but it is still an issue.

Though in positive news North Carolina recently passed an amendment that strictly prohibits the state from ever banning the sale of new ICE's and that for such a ban to go in place, it must come from the federal level.

[Evergreen6]

One has to wonder why you’re not quoting actual proposed legislation, but rather spin that discusses extremist groups. Probably to support a narrative that creates FUD about the situation.

[chevy pilot]

[Capricio]

Originally Posted by Evergreen6

One has to wonder why you’re not quoting actual proposed legislation, but rather spin that discusses extremist groups.

So, we can agree the WEF is a bunch of fringe lunatics?

Well thank goodness they aren't in any positions of power or influence, then. Otherwise we might be in real jeopardy of them gradually accomplishing the goals of their agenda through fear and regulation.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by MSS1LE

This is the only post you've ever made that actually pissed me off. I've disagreed with you, but never been irritated that you held a different opinion.

So let's be clear. You do NOT KNOW for a FACT what the green agenda is. Therefore you have no basis to label my statement as "not correct".

I do not know for a fact. Just like I did not know for a fact that Cali Legislature would pass on putting Newsom’s ED into law. But I was wrong and they did. YOU do not KNOW for a FACT any more than I do what unspoken plans are and you did state it as if it is inevitable. That is incorrect. Nobody said it was the “plan” and there is no evidence that it is “the plan” so stating that it is “the plan” is incorrect. What is correct is that the law applies to new cars not used cars and the law says nothing about the operation of cars owned by 12/31/34.

Originally Posted by MSS1LE

You took my statement, which said absolutely nothing about what the current laws are, labeled it incorrect, then responded to something I didn't say.

Your exact words were “They plan to make it impossible to own or operate an ICE vehicle”. There is zero proof that this is indeed the plan of anyone who would have the power to enact it so it is not correct. That means it’s incorrect.

Originally Posted by MSS1LE

I said 'they plan'. Please provide evidence that supports your contention that there is no plan to eliminate ICE vehicles in California.

I can do a lot of things, but I cannot prove a negative. I can demonstrate absence of a positive and I think I’ve done that.

Originally Posted by MSS1LE

It's clear you're a smart guy and you're plugged into the industry. Given that, it's hard for me to take you seriously when you pretend that there isn't an agenda to tax and regulate ICE vehicles out of existence.

That probably is an end goal for somebody somewhere. Thing is, that somebody dos not appear to be in a position to forward whatever that agenda might be. I don’t react to voices crying out in the wilderness. I’ll just stop here because I am not going to respond to the wack job unsupported opinion pieces you linked. Everybody has an opinion. Very few of them tie to foundational data and fact. I ignore those. In God we trust. All others must bring data.

Originally Posted by Evergreen6

One has to wonder why you’re not quoting actual proposed legislation, but rather spin that discusses extremist groups. Probably to support a narrative that creates FUD about the situation.

This. There are extremist groups and media “sources” on both sides of the discussion. I equal opportunity ignore both sets of extremist.

[bigd1276]

Originally Posted by bigd1276

It’s mind blowing how the worlds richest and most influential people can clearly state their objectives and some peoples heads are buried so far in the sand they refuse to believe it.

I say again…

Hard to use the term “fringe group” with people of that much wealth and power.

[Martinjlm]

Seems to me that a lot of this thread has turned into “this random group of environmental extremists said <blah blah blah> and that is proof that they [whoever THEY are] are gonna ban our cars. That’s a huge stretch.

There is no doubt that people who are looking to forward an all electric car industry are listening to people who are on the environmental extremes. No arguments there. But expertise in environmental issues does not equate to expertise in automotive issues. Automotive decision makers do not exclusively listen to environmental extremists in making decisions and developing plans. They hear from a broad spectrum of environmental experts, measure the information and form their own opinions and make plans and decisions accordingly.

Because some guy attends Davos and comes away with an opinion that cars are bad or that we need to develop ways to keep cows from farting doesn’t mean that the CEOs and Boards of every major automaker will take that hook line and sinker and put all their money on EVs. The fact that many CEOs and Boards ARE moving fast toward EVs is an indication that they are listening to a broad spectrum of inputs on a number of issues and coming up with similar views of where the industry is headed. Not a big conspiracy. Simply similar understanding of a broad spectrum of inputs.

Prime example…about 10-15 years ago there was a bunch of noise that autonomous vehicles were gonna take over and people would be banned from driving. Those discussions were almost as fun as this thread. How’s that going? It’s been pretty much crickets for the past 3 - 5 years. Did all those “THEYs” just change their minds? Or did reality kick in? I vote reality kicked in.