Certain Countries and States to ban the sale of gas powered cars by 2050

Do you support the ban on selling gas powered cars by 2050?

  • Yes, I am in favor of it.

  • No, I disagree with it.

Results are only viewable after voting.
Pretty pointless imo, it's soo far in the future who knows the direction that is most efficient at that time.

Personally I think atleast in US case they should be more looking at commercial vehicles, their best selling car for example is under some very relaxed emission laws compared to the passenger cars.
 
Not so bad, as long as I can buy and drive a used car freely. But good luck with 2050, I'd say a tad early. Maybe 2070 would be better.
 
I think it would take much longer than that to phase out selling petrol powered vehicles. It will only work if the technology has become as equally cheap and efficient, i.e. cars which can drive hundreds of miles on electric and recharge in under a minute. Also with fuel prices falling, development will stall because the biggest advances are made when there is a need.
 
That's going to put quite a load on national power infrastructure I'd have thought. Although, I guess most people would charge them overnight when the load from other things is less.
 
Not sure why a ban would be needed. If the technology exists for electric cars to be as convenient (see range) and as cheap as the cars that people are used to having, gas powered cars will phase out on their own as per the demand of the market.

Also, lol Quebec.
 
1241Penguin
Not sure why a ban would be needed. If the technology exists for electric cars to be as convenient (see range) and as cheap as the cars that people are used to having, gas powered cars will phase out on their own as per the demand of the market.
Click to expand...

That was my thought. Make them as good as gas cars and people will buy them.

I'd rather see them trying to shift stuff like buses and lorries to electric. If they can solve that, then they've also solved one of the major problems with penetration in the private market.
 
Robin.
I think it would take much longer than that to phase out selling petrol powered vehicles. It will only work if the technology has become as equally cheap and efficient, i.e. cars which can drive hundreds of miles on electric and recharge in under a minute. Also with fuel prices falling, development will stall because the biggest advances are made when there is a need.
Click to expand...
This. Though I suspect electric cars will be wholly usable by 2050, I suspect we'll still be transitioning towards EVs by then, rather than having fully transferred.

Though I don't think EV development will stall with the current low fuel prices - it's unlikely that the current prices will remain as they are for too long, and other concerns still take precedent regardless of how low fuel prices are. Pollution, for example. VW seems slightly more keen to produce EVs now its diesel scam has been unearthed.

That, and as @1241Penguin says, a ban seems unnecessary - the market will decide what it wants to buy. Again, by 2050 I suspect most consumers will already have decided upon some form of electrified vehicle, be that a full EV or some kind of plug-in hybrid or hydrogen effort. Banning something that potentially a minority of people will be buying would be largely meaningless.

On a personal level? I'd object to a flat-out ban, but I don't object to its effects. I'd be quite happy for most people to drive electric vehicles, but I'd prefer that happened naturally.
 
I've read a report that Audi (before dieselgate) was working on e-benzine and e-diesel, a combustible fuel that isn't petroleum based and sulfur free, Although I didn't hear much after about it after dieselgate.
 
"Oregon, Vermont..."

Stabbed in the back by my two home states. :banghead: Hopefully they don't vote for it. I don't know why Vermont would though, nobody lives here practically. :odd:
 
catamount39
"Oregon, Vermont..."
Click to expand...
I believe both are states that already operate under CARB regulations, so they're always likely to go along with whatever zany scheme the Californians come up with next. If those states have emissions testing as part of a yearly check-up, it's probably done to CARB standards.
 
State law. *sigh*

The market will define what products are desired. There is a social progressiveness that will timescale the transition from IC engines in personal vehicles to... something else. Tesla is illustrating that electric power can be fun and desireable, even though it's in a hybrid. That last bit doesn't matter as long as battery research is being funded in the market.

I'd like to see Oregon and Vermont's power grid plans to support their plan. If they don't include some next-gen nuclear fission power plants, I'd be surprised.

Once cold fusion's up and running, IC cars will become a specialist niche. Any state which outlaws them totally is utterly daft. Why ban what you can tax? The price of fuel will be market driven as ever, but demand will be much lower for personal use, so which way the price will go will be dependent on government. The golden fifty years of modern vehicle development will take longer than 35 years to pension off. If I get to live to 125 years old, I want to be driving my 1968 Cougar still, 98-octane guzzling 302 V8 and all.
 
Venari
The market will define what products are desired. There is a social progressiveness that will timescale the transition from IC engines in personal vehicles to... something else. Tesla is illustrating that electric power can be fun and desireable, even though it's in a hybrid. That last bit doesn't matter as long as battery research is being funded in the market.
Click to expand...
Tesla's products are all full-EV, unless you mean hybrid in a different context.

I'd say McLaren/Ferrari/Porsche/BMW are doing a good job of making hybrids interesting to a wider audience, though.
 
Ahhh, are they? OK. I thought they were, actually, then I doubted but didn't check. I must have been thinking of that Fisker abomination.
 
Carbonox
Most ridiculous idea I've heard in a long time.

Want to cut down emissions? Look no further than the big-ass cargo ships and *puke* private jets...
Click to expand...

Cargo ships? At least they serve a fairly important purpose.

Cruise ships, though, they're the largest, most wasteful example of excess that has ever seen the light of day, and yet they continue going, burning upwards of 30 gallons per mile so people can vacation on their way to a vacation.
 
/sarcasm
Well, it just makes sense.

I mean electricity is pollution free, right? The electricity comes from the outlet, so no smoke.

It's not like the lithium ion batteries are bad for the environment or anything.

/sarcasm off

Seriously, if you want to go green maybe our country should start building stuff with some level of quality again. My parents old TV lasted 20+ years, only swapped it out because they moved and it didn't fit. How green is it to buy a new car every 4 years?

We live in a disposable society that pretends to be green. Just shut the hell up and play with your iPhone, treehuggers.
 
Utterly ridiculous.

The only thing that might be required from the government is a small nudge to the customer, such as a tax break on EVs(wait...we already have that in most states don't we?) or a tax hike on gas-powered cars or gas itself. Just to give another reason for people who are less progressive thinking to switch to cleaner technologies.

On a side note, I've often wondered what the automotive landscape would look like in North America if our gas prices were as high as in Europe. Hybrids and EVs have gained an amazingly strong foothold here despite us paying less at the pump then pretty much everyone else.
 
Anthony
On a side note, I've often wondered what the automotive landscape would look like in North America if our gas prices were as high as in Europe. Hybrids and EVs have gained an amazingly strong foothold here despite us paying less at the pump then pretty much everyone else.
Click to expand...
It's certainly an interesting situation. North America, the land of cheap gas and big distances, is actually a better place to run electric cars than Europe, the land of expensive gas and small distances.

There are other factors though. New cars are cheaper in NA than they are in EUR, which applies to EVs too. EVs are currently really cheap to lease in NA.

I think it also makes a difference that the state where EVs are currently most popular - California - gets a significant proportion of its energy from renewables (at least 40% I believe, but it could be more). And the climate is good, which isn't just good for battery life but also means a lot of people stick solar panels on the roof and can effectively travel for free.

Incentives also play a part. They're particularly high in California, once the federal tax credit, state incentives, carpool lane access etc are considered. They're clearly important, since the one place EVs are doing the best in Europe is Norway, which taxes regular cars heavily and doesn't tax EVs at all, gives EVs free parking etc - when I was writing for a green car site a few years back, EVs would regularly top the monthly highest-sold vehicles list there.

Norway, incidentally, has even stricter all-electric plans than the rest of the world.
 
0ldman279
/sarcasm
Well, it just makes sense.

I mean electricity is pollution free, right? The electricity comes from the outlet, so no smoke.

It's not like the lithium ion batteries are bad for the environment or anything.

/sarcasm off

Seriously, if you want to go green maybe our country should start building stuff with some level of quality again. My parents old TV lasted 20+ years, only swapped it out because they moved and it didn't fit. How green is it to buy a new car every 4 years?

We live in a disposable society that pretends to be green. Just shut the hell up and play with your iPhone, treehuggers.
Click to expand...
The real benefit though is not choking directly on fumes in towns or busy roads filled with inhabitants. But yea generally they talk about electric as if its completely clean
 
Anthony
tax hike on gas-powered cars or gas itself. Just to give another reason for people who are less progressive thinking to switch to cleaner technologies.
Click to expand...
Is even that necessary though? Owning a gas powered car doesn't mean that you don't care or that you're doing more damage to the environment. What if you own that gas car because you happen to fancy it, but your home runs completely on solar panels, you bike to work, and you limit as much as possible the disposable waste you generate in every day life? You could own that car and be cleaner than 90% of people. Do you really need nagging to be more environmentally friendly?
 
Exorcet
Is even that necessary though? Owning a gas powered car doesn't mean that you don't care or that you're doing more damage to the environment. What if you own that gas car because you happen to fancy it, but your home runs completely on solar panels, you bike to work, and you limit as much as possible the disposable waste you generate in every day life? You could own that car and be cleaner than 90% of people. Do you really need nagging to be more environmentally friendly?
Click to expand...
In the situation you describe - owning a car but not using it much - a tax hike on gas wouldn't affect you much anyway.

The whole point of extra tax on fuel as described by @Anthony is to persuade those who do use more of it to use less of it. The guy doing 15mpg to work and back each day will be hit harder than the person cycling each day and just going out for a blast or going to the mall on a weekend. A car you aren't using isn't costing you tax dollars.

Much as people like to complain about tax on fuel*, it's the fairest way of applying any kind of consumption or emissions-based tax, because it's directly proportional to how often you drive, how far you drive, how economically you drive, and how much fuel your car uses. Drive more, pay more. Drive less, pay less.

Own a project you barely ever drive, and you'll barely ever pay any tax on it. Unlike in the UK where if it's registered you pay a CO2-based tax that's applied regardless of how often you drive. You could do 20 miles a year in a Ferrari and pay more vehicle tax than someone doing 20,000 miles a year in a Fiat.



* And given that there's been no rise in Federal gas tax since 1993 because it'd be political suicide to propose it, there's a lot less to complain about there than in the UK for example, where approximately 60% of the price we pay for fuel is tax...
 
Those states might as well just ban just about about anything that uses a ICE e.g. motorcycles, planes right down to gardening equipment.
 
Ban it? No. There's no good reason to outright ban it. Tax the crap out of it to dissuade purchases? Yes, if EVs and HFC vehicles are plentiful, practical, and competitively priced.

That means getting rid of government subsidies for buying and making these next-gen vehicles. They need to stand financially on their own two feet before we go thinking about banning something.

As some people have mentioned and alluded to; we need to look at planes, trains, and ships too. Never mind that, how about the heating oil used in homes, coal fired power plants, etc? If we're looking at being green, then we need a universal fix, not just something aimed at vehicles.
 
homeforsummer
In the situation you describe - owning a car but not using it much - a tax hike on gas wouldn't affect you much anyway.

The whole point of extra tax on fuel as described by @Anthony is to persuade those who do use more of it to use less of it. The guy doing 15mpg to work and back each day will be hit harder than the person cycling each day and just going out for a blast or going to the mall on a weekend. A car you aren't using isn't costing you tax dollars.
Click to expand...

Fair point. I know the post I replied to wasn't on the exact same subject I brought up. However what I was getting at was that even if you owned and used a gas powered car, that doesn't mean you are necessarily a heavy contributor to pollution/etc. You could still be far better than average when it comes to things besides the car, maybe it would even be enough to make you cleaner than the people that just try to get around paying a tax.

The extra cost from the tax could also dissuade the purchase of other environmentally friendly items. For example, the gas guzzler tax ($1000+) can very easily take the place of a new high efficiency appliance or set of appliances and make it harder to get something like solar panels installed in the home. Obviously not everyone was dying to put the tax money into a new low energy use fridge, but I don't think I'm the only person who would consider it.



Much as people like to complain about tax on fuel*, it's the fairest way of applying any kind of consumption or emissions-based tax, because it's directly proportional to how often you drive, how far you drive, how economically you drive, and how much fuel your car uses. Drive more, pay more. Drive less, pay less.

Own a project you barely ever drive, and you'll barely ever pay any tax on it. Unlike in the UK where if it's registered you pay a CO2-based tax that's applied regardless of how often you drive. You could do 20 miles a year in a Ferrari and pay more vehicle tax than someone doing 20,000 miles a year in a Fiat.
Click to expand...
It wasn't so much the method of taxation I was responding to. Just proposing that the tax itself might be counteractive to the goal.
 
Well I plan on owning a Dealership focused on selling EV and Hybrid only cars so I guess I am somewhat "happy" of this law. I do think an entire country having this regulation is a bit excessive.
 
Exorcet
Obviously not everyone was dying to put the tax money into a new low energy use fridge, but I don't think I'm the only person who would consider it.
Click to expand...
Indeed; though I suspect there's a sliding scale whereby those buying a low-emissions vehicle or cycling to work each day are probably more likely to reflect that lifestyle in the products they buy too. I'd like to know the proportion of say, F-150 owners buying solar panels to Nissan Leaf owners doing the same, but it's probably safe to imagine it's weighted heavily towards the Leaf...
 

Latest Posts

Back