By on November 13, 2020

While multiple states launch mandatory election recounts and President Trump throws around lawsuits like confetti Joe Biden and the mainstream media are preparing for his ascension from regular old man to Leader of the Free World — though that title doesn’t seem to get much play these days. Biden has already started holding meetings with foreign leaders and experts on how to go about heading the United States. Apparently, there’s even been some progress on how to govern the nation.

On Thursday, California Air Resources Board (CARB) Chairwoman Mary Nichols said the state’s arrangement with major automakers over fuel efficiency requirements would be ideal for the presumed Biden administration — which has promised to implement some of the most ambitious emissions standards the world has ever seen. Nichols also expressed excitement at the possibility of heading the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under a Biden presidency and is reportedly under serious consideration for the position.

“I have said that I am very interested, but I think I also just need to make clear that I am interested in volunteering to do anything that is of service to the new administration,” Nichols said in an interview with Reuters.

“[There is] a huge volume of stuff that needs to be reversed and repudiated,” she said of the Trump administration’s EPA, adding that some of the President’s policies could be undone “informally” via “negotiation and good will.”

Despite a prolonged (and rather nasty) political deadlock, the Trump administration finalized its rollback of U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards in March. Rules currently require 1.5 percent annual increases in efficiency through 2026 — a concession to appease Democrats angry with the original proposal, although substantially lower than the 5 percent annual increase the Obama administration demanded before being supplanted. Of course, those targets were ultimately deemed unsustainable by the very same people that penned them — which makes us wonder why leadership seems so eager to see them reintroduced. But one could lose their mind wondering why the government is so consistently inconstant.

California and a coalition of supportive states have long been standing against Trump’s national fuel rollback and have vowed to retain the Obama-era rules. Ford Motor Company, Volkswagen of America, Honda, and BMW even pledged their support (resulting in a brief antitrust suit) and promised to adhere to a higher standard while other manufacturers stayed neutral or sided with the Trump administration’s deregulation strategy.

CARB has long been a proponent of strengthening Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards but has recently pivoted setting hard limits on the types of vehicles that can be sold to the public and encouraging the widespread adoption of electric vehicles. It’s also been trying to export that mindset to the rest of the country, with success often dictated by how much a region’s economy is dependent upon a thriving oil industry.

From Reuters:

Nichols said fuel efficiency requirements should be increased but added: “I don’t think honestly the future of CAFE is the relevant question … This is not where the action is.”

She told Reuters CAFE standards, first adopted as part of a 1975 law, are “not the most relevant tool for dealing with the future of transportation in this country or globally” as the industry shifts away from internal combustion vehicles toward electric and other zero-emissions models. “Our future is not with the internal combustion engine.”

This year, California Governor and lifelike Ken doll Gavin Newsom directed CARB to draft regulations to ban the sale of gasoline-powered passenger cars starting in 2035. While Nichols has said the goal presents real logistical challenges for the state, she believes it’s a policy worth pursuing.

[Image: CC7/Shutterstock.com]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

69 Comments on “Gas War: California Regulators Say Biden Should Embrace State’s Emission Plan...”


  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    They are coming for your ride. Proles don’t get to have cars in Agenda 2030.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Think it through, 28…why would any party want to “come” for anything that tens of millions of its’ voters have invested lots of money in? This is why Republicans won’t enact any kind of restrictions on things like assault weapons – forget the second amendment, their constituents have spent tons of money on those weapons and would be P*SSED as hell if they had to surrender them. It’d be political suicide. That’s why nothing ever gets passed. Instead, they say “the Democrats are coming for your AR-15.” Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?

      Same thing in California – tens of millions of registered Democrats have spent even more money on cars than any Republican has spent on an AR-15, and those folks depend on the cars for their daily existence. Taking those cars away would be political suicide.

      It helps to cut through the silly political noise sometimes…

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        I don’t think there is going to be a straight up vehicle ban in 2030, but when a power player in the Democratic party signs this sort of thing I think it is worth taking notice that grand changes to transportation through government intervention is desired.

        gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/9.23.20-EO-N-79-20-text.pdf

        I don’t think anyone is realistically going to confiscate what already exists but I also don’t think discussing the possibility of a ban on either *new* semi-auto long guns or *new* ICE vehicles is tinfoil hat territory. Whether or not you would agree with those bans is a different story.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          I think Newsom is spitballing and playing to his base here. He knows darn well he isn’t going to ban all new fossil-fuel powered cars in 10 years – millions of his party’s constituents are people who won’t be able to afford electrics (unless, of course, they become unbelievably cheap, which you and I know isn’t happening). It’d be political suicide for his party.

          But is this a good long term goal? Yes, particularly in California, where auto emissions are a huge problem. It just has to be more market-driven and less government-driven.

          • 0 avatar

            ” It’d be political suicide for his party.”

            Dem Party has already committed suicide accepting far left movement. IMO it will split into two parties. There will be the Blue version of Trump who will take over Dem party and alienate moderate democrats. I see three party system in the future: right wing populist, far left elitist and middle class centrist parties.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “Dem Party has already committed suicide accepting far left movement.”

            That is hilarious. “Far left”

            Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

            Any “left” shift in the USA is meant to move it on par with virtually every other democratically run country on the planet. Social programs and universal health care isn’t leftist to most people.
            The USA spent many years brainwashing its populace post WWII “to stem the red tide”. It looks like that’s still paying dividends!

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            It would be beyond stupid. Most of Calif is rural farmland, desert towns, mountainous, costal or middle of nowhere.

            Force EVs up the A$$ of Los Angeles and big CA city dweller, users, visitors, tourists, workers, businesses, officials, police, utilities, etc.

            Ban ICE vehicles/trucks from the core of big cities (at first) and work systematically outward. Start with no parking of ICE vehicles or idling.

            The CARB needs to focus on where the problem is, including itself.

      • 0 avatar

        Cars are out of fashion in California. Everyone works from home. I drive now 3000 mile per year. Before it was 18000 miles. I am not sure even if I need a car. Our company sold HQ buildings.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        All “assault weapons” – guns that fire more than one bullet per trigger pull – were outlawed by Congress in 1986. The AR-15 is just a name of any rifle that LOOKS like the military M-16, but is just a one shot rifle.

        BTW the AR stands for Armalite, (not “assault rifle”) the company that invented the AR-15 and is now out of business. Another company bought rights to the name and licenses it to multiple companies making rifles they can call “AR-15”.

        The term “assault weapon” by itself means nothing – it can refer to any rifle, pistol or revolver (know the difference?), or a baseball bat or tire iron, or even a five-iron golf club (Sam Snead called the 5-iron the all-purpose club).

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @Lorenzo – It depends on the jurisdiction where you live but generally speaking…

          Assault weapon: “Drawing from federal and state law definitions, the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that are able to accept detachable magazines and possess one or more other features.”

    • 0 avatar
      Whatnext

      LOL, California residents have some pretty nice rides. Those aren’t going anywhere soon. No need to fuel unfounded conspiracies.

    • 0 avatar
      Old_WRX

      So, the state that already has trouble keeping the lights on is going to move to all electrics. Maybe gov Nuisance should focus on other problems like tent cities of homeless, taxation gone totally nuts… Nah, no glory in that.

    • 0 avatar
      Superdessucke

      This is an interesting discussion but what I really want to know is whether anyone thinks the 305 CA-only Corvette will make a nationwide comeback?

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    They (CARB and EPA) do need to lay down their swords, but placing Mary Nichols at the top of the EPA isn’t the way.

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    California style fuel and utility prices aren’t a great campaign strategy for the future.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      That will be Kamala Harris’ problem when she runs for President in 2024 with AOC as her VP.

      They believe the earth is preeminent above people, so paying more for less reliable utilities is just the price we all must endure. Makes total sense to them.

      The Dems will lap it up, and hopefully the Repubs can produce a 1980-style blowout win to set the ship aright.

      • 0 avatar
        thegamper

        I seriously doubt that Kamala would get the Democratic nomination. Look what happened in this past election. You had a bunch of ultra progressives that got locked out by the DNC toward the end and a rally around Biden because he could win. Honestly, I dont think the Dems had anyone else running that could have won in the general election for one reason or another. Its a big country, candidates with such narrow appeal can hopefully continue to be weeded out in the primary process.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        “That will be Kamala Harris’ problem when she runs for President in 2024 with AOC as her VP.”

        Why don’t we just nuke ourselves at that point. It will be less painful than even the thought of that ticket. I thought electing a racist homophobe with Alzheimer’s was going to be bad but electing a radical whos left of Bernie and a failed bartender that throws tantrums all the time would be unthinkable.

    • 0 avatar
      thegamper

      Dems hopefully realize that these election results represent more of an eviction notice to Trump than a mandate for a progressive platform.

      I dont think they will get Senate control so the ultra progressives, who the Dems need to appease, wont get their way, but they will still introduce the bills to say “hey look, we tried, but got blocked by the republicans”

      As much as I would love to see certain factions pay politically, I fully admit that the country works best with divided government and both parties can be saved from themselves and their worst tendencies. We really need another (3rd) viable political party in this country. Where have all the moderates gone?

      • 0 avatar
        ToolGuy

        @thegamper,

        The path to smaller government is to get more Libertarians elected – not at the Presidential level, but a handful in the House and Senate could help shape the discussion and make a difference on close votes.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          The problem @ToolGuy, and I say this as a card carrying registered Libertarian that actually votes Libertarian (When they aren’t running someone like Joe Exotic or Vermin Supreme) and has worked with the party at the state level is that if you ask 2 Libertarians what a Libertarian is, you get 7 different answers. We cat agree on what time it is, let alone have any sort of cohesive platform.

          What we need to do is boot our kook fringe to the curb (See Joe Exotic and Vermin Supreme) and do some sort of vetting of our candidates. We want to be taken serious as a party, yet people on the outside looking in don’t think we take ourselves seriously.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Libertarianism is a double-edged sword – its’ open, decentralized, non-vetted “freedom ‘n whiskey” nature means lots of folks can run under its’ banner, which is great when it comes to hearing fresh voices and ideas, but that also means too many of the fresh ideas and voices tend to come from the fringes.

            Thus, Joe Exotic for Governor.

            The key strength of the libertarian movement (I don’t call it a party) is also its’ greatest weakness.

            I don’t think libertarianism is the answer in any case. It’s not that we spend too much, it’s that people can’t figure out how much we should be spending in the first place. People can’t agree because the people running are paid to make sure that no one agrees.

            A third party isn’t going to solve that. In fact, my prediction is that if it operates under the current legal system, as soon as it gained real political traction and widespread support, the buyoff money would start flowing its’ way. And then we’d have three bought-off parties versus two.

            I think any real solution has to start with starving the overpriced-election beast. And it’s just a start – it’ll probably take decades or a generation for real change to happen.

        • 0 avatar
          ToolGuy

          @FreedMike,

          “I think any real solution has to start with starving the overpriced-election beast.”

          Sorry, what are you telling me to do here? (Serious question)

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            I’m talking about getting the money out of elections. S*itcanning Citizens United might be a good first step but with the current court, that’s not going to happen. Congress would have to act.

            Our politicians – and I’m talking about pretty much ALL of them, not just the ones in one party – are bought and sold. And the people doing the buying and selling are big donors, by and large. I read that something like $14 ****BILLION**** just got spent on the last election. That’s just inconceivable.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            FreedMike, if campaign spending was as big a deal as you seem to think it is, Doug Jones would have been re-elected after outspending his opponent 4-1 in the Alabama Senate race, most of his money coming from outside the state. Mike Bloomberg spent $1B running for President, and another $1B trying to flip Florida, Ohio, and Texas to Biden and trying to influence other races all over the country, almost entirely in vain. In the mean time, Jeff Bezos owns one of the largest and most influential newspapers in the country, and Zuckerberg and Dorsey control the flow of information about their favored, and disfavored, candidates to a vast portion of the country. Control of information, not money, is the problem.

        • 0 avatar
          Whatnext

          When you look year after year at lists showing that residents of Scandinavia are the happiest and often healthiest, why would anyone still fall for the “less government is better” fantasy? Less government is Somalia or Sudan.

          • 0 avatar
            ToolGuy

            @Whatnext, you make a very valid point. I propose that we drop back to Switzerland’s level of central government expenditure as a share of gross domestic product and then re-evaluate further reductions. Deal?

      • 0 avatar

        “all the moderates gone?”

        They are dying out replaced by Snowflake and Zombies. And they (Boomers) were considered radicals in 1970s! But they (Boomers and even X-men lived in real world and Boomers were even drafted to fight in Vietnam. Snowflakes and Zombies were saved from draft and properly spoiled by thier loving parents so now they are good at looting and destroying the cities they were supposed to populate and save. These people do not even know their own history. What do you expect the future be like? Thanks God they do not reproduce.

  • avatar
    ALP

    Defund CARB!

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      When California reduced its legislature to 80 and 40 for its two houses, it left a lot of pols without jobs. There’s now a multitude of commissions and Boards to give them income.

      When the director of the Department of Transportation turned out to be an idiot, he wouldn’t resign when asked, so he was given a seat on the solid waste board, paying a similar salary (over $200K).

      CARB employs its own board members plus attorneys, assistants, technical advisors, and a huge supporting staff, many of them relatives of politicians. There’s no way the legislature will eliminate that patronage.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        About Pennsylvania (my state):

        “The General Assembly has 253 members, consisting of a Senate with 50 members and a House of Representatives with 203 members, making it the second-largest state legislature in the nation (behind New Hampshire) and the largest full-time legislature.”

        PA deliberately enlarged its legislature many years ago in an effort to reduce the risk of businesses buying someone’s vote. Now, it’s just an unwieldy mess.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    I’m sure he will, or some version of it. Not sure why anyone is shocked. He is putting Obama people in the slots that will decide this sort of stuff. If you voted for him because of that then you are getting what you wanted. If you voted for him because he isn’t Trump, well, buy an EV and if you can’t afford one then grin and bear it and think to yourself “at least he’s not Trump” as you pay out a larger chunk of your income to fuel costs.

    Elections have consequences after all…or so I have heard.

    • 0 avatar
      Whatnext

      Pretty sure anyone buyigg a loaded Navigator or Suburban could afford the EV variant. And soon mass market vehicles from VW etc will make those options even more affordable.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        What about the dude driving that 3800 powered Park Avenue Ultra to their paycheck to paycheck job.

        The people that buy those Suburbans and EV’s are just going to gripe as they spend more for fuel or grabbing that EV. They’ll make up the difference by eating out less and frequenting the places that employ those that will be hurt most by these policies, compounding their effect.

        Making things more expensive hurts the people that can least afford it the most.

        It won’t be my problem though…at least until the bill comes due to try to fix the resulting “inequality”. Then there will be hands out in mid April.

    • 0 avatar
      Old_WRX

      Arthur Dailey,

      “@OldWRX: Come on, you are too smart and too experienced to fall for those conspiracy canards.”

      I have followed a lot of things for many years. These were not things that the MSM reported on. A number of things I have followed I didn’t know whether to believe them or not because I saw little that would corroborate what these so called “conspiracy theorists” (CT’s) were warning about, so I remained quite skeptical. Recent events, however, in the very public life in this country tally very well with what these “CT’s” have been saying and continue to say. So, I am forced to admit that there is a strong possibility that they are telling the truth. I don’t go for the tin-foil hat crowd, the vapor trail crowd, the people who claim that our leaders are descended from shape changing lizard like creatures form outer space, etc. But, the preponderance of the evidence seems to point to globalist forces behind current events. The fact that so many countries enforced draconian lockdowns for the alleged Covid pandemic in such neat orchestration is just not credible as actions taken in response to a totally unexpected event by that many national governments acting separately. Even in the MSM, the information presented in re Covid is so inconsistent and chaotic that it would have to leave anyone who looks at it logically scratching their head. The number of the riots and the amount of personal testimony as to the similarity of the organization of those riots across dozens of cities leaves little room for doubt that they are being effected by one and the same organization. The endlessly repeated mantra about what is purported to be the motivation for these protests/riots is utterly nonsensical. White cop kills black person –> riot. Black cop kills black person, white cop kills white person, black cop kills white person — all ignored. Children shot and killed by the rioters — ignored.

      The destruction of the integrity and quality of education at our colleges and universities (a crime of the first order of magnitude, in my opinion) is following a so-called Marxist agenda. It is so uniform across the country that it is simply not possible that there is not some sort of conspiracy behind it.

      The spurious allegations of mountains of racism are nothing short of bizarre unless one asks the question “cui bono.” The inscrutable word salad about sexual preferences, gender whatever, etc. — ditto.

      So, sorry Arthur, really bad sh!t is happening. I wish to god it weren’t, but it is.

  • avatar
    Oberkanone

    Revoke CA emissions exemption. One Nation, One Standard.

  • avatar
    Dartdude

    California is really two states. The westside of the San Andreas fault line is progressive and the eastside is more conservative. We should just dynamite the san andreas fault. The east side would become California and hopefully they wouldn’t screw it up again.

  • avatar
    Old_WRX

    Lou_BC,

    “Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha”,

    ILO is correct. The people running around destroying the country while claiming they are all about ending “systemic” racism, transgenderphobia, and a lot of of other EVIL things while making sure that it is only safe to agree with their cuckoo point of view are, without a doubt, FAR left. The far left is famous for its obsession with the incredible importance of problems that either don’t exist or are just not of much importance. You can deny it if you like or label it “conspiracy theory” or whatever, but it’s still far left.

    As far as “assault weapons” go… The myth here is that taking away legal guns from their owners would reduce the murder rate big time. It won’t because the number of murders committed with legal, registered guns is extremely low. So, then, the question is: Why are these pols so obsessed with taking away legal guns? If I put the real reason here it will immediately be branded “conspiracy theory” (CT). So, I won’t… But, it’s really obvious.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Sadly, 75% of gun deaths are suicides. Mental health intervention isn’t as simple as a 10-second sound bite by a grandstanding politician.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        With all due respect, both of you don’t understand the basic psychology behind murder or suicide.
        1st degree is premeditated, 2nd is intent to kill but not premeditated, 3rd is no intent to kill. That can be applied to suicide.
        Most murders and suicides can be labeled “crimes of passion” i.e. you are temporarily very angry or in deep despair. Anything that delays the acting upon that “passion” reduces the risk of murder or suicide. A gun in close proximity makes the situation much worse because it takes seconds to draw and fire. More guns equal more murders and suicides. Australia saw a drop in both homicides and suicides post gun ban.

    • 0 avatar
      Arthur Dailey

      WRX, Sorry but you made 2 incorrect assumptions in that post.

      1) Just about every single firearm used to commit a crime was originally purchased legally. So how do these legally purchased firearms find their way into the hands of ‘criminals’? Every first world nation with the exception of the USA had agreed upon a solution for this. And their solution is statistically valid. Some in Canada would like to see the USA declared a ‘terrorist nation’ due to the number of American sourced firearms that cross the border and then are used for crimes here.
      2) “Destroying the country”. Pure hyperbole. How many cities are burnt out and destroyed. Is this destruction sweeping across the nation? To paraphrase a thought from the Godfather, you can destroy far more by having a Head of State sign a document, than by having some anarchists, or neo-Nazis ‘act out’.

      • 0 avatar
        Old_WRX

        Arthur Dailey,

        1) Yes, stolen guns are a problem. I personally do not like guns — too many years working with tools and worrying about safety to like a tool that can kill so easily. But, the second amendment is pretty clear. If gun control is to be done legally, the constitution would really need to be amended.

        2) Not at all hyperbole. A great number of cities in this country have been damaged this year by terrorist thugs claiming to be social activists. If you haven’t heard about it, just dig around some on utoob where there are endless videos of the violence. Certain media have a very strange idea of what “peaceful” is. Ms. Harris has said publicly that this violence would continue well past the election — she was smiling and seemed to think it was something good.

        • 0 avatar
          Arthur Dailey

          Actually until the Heller decision of 2008 the Supreme Court and therefore American law agreed that the 2nd Amendment allowed restrictions on the carrying and purchase of firearms.

          Yes there has been looting and destruction in some American cities. But nowhere near what occurred in the 1960s’. And it is certainly not widespread enough to be ‘destroying’ those cities or threatening American society.

          • 0 avatar
            Old_WRX

            Arthur Dailey,

            “But nowhere near what occurred in the 1960s’.”

            That all depends on whether one looks at reality or what the media has to say. Call me some old crank, but I take reality over a bunch of throw away sheets posing as balanced reporting.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            @OldWRX: Come on, you are too smart and too experienced to fall for those conspiracy canards. With all the Smartphones and instant communication, hiding the truth is not truly possible.

            In 1968 over 120 American cities experienced riots after the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

            In the 1960’s American universities experienced rioting and destruction.

            In 1967 in Detroit (from Wikipedia)’President Lyndon B. Johnson sent in the United States Army’s 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions. The result was 43 dead, 1,189 injured, over 7,200 arrests, and more than 2,000 buildings destroyed.’

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      “The people running around destroying the country while claiming they are all about ending “systemic” racism, transgenderphobia, and a lot of of other EVIL things”

      Ending systemic racism or discrimination against LGBTQ isn’t necessarily a “leftist” thing.

      Racism is wrong regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum.

      LGBTQ is debated on religious grounds but at the end of the day it shouldn’t be discriminated against since it can be viewed as freedom of choice (if you see it as a choice). Scientists investigating it find it isn’t a choice to be gay.

      • 0 avatar
        Old_WRX

        Lou_BC,

        I have no problem with people who have any sexual, etc. orientation. Systemic racism is almost nonexistent. That would be racism in the form of laws or other institutional forms. Almost all of that is in the form of affirmative action under various names. I personally have no problem with people of any race, nationality, sexual orientation, etc., and have had friends of many races, nationalities, and sexual orientation. As far as hiring goes — hire the best person for the job, period.

        Racism within society will always exist. Any person is entitled to like or dislike anyone for any reason. It is only a problem when people act out such things against other people. Violence and destructive behavior is the problem, not people’s biases. The category of “hate crime” should not exist. Crime is crime. Laws against “hate speech” cannot exist side by side with freedom of speech. I agree that people should not run around saying hateful things to each other — racist, sexist, against LGBT, etc., however making such speech illegal is a dangerous, slippery slope, and needs to be avoided.

        If people are against LGBT because of their religion, that’s fine. But, they do not have the right to use that to harm others. I am sick to death of the way the right feels entitled to impose their religious views on everyone — they need to learn to mind their own business. The left also needs to learn to mind its own business.

  • avatar

    “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss” – P. Townsend

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @Lou_BC–Ronald Reagan today would be considered a leftist extremist. I use to be a registered Republican but anyone who is not far right is considered a leftist and socialist. As for environmental law it will change but I doubt the Government is going to take away people’s full size crew cab pickups just as I doubt the Government is going to take away people’s guns. There is just enough balance between the Executive and Legislative branch to keep things from getting too much out of hand. Maybe there will be less ICE vehicles but I don’t see them disappearing anytime soon.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Who are they foolin’? The huge revenue stream from all the taxes, fees, fines, penalties, lobbys, etc, linked to ICE vehicles and fuel/oil are too great, not to mention the endless ICE support industries and services involved.

    • 0 avatar
      285exp

      @Jeff S, and Bill Clinton would be considered hard right, and 2008 Obama a homophobe, don’t try to pretend the mission creep is one sided, or even primarily to the right.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    True and that is why I am not so concerned about Government outlawing manufacture of ICE vehicles. Eventually through technology and lowering costs of making EVs they might become the dominant type of vehicle but not by 2030. Also it will take years to set up the infrastructure for EVs especially nationwide.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      That’s always their move. They taxed gas guzzlers to high heaven only after they went out of fashion not to mention fuel rationing, just so they can claim “…look what WE did!!!”.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @Denver Mike–Starting the beginning of 2020 the State of Ohio levied an increased tax on gasoline and diesel fuel to maintain critical infrastructure and added a registration surcharge of $200 for electric vehicles and $100 for hybrid vehicles. Regardless of type of vehicles each state will make up any lost revenue that is lost from fuel taxes.

    @285exp–I am not for any extremes but let’s be honest the righ wing extremists are just as bad as the left wing extremists. At least under Bill Clinton we had a balanced budget because both Congress and the Executive branch had to work together and yes the Republicans put pressure on Clinton to balance the budget but is that a bad thing? Better to work together than be divided. The same thing should apply to emission and efficiency standards. Divide and conquer is not the answer.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      The collapse of the Soviet Union and the resulting Defense Drawdown of the period had just a bit to do with that ballanced budget. Clinton was able to work with Congress on things like welfare reform though, I’ll give him that.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      It’ll suddenly get extremely expensive to own/drive an EV in California. They’ll get you one way or another.

      Otherwise Calif won’t shoot themselves in the foot that way.

      Directly or indirectly, ICE vehicles contribute trillions to their corporate structure. Monthly. In ways that EVs don’t.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Yes the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Defense Drawdown along with a booming economy did help. I doubt there will be an attempt to balance a budget anytime soon especially with Covid-19 and the aftermath.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Eventually EVs or hydrogen powered vehicles could outnumber ICE vehicles but that is a long long way off and it will be more to do with advances in battery technology, lower costs that will make them more competitive, and more infrastructure to support them but that is likely to be a couple of decades away from now. I am not too worried because I will either be dead or too old to drive. For now there is not a lot of incentive for most people to switch to EVs especially those who are out of work or those not making a living wage. There are and will still be a lot of old hoopties on the road for the foreseeable future and even the politicians will have to recognize that for those who cannot afford newer vehicles and where mass transit is not a feasible alternative. I have nothing against EVs but it is not feasible to force people into them especially if they lack the resources to buy them.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Old_WRX: W., “Fossil fuels are contributing to significant climate change,” It is unfortunate for the...
  • whynotaztec: You raise an interesting point – is there such a thing as airbag system shelf life? I had a 92...
  • slavuta: “catastrophic effects that climate change is causing” Probably made up stuff. Obama and John...
  • ajla: So what “drastic changes” do you support?
  • W.: Direct the political snark/commentary and your belittling language (snot, howl) elsewhere. The author should know...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber