By on September 9, 2021

New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law a bill that effectively makes the sale of new gasoline-powered automobiles illegal within the state after 2035. On Wednesday, the state’s new governor took the brave step of copying California in deciding that all new passenger cars and light-duty trucks be zero-emission models within the next 14 years. Though she saw it as a totally original strategy necessary for stopping the horrors of global warming, which we now call climate change.

It’s also not technically her plan, as the State Assembly voted on the bill months before she took office with all Democrats and three Republicans voting in favor. It later passed the Senate in another party-dependent vote aided by the state’s Democratic majority. 

The Empire State also has a deal with local agencies requiring they issue a zero-emissions vehicle market development plan before February of 2023. This is being done in conjunction with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, which would like them to provide short and long-term strategies for ecologically friendly shipping and transit. They’ll also be required to submit investment proposals on how this will be funded and potential corporate partnerships that might make things easier.

“New York is implementing the nation’s most aggressive plan to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions affecting our climate and to reach our ambitious goals, we must reduce emissions from the transportation sector, currently the largest source of the state’s climate pollution,” Hochul stated in a release.

However, this doesn’t mean much if neighboring states don’t follow suit. New Jersey, which I am constantly surprised to learn has some of the most restrictive laws within our increasingly fettered union, is probably a given. The same is true for Massachusetts, which has forwarded similar proposals in the past. But Vermont and Pennsylvania might be less inclined to restrict the choices of their citizens, allowing New Yorkers to buy their gasoline-powered vehicles elsewhere and then register them in their home state.

Ultimately, New York expects to have all of its electricity coming from emission-free sources by 2040 and achieve an 85-percent reduction (from 1990 levels) in economy-wide emissions by 2050. But NYC emissions actually went up between 2017 and 2019, with COVID throwing a wrench into subsequent data. The good news is that vehicle emissions pitched down by 1 percent in 2019 and seem to have remained suppressed while fewer people were driving during the start of the pandemic. Sadly, much of the city’s data has been delayed or reframed to include metrics having nothing to do with air pollution — making it difficult to draw hard conclusions. At the very least, state-wide emissions appear to be dropping although not at a pace that seems likely to hit the aforementioned targets.

On Wednesday, Hochul attempted to up the ante by having the state Department of Environmental Conservation draft proposed regulation that could be imposed on the trucking industry. Rules again match what’s coming out of California and would require truck manufacturers to transition to clean, presumably electric, zero-emission vehicles broken down by vehicle weight classes starting with the 2025 model year.

Considering that the Californian rules New York is basing its strategy upon came by way of Governor Gavin Newsom signing an executive order, they’re bound to be unpopular with many on the East Coast. Newsom’s leadership has become so polarizing that he is now facing a recall election scheduled for later this month. While most of the claims reference his aggressive (and sometimes hypocritical) handling of the pandemic, there’s plenty of ire surrounding his similarly restrictive environmental policies. California recall frontrunner Larry Elder has even said he would attempt to void many of those regulatory restrictions should he win the special election.

There seems to be a wide rift between what residents want in California in terms of regulatory action and this is likely to be true in New York, too. Costal states with large, metropolitan hubs are pushing the limits of what the population is willing to accept and they’re hemorrhaging citizens as a result. New York and California (along with Illinois) were among the top three American states to lose the largest number of people between mid-2019 and mid-2020, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. While we cannot attribute this entirely to regulations (housing prices remain a big issue), politics do appear to be playing a meaningful role.

Joe Biden’s popularity has similarly tanked in recent months (even before the Afghanistan debacle) and most of his environmental policies mimic what’s been forwarded in places like California. Each of his infrastructure proposals carved out extravagant levels of financial assistance for electric vehicles and he also signed an executive order aimed at making half of all new vehicles sold in 2030 EV. It’s something American citizens seem truly torn over, with the world’s largest automakers expressing broad support.

If you’ve ever read an article written by me, you know that I’m about to say that planned economies almost never work and we’re starting to see that manifesting in real time. But that doesn’t mean I’m entirely against the idea of trying to improve EV adoption by building more charging stations. Electric cars might be the worst option for a long road trip. But they seem idyllic for limited urban activities and New York might as well pull the trigger on its proposal to build 10,000 curbside charge points by 2030. But other aspects, like forcing all off-road vehicles to be EV only by 2035, seem totally nonsensical and require us to take on blind faith that alternative energy vehicles will be as good (if not better) than their internal combustion counterparts in a few years. While that may indeed be the case, it’s typically wise not to count the chickens before they’ve hatched.

If governments and the automotive industry are so hellbent on promoting EV adoption, they should ensure the vehicles in question are desirable and superior to their forebears in every conceivable way. The automobile didn’t defeat the horse because we hurriedly banned the latter, it won because it eventually became the superior mode of transportation. Why should we not give the electric car the same chance to prove itself, especially now that it appears to be within striking distance of that goal?

[Image: JL IMAGES/Shutterstock]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

142 Comments on “New York to Ban Sale of Gasoline Vehicles After 2035...”


  • avatar
    mpalczew

    I would have already gotten an electric car if I had an electric hookup in my condo. I don’t have an electric hookup in my parking space because, I would have to find an electrician, and I would have to hassle with HOA bureaucracy.

    We’re incentivizing the wrong things. Most electric cars on the road today will be gone by 2035, but if we incentivize infrastructure, it will be around for a while. So many people living in apartments right now will still be living in an apartment in 2035 and they won’t get electric infra unless there are good incentives.

  • avatar
    stuki

    In other news, the Lord of Dumbeffia banned anything arbitrarily deemed not to be PC, starting 2137.

    And all his duncelings pumped their fists and cheered him on.

  • avatar
    Yankee

    All these laws might not be worth the paper they’re printed on if the industry doesn’t achieve design breakthroughs necessary to make electric vehicles that perform adequately at a cost affordable to consumers, and they’ll end up amending them. While I’m all for the technology in principle as an aging mechanic (what’s not to love about no fluid changes, way less moving parts, flat torque curve, etc. – right about the time I’ll be too old to work on anything!), I do shudder a bit when government gets involved in car design, having been around for motorized seatbelts vs. first-gen airbags that were deadly. I think without this kind of legislative and policy push, there is no way for any alternative technology to overcome the infrastructure advantage around internal combustion engines, but I do hope we don’t have products pushed to market before they’re ready like has happened before.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      NY might be a different country from Texas by then. They can do anything they want. It will not matter.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        “NY might be a different country from Texas by then. They can do anything they want. It will not matter.”

        Does your boss have invasion plans? Otherwise, Texas is becoming a blue state pretty fast, so dream on gopnitsa.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          msc,

          I understand. there are not many people in US who understand how world works. Hence Afghanistan fiasco, Georgia fiasco, Ukraine fiasco. All American projects abroad have failed, if you noticed. Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Tunisia, Libya, Lebanon. Soon to fail – Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, EU.

          Prussians after victory over France said, “not our military, our schools won this war”. American school system today is in sorry state and it is getting exponentially worse. What can America achieve with people its schools produce today – nothing. And they are like dumb goats will keep bumping heads on the glass door.

          And our “great leaders” follow USSR path without learning a bit. How long do you think will take to America to split? You just saw that it takes a couple of months to cripple a great economy. Or may be it is not so great? – both. The gasoline is already there. Only a spark that is needed. You will be lucky if the softest scenario plays out – states simply block fed. laws and ignore them completely. We already see this happening. Next, states ignore SCOTUS decisions. What you gonna do if you’re Fed, start the war against your state? Then you get Yugoslavia, not less.

      • 0 avatar

        I can only hope so, I live in NY, and Texas is getting Florida Scary. I don’t want this to pass, though as it is Putin’s dream to repay the USA from breaking up the USSR.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          speedlaw,

          until US “up there” would realize why USSR has broke up, and not repeat false mantras that US broke USSR, it will not see how it will break itself.

          Remember this – great empires don’t break from external pressures. It is internal deterioration that breaks them, and Lincoln knew it.

          Here Bezmenov explains how US will break. And Putin only needs a TV and a popcorn
          https://youtu.be/vVRGT-1bCQs

          This is amazing how KGB knows everything decades ahead.

        • 0 avatar
          wolfwagen

          I hope to be out of NY within a couple of years depending on what my twins do for college next year

  • avatar
    jack4x

    Jesus, I am possibly the most anti-EV mandate regular commenter here and much of this is unreadable even for me.

    An EV mandate can be nonsensical and wrong on its own merits, it doesn’t require the involvement of every conspiratorial thread of the author’s politics to make it so.

    • 0 avatar
      Matt Posky

      Which conspiracies might those be?

      • 0 avatar
        jack4x

        I guess I was unfair to you a bit, because there wasn’t any talk about vaccines in here.

        But the idea that Newsom’s recall, Biden’s Afghanistan decisions or approval rating, population declines in blue states, etc have anything to do with EV mandates or environmental policies in general seems highly suspect to me. Nothing in any of those politicians’ history should have left any doubt in anyone’s mind that this kind of thing was in the cards. Seems instead like a chance to inject some counterproductive cheap shots in an unrelated article. The sarcastic tone of the “horrors of global warming” line leaves little doubt of your thoughts on that particular topic too.

        Your last paragraph is almost word for word how I have argued against a ban in the past. I couldn’t agree with it more. It’s just a shame the rest of the piece couldn’t stick to the point more directly. But then again the political pieces always get the most clicks and comments, and you’ve already got two comments out of me, so well done I suppose.

        • 0 avatar
          Matt Posky

          I appreciate the thoughtful response. While I often tackle political issues (it’s unavoidable since I tend to cover regulation), I often find myself having to repeat that I am not an acolyte of either political party. If someone doesn’t agree with my take on an issue, policy, or a candidate, I would hope they wouldn’t equate that to my being an advocate for the opposing side or inverted policies. We should all be thinking in more nuanced ways than.

          As for climate change and global warming, I believe man-made pollution has negatively impacted our environment for decades. But I also believe decision makers use it as an excuse to push forward various (often stupid) agendas that are in service of nothing but profiteering.

  • avatar
    BSttac

    It’s called natural selection. Let California and New York ruin themselves.

    • 0 avatar
      JD-Shifty

      yeah, why don’t you move to Mississippi and own the libs

      • 0 avatar
        RHD

        In Mississippi, historically, the “libs” weren’t the people who were owned.

        New York just might find that in 2037, no one actually wants an internal-combustion engine, because gasoline might just be prohibitively expensive by then, and technological advances in electric vehicles, batteries, solar power, et cetera will likely make electric vehicles far superior to early 20th century technology. This shocking law will likely be silly-looking in sixteen years.

  • avatar
    Omnifan

    Interesting how no one fights the government about telling us we HAVE to drive electric cars, but some fight like hell when the government wants to mandate vaccine shots.

    • 0 avatar
      ScarecrowRepair

      Pay attention! The car edict won’t take effect for 13 years.

    • 0 avatar
      RHD

      Not getting vaccinated is monumentally stupid. The “guvmint” has nothing to do with the reality of that.
      Recommending that you do what is best for yourself, your neighbors and your country is THE JOB of public officials.

      Hell, people get vaccinated for mumps, measles, rubella, smallpox, chicken pox, tetanus, polio, shingles, and so on, and they wear their seatbelts.
      But once something that has a 1 in 40 chance of killing you comes along, suddenly they start whimpering about their freedoms. (Most likely, they are just dreading how much that needle is going to hurt!)

      The only good thing about morons refusing to get their vaccines is that we will have a few hundred thousand fewer morons in this country by the time the pandemic is over.

      • 0 avatar
        CoastieLenn

        @ RHD:
        “But once something that has a 1 in 40 chance of killing you comes along, suddenly they start whimpering about their freedoms.”

        Now I’ll edit it:
        “But once something that has a 1 in 1,000 chance of killing you comes along, suddenly they start whimpering about needing to take away our freedom of choice.”

        The top is your assertion about how the unvaccinated should get the vax, the bottom is many unvaccinated’s assertion about COVID. Why is one ok, but the other isn’t?

        (For clarification, I’m vaccination and I’ll be getting my kids vaccinated as soon as they’re of age to get it. I also support people’s right to choose what’s best for them and their families.)

        Then there’s this,
        “Recommending that you do what is best for yourself, your neighbors and your country is THE JOB of public officials.”
        It absolutely is. Know what’s NOT the job of public officials? Mandating what’s best for you and your family thru a thin veil of mass-protection. If I elect to get the vaccine for my family and I, but my neighbor doesnt for his own reasons, guess who’s protected? Me and my family. Guess who’s not and might have to suffer those consequences of the decision. My neighbor.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          “Guess who’s not and might have to suffer those consequences of the decision. My neighbor.”

          Maybe that’s correct when it comes to your annual flu shot, but COVID ain’t the flu. We are ALL suffering the consequences of this minority that is refusing to be responsible. It’s hurting the economy, it’s hurting our political life, it’s hurting our health care systems, and on and on.

          And when a minority of people make the majority suffer through their lack of responsibility, and that irresponsibility has political, economic and health impacts for said majority, that’s when the majority tends to insist on the big bad gubmint stepping in. That’s what you’re seeing right now. It’s not tyranny – it’s a majority of Americans who are p*ssed as hell at the minority who are screwing up their country.

          • 0 avatar
            CoastieLenn

            Freed, getting the vaccine doesn’t mean you’re not going to get COVID, we’ve already discussed that ad nauseum in another post. That’s widely known. It just helps make sure you’re not going to suffer the full wrath.

            COVID as a virus isn’t going anywhere entirely… ever. As recently as 2010, we still have people getting cases of typhoid fever. Why? Because some people refuse to get vaccinated. Ok cool. Know who’s NOT going to get typhoid fever (or potentially know they have it)? The vaccinated. Same thing with measles.

            This will be treated just like every other communicable infection once all of the political dust settles.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Exactly, coastie – you won’t get very ill from COVID if you get vaccinated, and that’s the reason why you do it.

            But there are folks who just apparently want to take their chances. I suppose that when it comes to things like eating habits, smoking, or drug use, that could be a “personal choice,” and you suffer the consequences of those choices.

            But this is where that argument runs of steam in regards to COVID – what one person does can DIRECTLY affect another person, and it can have very severe or deadly results. To me, arguing that “I don’t have to get vaccinated because it’s my personal choice to chance it” is like arguing “I can drive like an idiot because it’s my personal choice to chance getting in a wreck” – it ignores that the behavior in question puts others at risk.

            And doing that screws with the economy that enables me to support my family, the health care system that is there to save my a** if I get ill, the political system that is there to keep my country from becoming Syria, and a whole host of other things.

            Put differently: if the “anti-road rules” movement was as large as the anti-vax movement, what would you see? I think you’d see a majority of citizens demanding the government do something about it.

            Do I resent them? Absolutely, and I have every reason to. And that’s what we have here – a majority of Americans who are playing by the rules resenting the people who aren’t, and who are screwing with the rule-followers.

          • 0 avatar
            CoastieLenn

            Freed, I understand what you’re saying but you’re also not making sense.

            If you get the vaccine, you can still get it, feel effects from it, and transmit it. If someone DOESNT get the vaccine, they can still feel (presumably larger) effects from it, and transmit it. To that end, how does “…But this is where that argument runs of steam in regards to COVID – what one person does can DIRECTLY affect another person, and it can have very severe or deadly results.” hold merit?

            You being vaccinated CAN ALSO PASS IT ALONG! You being vaccinated may not feel effects of it, but you’re still passing it. If you pass it to someone vaccinated- which at this point is the majority of the country(?), it’s most likely that they didn’t even know. The UNVACCINATED person that you (as a vaccinated person) passed it to will probably KNOW they got it. See what I’m saying? The main crowd that this is likely to be deadly to are the ones that, by in large, are making concious choices NOT to get vaccinated, as is there right… for now.

      • 0 avatar
        Dartdude

        Can you prove to us that the vaccines are safe and effective? Vaccinating the covid survivors is stupid and redundant. You do know that the biggest population of unvaccinated are minorities. Do you want to make flu shots mandatory?

  • avatar
    random1

    The “Afghanistan debacle” line really helped tie your argument together, well done.

  • avatar
    kcflyer

    Western New Yorker here. Our last governor killed 15000 elderly patients to avoid using facilities that would have made Trump look good. So this idiotic policy seems benign by comparison.

    • 0 avatar
      Matt Posky

      Technically Cuomo was originally supposed to be the one that signed this ban into law. But I’m inclined to agree that this isn’t as egregious as the nursing home fiasco he seems to have escaped responsibility for. It just isn’t a topic related to automobiles. Regardless, I’m likely to be abandoning NYC after ten years here for all of the above. Driving/living here hasn’t gotten any better (or cheaper) and I’d like to be able to make my own purchasing decisions in the years ahead.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    My name is Status Rightus, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!

    (Bad idea, New York.)

  • avatar
    pmirp1

    I say electrics may work for city life, assuming places of work don’t mind workers being late to jobs because it takes 45 minutes to charge a vehicle. Or parents not getting upset about paying more for kids at day care because it takes them another 45 minutes to charge and they are late. Or people are 45 minutes late to Doctor appointments, because you know it takes 45 minutes to charge your fully electric vehicle.

    Good luck with that New York.

    This is a market economy and if the product was good and popular it would already be used. Just like iphones killed old Motorolla flip phones or blackberry. Or just like LCD/LED TV took place of old CRT TVs. People willingly upgraded.

    In the case of electric vehicles, use case is fine as second vehicle, for wealthy, for people with a place to charge over night. Otherwise for the poor, it means you have to use bus.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      “if the product was good and popular it would already be used”

      Over 1 million BEVs are on US roads, with sales climbing every year. What do you think people are doing with them?

      And do you really think people are getting fired because they’re always late due to charging their car in the morning? Gimme a break.

      By the way, keep in mind that the average transaction price (in 2018) for the F-150 was $47,174. ATPs for all vehicles are over $40k today.

      Somehow only ‘rich’ people can afford a $47k Tesla, but a $47k Ford truck doesn’t make a ripple. My EV was $30k MSRP.

      Please rethink your stereotypes.

      • 0 avatar
        pmirp1

        231,000 electric cars were sold in America last year. About 2% of the market. Add to that fact electric vehicle purchases are incentivized by government credits, and you see it is not a wave. It is nothing. In fact outside major metro areas, no one takes them serious.

        I travel between Atlanta and Savannah every couple weeks. On a four hour drive in past four years, I have seen only 3 Teslas on I-16 (about a 160 mile drive between Macon and Savannah).

        Yes people get fired if they are consistently late. I won’t give you a break. I give you facts.

        The difference between a F150 and a Tesla is that F150 is not a second vehicle. A Tesla is a second vehicle that is supported at that rich cat’s house by a second ICE car.

        Don’t be scared, drive out of town on our interstates, and then you see what I am telling you is the absolute truth.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          What, so supposedly no one who lives outside a major metro area buys EVS, so they’re not relevant?

          Okey dokey…

          • 0 avatar
            pmirp1

            FreedMike, where did I say no one who lives outside major metro areas buys EVs?

            Are you reading things correctly? Please tell me.

            Otherwise you may need a dictionary or new pair of glasses.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            What you were saying is that outside major metro areas, no one buys EVS, but assuming that’s true, why does that make them less relevant? The way I see it, a car buy is a car buy, no matter whether it happens in L.A. or Kokomo, Indiana.

            For all intents and purposes, the EV market at the moment is pretty much summed up as “Tesla and a few other models that sell in meh volumes.” And since Tesla bases its’ sales network in major markets, it makes sense that you won’t see many bought in smaller cities or rural areas.

            But Ford and GM both sell in areas like that, and both are bringing out electric pickups. I think plenty of people outside the major metro areas will want them.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @pmirp1

          According to the AAA, “On average, Americans drive 29.2 miles per day, making two trips with an average total duration of 46 minutes.”

          That little factoid completely shuts down most of your argument.

          • 0 avatar
            pmirp1

            Lou_BC, I am not following what you are saying? How does someone driving 28.2 miles per day, making two trips with an average total duration of 46 minutes shuts down most of my argument?

            If you can not be specific, may be, just may be, you should not say anything, because it means you are being purposefully ambiguous.

            That is even worse than trying to counter because it means you are scared.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @pmirp1 – your whole “45 minutes late” is null and void since most EV’s could run for a week covering those distances therefore why would anyone get fired?
            EV’s don’t need to be a second vehicle.

            I won’t buy an EV because I need a primary vehicle with a long range and and decent cargo capacity. You could have made your argument around that sort of point.

          • 0 avatar
            pmirp1

            Lou_BC, You are not following my point. Which is why I said you were not specific.

            You run out of charge middle of week. It is in morning when you realize you need more charge at 8am. You have to spend 45 minutes to charge. And you are late. You do that several times, you get fired. Capeesh?

            You second paragraph is an endorsement of my point now that you realize you were wrong.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “If you can not be specific, may be, just may be, you should not say anything, because it means you are being purposefully ambiguous.”

            They can’t help it…they never have a sound argument.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @pmirp1 – most people charge EV’s at night i.e. when they are sleeping. The only situation where an EV currently (no pun intended) doesn’t cut it is for long trips. That’s it. Running out of charge is unlikely. Some will have that happen just like ICE cars running out of gas.

            “I won’t buy an EV because I need a primary vehicle with a long range and and decent cargo capacity.” I made that comment as an example of a valid reason why an EV is not for everyone. That’s a valid reason. Your “late for work and fired” reason is lame.

          • 0 avatar
            pmirp1

            Freed Mike,
            Don’t put words in my mouth.

            I said “outside major areas no one takes them serious”

            You changed what I said to “o one who lives outside a major metro area buys EVS”.

            Reading skills and comprehension are critical to an intelligent discussion on the web.

            The rest of what you said is trying to change the subject. I won’t entertain that unless you admit you misquoted me.

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          The problem so far is that there weren’t a lot of EVs out there to buy and most of them weren’t worth buying. That is changing though and the adoption rate will accelerate as there are more and better options available.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Scoutdude – car companies first went down the compact car route when they initially released EV’s. Not many buy compacts regardless of the power-train. I’d buy an EV 4×4 truck if it had a 600 km range with a tonne on board.

          • 0 avatar
            pmirp1

            Scotdude, it is not that the EVs in vacuum are not good. The problem is charging infrastructure and it is still not there. It takes 45 minutes to charge and for more working folks without a place to charge at home, that makes EVs a non starter.

            For people traveling that makes EVs a non starter. Irrespective of range. A 300 mile range is what a Mustang gives you. But it takes 5-10 minutes to gas it up. Huge difference vs. what it takes to charge an electric.

          • 0 avatar
            pmirp1

            Lou_BC, most people “WHO HAVE HOMES” charge EVs at night while they sleep. Or if they live in multi-duelling units where there is charging infrastructure. (Apartment or Condo that may have them).

            Otherwise, you have to charge whenever. Not just at night. No different than today with gas when you have to fill it beginning of work day, or right after work before you pick up your kids from day care.

            If you can not charge at night, then you have to plan your day around charging. I won’t bore you by repeating some of my use cases again where charging 45 minutes during day time makes it impossible to live a productive life.

            I am assuming you are retired, or have plenty of time on your hand. For you, an EV may work even today.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @pmirp:

            Sorry if you think I had misquoted you. But your example seems to indicate that interest in EVs is low outside the largest cities. It may be now, but that’s because the key player in the field doesn’t have a sales network outside the largest cities; Ford and GM do, and not only are they going to be building EVS, those EVs are going to be pickups, which sell like gangbusters to begin with. I mean, last I checked, no one has any trouble selling pickups in smaller cities or rural areas.

            I think you’ll soon see more EVs on that trip down I-16.

            Far as capacity is concerned, it tends to follow demand. When the Iphone was introduced, Internet service for it was spotty and expensive; that’s not the case anymore because so many people use smartphones.

            Bottom line: as long as people are paying for electricity, someone is going to figure out how to sell it to them. Wouldn’t surprise me if gas stations converted some of their gas pumps to chargers. Why not?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @pmirp1 – you are pointing out a current issue with mass implementation of EV’s. The infrastructure isn’t there. But Why would someone need to charge in between errands/trips if it’s a city commute? A fully charged EV can go multiple days for your typical urban use. I don’t put 20 litres at a time in my truck. I don’t put 2 litres at a time in my motorcycle. Most people work 8 hour days. Why can’t one charge EV’s then?
            No, I’m not retired. I work an 8 hour day and if you factor in sleep, I still have 8 hours to do normal activities of daily living.
            Travelling can be done in an EV. My motorcycle has a 240 km range. I’ll usually take a break and stretch at fuel fill ups. 30 minutes isn’t a big deal.

          • 0 avatar
            CoastieLenn

            @Lou: CURRENT issue…. with EV’s….. *knee slap*

            I’ll show myself out.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            I was doing a 50 mile each way commute in an EV for several years and it wasn’t a problem. Charge at work. Charge at home. With a 40 mile round trip commute, I could probably go a week without charging.

            But, I can charge at home and will be adding solar and storage. So, if I wanted, I could do over a 200 mile daily commute and not have to pay for fuel.

            Yeah, there are issues for the working poor that can’t charge at home. The new battery tech will make batteries and EVs themselves lighter. Lighter means better efficiency, so a smaller battery for a given range can be used. Smaller batteries charge to full capacity faster than a larger heavier battery. So, both charging times and costs will be coming down.

    • 0 avatar
      RHD

      What we need is a system that will top up your car battery during the minute and a half that you spend sitting at a red light. It can be paid for by the (likely inevitable) road use mileage fee you’ll end up paying in lieu of gasoline taxes. With this system (dibs on the patent), almost no one would ever have to actually stop at a charging station, except to put air in their tires and wash the bugs off the windshield. Apartment dwellers, you can stop losing sleep over this now.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @RHD – I guess they could have something built into the roadway similar to a “dockless” phone charger but that would generate considerable radiation.

        • 0 avatar
          pmirp1

          Lou_BC, “Why would someone need to charge in between errands/trips if it’s a city commute?”

          Because not every one has a home where they can charge car at night. If you don’t then you have to plan your life around charging. You have to make sure at night after work you have 45 minutes to charge. Or in morning you wake up 45 minutes early to charge.

          Otherwise, remember my use cases, you are late to Doctor appointment, you are fired from work, if you are uber/lyft/grubhub/uber eat driver you have to take 45 minutes of your prime day off.

          May be you have a flexible job if you work. For those that don’t have flexible job it is not easy to take off from work.

          As for driving, if I drive 1500 miles on a trip, that means I stop 5 times for a total of 5×45 minutes = ~ 5 hours. You tell me that is normal? Right. What about destination. When you get there you have to have charging.

          In Atlanta I have a home. I can theoretically charge there. My condo in Savannah has no charging unless I put a long wire to outside. Who does that? Come on. Be serious.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @pmirp1 – networks will develop as EV sales increase.
            I’m betting that there were similar conversations held at the dawn of the automobile. “There aren’t enough gas stations, too expensive, the poor can’t afford them, you can’t go very far, horses can go more places”
            Times will change whether we like it or not.

      • 0 avatar
        CoastieLenn

        I like that idea. Similar to those old cable cars, but adopted to wireless charging like a phone!

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        France tried that, RHD. Not surprisingly, it didn’t work so well. But that’s based on current tech.

      • 0 avatar
        pmirp1

        Freed Mike, In Atlanta I see sprinklings of Teslas. People enjoy them. Teslas are what BMWs and Audis and Mercedes used to be. They are status symbol.

        In Savannah (where I also have a condo), I see a few Teslas. It is a midsize town. Most vehicles are American, or Japanese or Korean. There are some Germans.

        The day Electrics solve the charging problem (so it is as seamless as filling up), is the day they can compete. Until then, they need government mandates and government subsidies.

        Remember, iphone or LCD/LES TV was organic market driven transition based on superior products. Electrics are inferior in every day use.

        • 0 avatar
          mcs

          “Electrics are inferior in every day use.”

          Just like every other automobile and transportation method, they work better for some people, not for others. Not everyone is the same.

          For me, ICE is inferior because I can’t fuel it at home and there is increased maintenance. Plus, you don’t have the annoying torque lag that comes with ICE cars.

          For someone that doesn’t have at-home chargng or does something like snow plowing in the winter, an EV might not be the best choice. At least for now.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    These alt-left activists masquerading as politicians are some of the dumbest people on the planet.

    Imagine thinking that electricity production is zero emissions and does not harm the planet. Unreal

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Nobody claims that electricity production is zero emissions.

      But economies of scale make it is more efficient than ICEs. If large-scale electricity production was wasteful, we’d all have personal power plants at home. Ever do the math on running a backup generator? It’s expensive, and the emissions are poor.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        You’re joking right? EVs are being sold as the savior of the planet. One hurricane hits the US in the middle of hurricane season and people act as if the climate is completely ruined. Then the inevitable politicization of normal and expected weather events ensues and we have idiot lawmakers throwing tantrums that we need EVs right now and ICE engines are killing the planet so on and so on.

        Yet they ignore the fact that electricty production is dirty, battery mining is about the worst thing you can do to the planet, and the waste from used up EVs is going to be a major headache.

        And no, EVs are not more efficient than ICE vehicles.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrbOJEomqOg&ab_channel=TFLnow
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKX2Dk8JvTk&ab_channel=TheFastLaneTruck
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjklex38lkQ&ab_channel=TheFastLaneCar

      • 0 avatar
        ToolGuy

        “we’d all have personal power plants at home”

        If you have the means, I highly recommend a separate hydroelectric plant (with garage):
        https://www.loc.gov/item/mi0679/

        300-foot tunnel to the main residence is ever so convenient in inclement weather.

        (Be aware that you might encounter some dam interference from the Feds down the road:)
        https://www.nps.gov/articles/navigating-fair-lane-s-conservation-perspectives.htm

    • 0 avatar
      RHD

      Right, EB. Everyone tends to conveniently turn a blind eye to the incessant clouds of toxic smoke emitted from solar panels, hydroelectric turbines, windmills and the harnessing of geothermal energy.

  • avatar

    So the actual wording isn’t really a ban it just makes 100% adoption the proposed goal of the state, along with a qualifier that it has to be feasible.

    Section 1. The environmental conservation law is amended by adding a
    new section 19-0306-b to read as follows:
    § 19-0306-B. ZERO-EMISSIONS CARS AND TRUCKS.
    1. IT SHALL BE A GOAL OF THE STATE THAT ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF NEW
    PASSENGER CARS AND TRUCKS OFFERED FOR SALE OR LEASE, OR SOLD, OR LEASED,
    FOR REGISTRATION IN THE STATE SHALL BE ZERO-EMISSIONS BY TWO THOUSAND
    THIRTY-FIVE. IT SHALL BE A FURTHER GOAL OF THE STATE THAT ONE HUNDRED
    PERCENT OF MEDIUM-DUTY AND HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES OFFERED FOR SALE OR
    LEASE, OR SOLD, OR LEASED, FOR REGISTRATION IN THE STATE BE ZERO-EMIS-
    SIONS BY TWO THOUSAND FORTY-FIVE FOR ALL OPERATIONS WHERE FEASIBLE. IT
    SHALL BE FURTHER A GOAL OF THE STATE TO TRANSITION TO ONE HUNDRED
    PERCENT ZERO-EMISSIONS OFF-ROAD VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT BY TWO THOUSAND
    THIRTY-FIVE WHERE FEASIBLE.
    2. THE DEPARTMENT, TO THE EXTENT CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAW, SHALL
    DEVELOP AND PROPOSE:
    A. PASSENGER VEHICLE AND TRUCK REGULATIONS REQUIRING INCREASING
    VOLUMES OF NEW ZERO-EMISSIONS VEHICLES OFFERED FOR SALE OR LEASE, OR
    SOLD, OR LEASED, FOR REGISTRATION IN THE STATE TOWARDS THE TARGET OF ONE
    HUNDRED PERCENT OF IN-STATE SALES BY TWO THOUSAND THIRTY-FIVE.
    B. MEDIUM-DUTY AND HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE REGULATIONS REQUIRING INCREASING
    VOLUMES OF NEW ZERO-EMISSIONS TRUCKS AND BUSES OFFERED FOR SALE OR
    LEASE, OR SOLD, OR LEASED, FOR REGISTRATION AND OPERATED IN THE STATE
    TOWARDS THE TARGET OF ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE FLEET TRANSITIONING TO
    ZERO-EMISSIONS VEHICLES BY TWO THOUSAND FORTY-FIVE EVERYWHERE FEASIBLE.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Oh, come on, Mopar – pointing out that it’s a goal, and only applies to new cars sold after 2035 is just so…what’s the word or phrase I’m struggling with here… Reasonable? Non-clickbaity?

      • 0 avatar
        Matt Posky

        These bans are often toothless but this still signals intent on a level we’ve not yet seen in the U.S. outside of California. It’s not officially a ban until it goes into effect (still 14 years away) but this effectively sets the table for that. I don’t see the usefulness of fretting over semantics when the objective is identical.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          “Toothless”? Not according to your headline, which states bluntly that New York has literally banned gas powered vehicles after 2035. Of course, that ignores that 1) the ban isn’t a ban at all, but sets a *goal* of setting a ban, and 2) said theoretical ban would only apply to new vehicles sold after 2035 and would not affect existing gas powered vehicles.

          But I suppose a headline that reads “New York Sets Toothless, Unenforced Goal Of Not Selling New Gas Powered Vehicles After 2035”, only hits Clickbait Level 1, and we needed Level 5 here.

          But having said that…
          1) Semantics in laws are irrelevant? Okay…
          2) 2035 is 14 years from now. The state can’t move the goal back to 2040 or 2050, or eliminate it altogether if the political winds change?

          But, again, none of this elicits the requisite level of paranoia needed for a good rant and subsequent 250 comments that will find people on this board hating on each other, and that’s already begun. Thus, the inaccurate headline, and the irrelevant references towards Joe Biden’s approval rating.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            We’ve progressed well beyond subtle dog whistles.

            “I often find myself having to repeat that I am not an acolyte of either political party.”

            One does not need to be an ‘acolyte” to sit firmly on one side of the political spectrum. Mr. Posky screeds are highly political in presentation. Might as well have a form letter substituting masks, vaccines, EV’s, climate mitigation etc. and just mail it in.

            Why no rebuttal to Texas’s new anti-abortion law?
            It allows any member of the public to sue Uber driver’s or anyone involved in “aiding” an abortion after six weeks.

          • 0 avatar
            Mike A

            We get plenty of irrelevant pro Biden and Democrat sentiment from other authors on this site. Let’s have true diversity of opinion.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “We get plenty of irrelevant pro Biden and Democrat sentiment from other authors on this site. Let’s have true diversity of opinion.”

            Um.. Please list.

  • avatar
    kcflyer

    Matt, I’m looking and don’t see a source with more details of this silly law. Will it effect only new cars sold in New York? I saw one tidbit that said all off road vehicles would have to be zero emission by 2035. don’t see how that’s possible nor did it define off road vehicles (tractors, boats, dirt bikes, quads, side by sides, etc) Will I be able to buy out of state and still register a new vehicle after the deadline in NY? If not how does that comply with current interstate and intrastate commerce laws? Thoughts? Oh, and can someone explain where NY state is going to get emissions’ free electric power? Has Kathy found di lithium crystals in the governors mansion?

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      See above – mopar posted it. The law sets a ***goal*** of all new car sales in 2035 being EVs, so a) it doesn’t sound like an outright ban to me, and b) it does not apply to selling used cars that aren’t EVS. That makes the headline, which states that the state is “banning sale of gasoline vehicles after 2035” completely inaccurate. But these are mere details that should not stand in the way of a really righteous rant.

    • 0 avatar
      Matt Posky

      Yes. The first line states that it will only apply to new vehicles sold from 2035 onwards assuming the state doesn’t shift the goalpost.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        And yet your headline and lede both state bluntly that the ban (which isn’t a ban at all) applies to all gasoline powered vehicles starting in 2035.

        • 0 avatar
          el scotto

          @FreedMike sir, I think Mr. Posky keeps emailing his posts to the EIB network in hopes of being hired.

        • 0 avatar
          Daniel J

          Lol, while the title is fairly clickbait, it’s no different than the clickbait than most mainstream news outlets put out. Saw one yesterday about a healthy kid dying from Covid and the picture posted a kid that was severely obese.

        • 0 avatar
          Matt Posky

          The headline says “to ban.” That means the intent to ban the vehicles after 2035.

          You’re acting in bad faith trying to undermine the issue for reasons I cannot understand. If you want the government to mandate electric cars just say so.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            I’m calling you out for writing an inaccurate headline and lede, and you’re trying to change the topic by implying I want the government to mandate electric cars, which I don’t want. That’s why I said “bad idea, New York” above.

            So you’re trying to deflect my criticism by saying something inaccurate about me.

            When does the “you’re a coward and fool” stuff start?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Children, play nice.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @28:

            Thoughts on the Quad 4s from this era?

            https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/38421af0-7bb4-42e0-b398-9d86317239e9/

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Most of the lower end GM FWD stuff we traded in were of the 60V6 variety or earlier J-body (2.2, 2.0T in Sunbird). I heard anecdotally from several old timers about what a headache the Quad-4 was for them, but they most would have been referring to late 80s to mid 90s examples. I know a number of then newer J-bodys did pass through the shop and my own hands but I can’t recall exact drivetrains or specific issues.

            I would take the 2.2 LN2 to war in a heartbeat, this I’d research before committing. In typical GM behavior they seem to have sorted out the Quad-4 issues just at the end of production so you’re probably good to go for your purposes.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @Freed

            You want this, seriously all day long and twice on Sunday:

            98 C70 Coupe, Florida car, 33K on the clock, all records, with the good stereo/leather and a roof, private party in Denver, CO 80227. Seller has 5K on it, and the coupes are actually collectable now. I own the ‘vert version of this, so I’m familiar with all of its stupidity (which is more annoying than expensive on these P80s). *I* am 50/50 on calling guy and putting it on my credit card, its a new fricking car for I’m sure under 5 in a quick cash deal.

            https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?listingId=599466193

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            That Volvo is nice. Have you done a Carfax on it?

            My only quibble is that I don’t need another car for myself and I hate to give my kid something with that much balls. She’s basically a brand new driver and we know how that goes.

            If you buy it, look me up. :)

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @Freed

            I just happened to come across it while looking for Volvos near you. I agree about young drivers getting into trouble and I think your daughter would be best served by a P3. The P3 being a marked improvement over the flaky P2 or a P80 which are old enough to not be as complicated but new enough to have all of the advanced safety features (Volvo development was P80 -> P2 -> P3). I would again suggest Dad pass on his newer safer car to her and maybe get yourself into that C70. Its like a new car built of quality materials with decent safety for what people are paying for complete garbage trucks and CUVs right now. Hell the miles are so low you could drive it for a year or two and then offload it to a collector for what you paid.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    “Fatten those budgets, boys, we got some new toys coming to us courtesy of the taxpayers.”

    It’s nice when corruption is out in the open.

    I bet NY read this and got jealous: https://www.lamayor.org/mayor-garcetti-announces-city-los-angeles-now-home-largest-electric-vehicle-fleet-us

    But didn’t read this: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/lapd-leases-hundreds-of-bmw-i3s-leaves-them-to-rot-in-garage/

    Or maybe they did read the 2nd article and got envious at the level of grift and decided they needed to aim higher.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    “If governments and the automotive industry are so hellbent on promoting EV adoption, they should ensure the vehicles in question are desirable and superior to their forebears in every conceivable way”

    I see your point, but I’m not sure I agree with it.

    – The transition from feet to horses meant you had to care for a horse.
    – The transition from horses to carriages meant only the ‘rich’ had carriages.
    – The transition from horse-drawn carriages to horseless carriages meant you needed a mechanic, and once again, only the ‘rich’ had a car.
    – The transition from manuals to automatics meant lower fuel economy, and the addition of a mysterious slushbox to the vehicle.
    – The transition from unrestricted engines to emissions controls meant lower performance, higher cost, and much more complex vehicles.
    – The 55-mph mandate saved gas and lives, at the cost of travel time.
    – Airbag and seatbelt mandates have saved many lives, but added vehicle cost and complexity.

    So I’d argue that a cost-free transition to EVs isn’t possible, and shouldn’t be expected. Personally, I find that EVs are “desirable and superior” in nearly every way I need.

    But the author seems to think that today’s snowflake culture needs to apply to EVs so that nobody will have a complaint. Life doesn’t work like that.

    • 0 avatar
      Matt Posky

      I think that people should be able to buy the best tool for the job and not be restricted by the dictum. That’s great if EVs work for you but they absolutely have not worked for me and will not until charging points are as plentiful as gas stations, average range eclipses 400 miles per charge, and charging times rival filling up a tank of gasoline. I frequently drive over 700 miles in a day and there isn’t an EV on planet earth that works for that. If I never left the city, it would be a different story.

      I’m not asking anyone not to buy electrics. I’m not expecting the won’t continue to get better. I just don’t want to be forced into buying something I never wanted and doesn’t work for my (and other people’s) needs because it’s more profitable for the industry and their allies in politics.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        “I think that people should be able to buy the best tool for the job and not be restricted by the dictum”

        That is a universal feeling but reality is entirely different. Unless you are in the 0.1%, we all live restrained by budgets,laws, norms, and/or dictum.

        • 0 avatar
          Matt Posky

          Your support for this is bewildering.

          Your take is literally “it shouldn’t be this way but it is and we should go along with it for that reason.”

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            So because he disagrees with you, he supports the ban-that-really-isn’t-a-ban? Not necessarily.

            Why don’t you try asking him?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Matt Posky – Don’t put words in my mouth. We are all governed by laws, financial, and social constraints. That goes hand in glove with being a member of a society. One has the peaceful right to voice their opinions and change those factors at the ballot box and through the courts. As a member of the media one needs to present the information in a factual light. I’d suggest you give that a try.

  • avatar
    C5 is Alive

    As much as I’m really trying to take this latest loony Leftist diktat seriously, I rather doubt we’ll even still be part of the same country by then.

  • avatar
    SaulTigh

    I for one am looking forward to our dystopian future where the power grid can’t handle all the electric vehicle charging because there is not enough base load generation, and the supply chain is further wrecked by trucks that can no longer drive cross country without stopping every 5 hours to recharge.

    Sometimes I swear Covid was just an opportunity to soften us up for this BS.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Sure, because the power grid has remained exactly the same since 1910.

      Power generators will be caught by surprise when 200 million EVs plug in one night in 2035.

      /s

      Shipping costs will go down when electric delivery trucks become widespread. That’s why Tesla has Semi pre-orders from companies like Walmart and Pepsi. They’re always looking for ways to improve delivery, not hurt it.

      • 0 avatar
        SaulTigh

        Or conversely, large corporations go which ever way the political winds blow, even if it’s only lip service.

        Please let us all know where additional base load generation is being built. It’s certainly not new nuclear plants (despite all the green house gas hysteria) and older coal fired plants are being retired every year.

  • avatar
    96redse5sp

    Can’t resist the editorializing…

    “…strategy necessary for stopping the horrors of global warming, which we now call climate change…).

    Conservatives hate change. They just can’t cope. As Steven Colbert once said famously said about Pres.Bush:

    “He believes the exact same thing on Wednesday that he believed on Monday, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENED IN TUESDAY…”.

    Yeah, Matt. It’s referred to as “climate change” now. Deal with it…

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Well, in fairness, this IS an editorial. But even editorials need to be based on fact. The headline and lede here are both blatantly inaccurate, as they both state that New York will not allow the sale of gas powered cars after 2035, when in fact the law sets a ***goal*** of not selling ***new*** gas powered cars after 2035.

      Editorials are arguments. When you start an argument with bulls**t, it’s worthless.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        “When you start an argument with bulls**t, it’s worthless.’

        Well, pre-Rump… yes.

        It’s only fake news if it doesn’t fit your world view or the narrative you are trying to sell.

  • avatar
    mcs

    “However, this doesn’t mean much if neighboring states don’t follow suit.”

    That’s not true. Even now, a new car has to meet California emissions standards to be registered. They just wouldn’t allow a a brand new ICE vehicle to be registered.

    https://dmv.ny.gov/registration/california-emissions-standards

  • avatar
    mcs

    “California recall frontrunner Larry Elder… ”
    Actually, Gavin Newsom is leading in the polls.

    https://www.sfgate.com/gavin-newsom-recall/article/Newsom-recall-poll-election-California-yes-Elder-16430710.php

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Irrelevant. Unless its been decided to throw Newsom to the wolves, “voting” will go as planned.

      • 0 avatar

        It is Democrats game plan from 60s on, as far as I can remember, that’s how Kennedy and Johnson won elections.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          The Democrats’ ’60s game plan was to make sure tens of millions of Americans finally got to vote. Ditto for the moderate wing of the GOP at the time.

          Looks like one party has stayed with their ’60s game plan and the other one didn’t.

          That’s why the folks who got the right to vote via the ’60s Democratic agenda vote overwhelmingly for them, and against the other party.

          The GOP could certainly fix this by stopping all the “let’s make voting harder” and “let’s gut the Voting Rights Act” bulls**t. But they don’t. Ah, well…their choice.

  • avatar
    mcs

    “Costal states with large, metropolitan hubs are pushing the limits of what the population is willing to accept and they’re hemorrhaging citizens as a result. ”

    Not true. The last time I looked Massachusetts was a blue state with a large metropolitan hub and it gained 7.4% in population in the latest census. Connecticut gained too.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      Other coastal states in the Northeast grew as well. Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine all grew in population. All coastal states that currently require California emissions.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      one asterisk though.. While average growth in states is about 10%. MA is under 4%

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        @slavuta: Population growth for Massachusetts is 7.4% Average population gain for the US was 7.4%. So average. But, not hemorrhaging citizens and not 4%.

        https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/breaking-down-what-the-census-results-mean-for-massachusetts/2466844/

        https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2021/apr/27/us-population-growth-lowest-since-30s-at-74/

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          I have different data
          http://www.usa.com/rank/us–population-growth-rate–state-rank.htm

          “But there was big growth in certain regions. The population in the South grew 10.2% since 2010, while the West was close behind at 9.2%, according to the bureau’s data. The Northeast (4.1%) and Midwest (3.1%) grew at much slower rates.”

          https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/slideshows/these-are-the-10-fastest-growing-states-in-america

  • avatar
    redapple

    Just wait until China takes Taiwan after the winter olympics (But a year before Biden s next election).

    Maybe the batteries and rare earths will not be widely available in the amount we need from china and china controlled areas.
    Opps. more battery problems: Big Time.

    Between battery issues (sourcing as above, capy, recharge time, cost , weight) and the great increase in needed green electric generation, i see many issues /problems
    And the one that will smack us the worst is an issue we have have not even thought of. Kinda like Rumsfeld ‘s unknown – unknowns.

    I know – I know – i m nuts. But I ll keep my ICE thank you very much.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      @redapple: The biggest problem with rare earth metals and China isn’t the location of the source. We have plenty here. The big problem is that even US mined rare earth metals have to be sent to China to be processed.

      Most of the battery issues have been solved in the lab, but figuring out how to mass-produce the new tech is the next problem to be solved. Once solved, some of the new technologies don’t require nickel or even lithium. Weight issues are getting resolved too. It’s just going to take time to figure out how to build them with automation and at high speed. It could take several years.

      BTW, Toyota is now road testing their solid-state battery. They still have work to do. The vehicle is even weirder looking than the first Mirai.

  • avatar
    Kendahl

    Years ago, I was looking at a number of graduate schools including one in the Prairie Provinces of Canada. In a photograph of one of their buildings, which included a view of the parking lot, I noticed a post sticking up in front of each space. It didn’t take long for me to realized that the post was an electrical outlet for the parked vehicle’s block heater in winter.

    I think the message is that, as BEVs become more common, accommodation will be made for them. This will include existing apartment complexes which will have to add level 2 or better outlets or become uncompetitive in the rental market. New houses will come standard with recharging outlets they way they now come standard with electric clothes dryer outlets. Being able to recharge your BEV at work will become a valuable fringe benefit of a good job.

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    So you’ll see even MORE cars with Florida plates driving around NY State?

  • avatar
    JD-Shifty

    it’s always “voter fraud” when the republicans lose. they should get used to it, they’ll be gone soon

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    New York and California are both losing population and will continue to lose population. I am not so much against EVs but having them forced on us when the infrastructure is inadequate to support EVs. If the infrastructure does catch up then that will be good but there also needs to be more EVs priced competitively to ICE.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    No, no, no, the state of New York is NOT banning ICE vehicles by 2035. New York state would like to set it as a goal. Reach down and untuck your tighty-whiteys. Today there are approximately 4,400,00 vehicles registered in New York state. Let’s say there are 6,000,000 registered vehicles in New York state on Sunday December 31, 2034.On Monday January 1, 2035 they aren’t going to float away on winters cold breezes. This proposed law DOESN’T STOP anyone from buying a used ICE vehicle in 2035. I could see Manhattan banning ICE vehicles 24/7/365 in the near future. The other four boroughs and the surrounding tri-state area? They’ll come up with incentives to drive electrics.

    • 0 avatar
      RHD

      Stop making sense, El Scotto. Matt Posky spent at least half an hour putting together that diatribe. He needs to rile up the readers to get the clicks and comments and page views and advertising revenue.

      (“They’re comin’ to take your truck away! And it’s gonna to be Obama takin’ yer guns away at the same time! So send in your contributions to the Chump Foundation raht now, so we kin fight them rabid salivatin’ Libs!)

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      “I could see Manhattan banning ICE vehicles 24/7/365 in the near future.”

      I could see “Escape from New York” becoming a documentary of Manhattan in the mid to long term.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        I call dibs on the Duke’s Caddy.

        In any case, the folks escaping New York are the same ones who have always been escaping it – the ones who can’t afford to live there. Snake Plissken wouldn’t know what to do about that.

  • avatar

    We cannot have ICE vehicles in 2035. By that time we will:
    1.Start colonizing Mars. You cannot drive ICE vehicles on surface of Mars and other planets.
    2. Fusion reactors will be common place. So there will be no shortage of electric power.
    3. Cars will be fully autonomous.
    4. C++ will be retired as a programming language.
    5. Intel will go bankrupt.

  • avatar

    Oh, forgot to mention another prediction:
    4. By 2035 we will harness huge amount of energy stored in Astrophages.

  • avatar

    I would take anything said by a politician with a grain of salt. By 2035 electric vehicles may have 10% of the market. Currently, EVs constitute about 2% of the US market, and Telsa has 50% of that small market. Apparently, people in California are already trading in their EV’s due to their lack of convenience.

  • avatar
    Boxerman

    BMW and Toyota have an interesting stat, and thats co2 over the vehicles lifecycle. It takes 3 hybirds to emit as much c02 over their lifecycle as 1 ev. This includes production and disposal c02. So most assuredly the BEV is not the answer id CO2 reduction is the goal.

    Lets also add to that the next enviromental disaster which is cobalt, rare earths, mining refinement etc. And Ill top it with 1 battery disposal issue.

    Enviromentaly BEv’s as we know them are a total disaster and bomb waiting to drop.

    What a BEV is, virtue signaling and one upmanship, plus a way for urban dwellers to export their pollution offsite. They are definitvely not a way to reduce total global C02 or clean the overall enviroment.

    When the batteries and their materials are recylclable, and preferably made from somenthing more easily mined and refined, and when the energy used in prduction and recharging is more clean, then yes a BEV may be an answer. But were far far far from that. In terms of production recycling the questions are not even being asked, how enlightened is that. Perhaps these issues should form part of the go no go on the mandate.

    Unbtill then its just a politcal vote thing for the gullible, plus a pretty cool fast expensive car that exports pollution offsite, so yeah perfect for city voters. Id like to see the big issues like ethical/enviromental production and disposal solved before we march headlong into this madness. or is it cool to just destroy the enviromentin Africa with mining, China with refining, and then export the used batteries to nigeria as we do with old computers, cause thats the relaity.

  • avatar
    CoastieLenn

    I’m glad I don’t live in NY anymore, but I think in the grand scheme, most of the car buying public WANT to like EV’s. I know for sure that if I can find an EV that tickles me in the right places, for the right price point, that I’d buy it. Sadly, none of that exists right now in an affordable space. Maybe in 10 years or so, but with how quickly technology becomes outdated and unsupported, these badass Tesla’s we have now will be…. what…. useless when I can actually afford them? I don’t think anyone wants to be directly or indirectly FORCED to buy something that doesn’t work for them. That’s not how capitalism works.

    Until then, you’ll have to pry my Mercury Marauder from my cold dead hands.

    If my car has to be purchased like my phone- obsolete after 3-5 years, I’m out.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    I only have one question about the new law: Where’s the cost-benefit analysis?

    Oh, that’s right, Democrats don’t bother with such things. They just pass laws that make soccer moms and girly men feel good about their votes.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • stuki: “You get a lot for your money” It depends how you look at it. Compared to much of...
  • stuki: Nice! And now: On to longitudinal engines and a rear drive bias……. Not that it’s strictly...
  • SCE to AUX: For the Mazda fans: If Mazdas are better than Honda, Toyota, and H/K for the same price, why have they...
  • mcs: ” live in a hilly snowy place and yes awd makes a huge difference,” I’m in the same situation....
  • NormSV650: Still falls short of the Accord when they share the sane 2.0T and again with single turbo v6 in the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber