QOTD: Flee, Go Underground, or Give In?

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

They’re coming, and if you want to hang on to what’s near and dear to you, you’ve got to make a decision. And fast.

Well, maybe give it a few years.

As lawmakers and wannabe lawmakers go hog wild on proposed internal combustion bans in Europe, the idea has taken hold in North America. Different culture, different travel distances, different landscapes, but the same rhetoric. Same solutions. Same challenges, too, though there might be a few additional ones over here.

When they come for your car, what will you do?

Oh, you’ll still be allowed to buy a new vehicle, alright — it just won’t have any cylinders pumping beneath the hood. Under proposals issued by the Justice Democrats in the U.S. and the Green Party in Canada, all internal combustion passenger vehicles would have to disappear from new car lots in 10 years. A lot of other things will also have to disappear to reach the goals of both manifes- er, proposals. But that’s another matter.

Given the astronomical amounts of cash needed to fund the other policies stuffed into each plan like a legislative Kinder egg, it’s hard to imagine EV subsidies will be of the sky-high, I-don’t-care-as-long-as-I’m-getting-all-this-cash variety. The free ride will be found at your local college, not in your driveway.

It’s hard not to think of that Rush song at times like these. Frankly, I don’t relish the thought of having vehicular choice taken away from me any more than I like the idea of watching Jim Hackett try on a halter top and a pair of Daisy Dukes. It’s nice to choose between environmental stewardship and a vehicle that satisfies other needs, including versatility, range, price, and that visceral feeling of being in control of an amazingly complex mechanical beast. A vehicle with a throaty (or any) exhaust.

Maybe EVs will be everything we could ever dream of in a decade’s time. Maybe they won’t. But there’s a set of crosshairs placed over the ninety-eight-point-something-percent of new vehicles sold today by people who might eventually get what they want.

Sure, you might be able to keep your existing car come 2030, but driving it to work on the daily? Entering urban cores? This remaining fleet could be, as they say, problematic. Owners might find their movements severely restricted. Maybe these reviled relics will even become the automotive equivalent of a “wall hanger” firearm — something that, while nice to look at, is deemed unfit for actual use.

Should such laws come to pass, do you plan to go gently into that good, green night, or is your plan to rage against the dying of the (check engine) light? What form will your resistance take?

[Image: Murilee Martin/TTAC]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 124 comments
  • Inside Looking Out Inside Looking Out on Sep 20, 2019

    Daimler Benz, the company that invented automobile, announced that they stop development of IC engines to focus on EV development. If it isn't the writing on the wall then I don't know what is. ICE is doomed because car companies will stop offering cars with ICE. EV is more efficient, less problem prone, simpler, require much less maintenance, faster, have more torque, more space, electricity can be generated using any available source of energy including renewables (try that with ICE), electricity easier to deliver to charging stations, it is safer. Model 3 beats any ICE car, even Porsche.

  • Schmitt trigger Schmitt trigger on Sep 20, 2019

    @SCE to AUX A little off topic, but I finally understood your screen name. What an incredible Apollo 12 story!

  • DesertNative More 'Look at me! Look at me!' from Elon Musk. It's time to recognize that there's nothing to see here, folks and that this is just about pumping up the stock price. When there's a real product on the ground and available, then there will be something to which we can pay attention. Until then, ignore him.
  • Bkojote Here's something you're bound to notice during ownership that won't come up in most reviews or test drives-Honda's Cruise Control system is terrible. Complete trash. While it has the ability to regulate speed if there's a car in front of you, if you're coasting down a long hill with nobody in front of you the car will keep gaining speed forcing you to hit the brakes (and disable cruise). It won't even use the CVT to engine brake, something every other manufacturer does. Toyota's system will downshift and maintain the set speed. The calibration on the ACC system Honda uses is also awful and clearly had minimum engineering effort.Here's another- those grille shutters get stuck the minute temperature drops below freezing meaning your engine goes into reduced power mode until you turn it off. The Rav4 may have them but I have yet to see this problem.
  • Sobhuza Trooper "Toyota engineers have told us that they intentionally build their powertrains with longevity in mind."Boy, that's pretty hateful. I suppose some greedy people who would pick Toyota would also want to have greater longevity for themselves. But wouldn't we all rather die at 75, while still looking cool than live to be 85 and look like a doddering old man?
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Neither. They're basically the same vehicle.
  • Analoggrotto 1. Kia Sportage2. Hyundai TucsonRugged SUVs which cater to the needs of the affluent middle class suburbanite which are second only to themselves, these are shining applications of Hyundai Kia Genesis commitment to automotive excellence. Evolving from the fabled Hyundai Excel of the 90s, a pioneering vehicle which rivaled then upstart Lexus in quality, comfort and features long before Hyundai became a towering king of analytics and funding legions of internet keyboard warriors.
Next