Washington State's 'Clean Cars 2030' Bill, ban sale of ICE vehicles

[botsapper]

Washington State's both houses passed a bill could make Washington, the first state to ban the sale, purchase or resistration of any new non-electric cars in the state beginning 2030. California, Massachusetts and Canada's Quebec province planned to have similar bans by 2035. General Motors planned to stop producing ICE-powered cars in 2035. This WA registration law applies to all light-duty vehicles 2030 or newer, so you can't import newest ICE-powered vehicles bought from other states. It is not a firm mandate, because it is contingent on the state also adopting a tax on vehicle miles traveled. This measure to help pay for new transportation and electric-charging infrastructure, according to the bill. Washington State is very aggressive in their plans to boost the sale and accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/was...rs-2021-04-15/

[redpoint5]

Braindead, corrupt, or likely both.

How do they know electric is the best non-petrol solution for transportation a decade from now? What are the specific environmental goals they are attempting to achieve? These are just a couple important questions among dozens which must be answered first before passing such a bill if anything resembling reason, and solving a problem is meant to be achieved.

Seems WA is trying to one up CA in ridding themselves of the wealthier residents. If a feces-powered vehicle is invented, these places will have plenty of fuel just laying around on the streets to power them.

This bill is DOA.

[freebeard]

Greater Idaho is sounding better every day.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Greater Idaho is sounding better every day.

A good friend of mine just sold their Kenton neighborhood (PDX) house and bought a place in Sandpoint. As a new father, he didn't feel it was right staying.

[oil pan 4]

That will make escaping the state more difficult.
I hope it passes.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

I'm OK with hybrids, including plug-in ones, but those planned mandates to go full-EV seem doomed to fail if they ever get effectively implemented.

[Isaac Zachary]

I know that climate change and fossil fuels and such are all controversial. But regardless, it seems most governments feel that fossil fuels are causing a worsening pollution problem.

One solution to fossil fuel pollution is to stop burning fossil fuels. The other is to keep burning them but figure out how to remove the pollution from the air, including CO2.

On that former solution, how could we as a society stop burning fossil fuels? One way is to stop driving (ICEV's), stop cooking (on gas stoves), stop using electricity (made from coal), etc., etc., etc. Another is to replace those things with something else that doesn't involve burning fossil fuels.

Thinking of the latter, could a fossil fuel free future be possible without sacrificing modern conveniences and make that possible for the masses? I have no idea, I'm no expert. I mean, sure, maybe. Instead of gas stoves we could all get electric stoves. Instead of getting electricity from coal we could get it from solar and wind. Instead of driving ICEV's we could drive BEV's.

At one point I owned a gasoline car, a diesel car and an electric car all at the same time, and they all had the ability to get me from point A to B. The diesel let out large clouds of black smoke. The gasoline car didn't smell to good seeing how it was a 1972 VW with no catalytic converter or the like. But the EV didn't make any smoke. And the closest electric generator plant to where I live is 100% hydro-powered. No smoke or anything like that coming from there.

But the thing of it is, if there ever is going to be a mass transition to a fossil free future governments will have to get involved. Obviously making incentives would be much nicer than doing it by force. But on the other hand, if they don't make a date to work towards as a goal then it's hard to make plans to meet that goal.

Personally I don't know what's what nor do I car to argue one way or the other. Governments do what governments do. So far they've banned carburetors and made seat belts and air bags a must. But they also have pushed car manufacturers to make vehicles that are more fuel efficient.

I wonder if this is like back when cars started coming out with expensive catalytic converters, fancy fuel injection systems and EGR or when leaded fuel was banned. People were sure they'd be up a creek without a paddle. But now we look back and think of those changes as being good.

I have no idea what will happen with the EV situation. 2030 is still kind of a long time away. And it doesn't mean that all existing ICEV's will have to suddenly be retired. I've never bought a new car anyway and as long as used cars exist that's what I'll probably be driving, whether they be gasoline, diesel, CNG or electric.

[Cd]

How is this going to work with poor white trash, like myself ?
People that can't afford a new car will be forced to ride the bus.

Pehaps there will be loopholes that get around the law.
My '93 Civic is close to being considered a "classic car".
I recently found out that in my state, they don't even check the car for emissions.

The reason behind the law is a good one, but I hope it does not punish the poor.
It will only make that portion of the population hostile to any good regulations.

( When I think "classic car" , I think" '57 Chevy", not '93 Civic ! )

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Cd

The reason behind the law is a good one, but I hope it does not punish the poor.
It will only make that portion of the population hostile to any good regulations.

Lack of good intention is rarely the problem with bad ideas; it’s profound ignorance, sometimes coupled with the desire to win points either personally or for the team.

[freebeard]

[not saying anything that might set off the Mods]

Intent is not as provable as results.