Quote:
Originally Posted by RABAUKE
So my two cents. Lets assume that EV's are where we're going. There are lots of folks who won't be able to buy one for decades, they will continue to buy $500 beaters or $3000 used cars. What's government going to do, just stop the sale of gasoline? Governments sole purpose is to get re-elected, they won't force voters out of their cheap gas powered cars if that means getting voted out of office......they don't care more about the environment than they do about getting re-elected. Lets see how much global warming matters when push comes to shove at election time.
|
Good point. On the other hand I can see California just straight out banning ICE. Why? Because of what else is going on.
It's now illegal in this state to have a toilet that uses more than 1.28 gallons per flush (prior standard was 1.6 gallons per flush). Same draconian rules for all fixtures, kitchen, bath, and so on. Technically you're breaking the law if you didn't complete retrofits on 1/1/17.
Want to sell the house? Replace. Want to get a permit for a remodel or additions? Replace. Want to use the modified retro 1920s fixture you spent a ton on that uses 1 gallon/flush? Illegal. Must be destroyed. Must be manufactured to use 1.28.
Too poor to afford replacing all of your fixtures at once (thousands in some cases)? "Poverty is no excuse for non compliance" is the word from our legislators and regulators.
Meanwhile they're building 30,000 new homes 20 miles away from me. Glad we are "saving" water for the 90,000 people that will add.
/Rant
Point is folks in some states will gladly ban ICE just like ammo/gun sales, toilets and showerheads as they keep electing folks who align with the voter's wishes. Or they'll vote directly via proposition or amendments to tax it to death. Smoking would be a perfect example, voters just pushed that to the highest level in the land.
ICE may not be "out" everywhere, but I expect no ICE be reality sooner than later in this state and in many countries for the very reasons you cite: voters want it. And voters rarely take the hit/impact on the less fortunate into account in their "moral indignation" when passing laws (who this would impact the most severely).