New York to ban the sale of all gas-powered cars by 2035

midian182

Posts: 7,143   +63
Staff member
Forward-looking: New York is joining other states and countries in setting a date for when gas-powered vehicle sales will end. A new law will require all new cars to be zero emissions by 2035. The state’s Senate and Assembly passed the bill and Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul signed it into law last week. It’s hoped that the move will help reduce New York’s carbon pollution by 35%, which would go some way to achieving its climate target of reducing carbon emissions to 85% below 1990 levels by 2050.

Ars Technica notes that New York will need to convince plenty of its residents that EVs are the way forward. Right now, just 1% of vehicles sold in the state are electric. Ensuring that 100% of all vehicles sold are of the zero-emissions variety in just 14 years is no small feat.

Additionally, off-road vehicles and equipment sold in the state must also be zero emissions by 2035, while medium- and heavy-duty vehicles have until 2045. The law does state that the zero-emissions rule will only be required “where feasible.”

A dearth of charging stations is often cited as the reason why many people are wary of electric vehicles. New York will need to install a large-scale fast-charging network across the state if it wants people to embrace EVs, with charging stations at apartments, groceries, malls, streets, and parking lots. By 2050, the city predicts it will need 800,000 level-2 chargers and 60,000 fast chargers.

In January, Massachusetts announced that gas-powered car sales would be banned in the state from 2035, following the same rules announced by California in 2020. Washington state attempted to pass a similar law earlier this year, with the cut-off date set for 2030, but Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee vetoed it.

Image credit: Charged Future

Many countries are banning the sale of gas-powered vehicles in either 2030, 2035, or 2040, including the UK, Japan, China, and Germany. Norway and South Korea are aiming to do the same by 2025.

Masthead credit: Helena Lopes

Permalink to story.

 

Dimitriid

Posts: 1,084   +2,054
This plans are:

1) Still about 15 years later than it should have been
2) Utterly meaningless without also announcing 100% carbon neutral electrical grids

Steps should be build more nuclear reactors first, then you can decommission carbon plants and ban gas cars and trucks.
 

Puiu

Posts: 4,928   +3,796
TechSpot Elite
This plans are:

1) Still about 15 years later than it should have been
2) Utterly meaningless without also announcing 100% carbon neutral electrical grids

Steps should be build more nuclear reactors first, then you can decommission carbon plants and ban gas cars and trucks.
The ban on sales in 2035 isn't unrealistic
 

mgwerner

Posts: 128   +138
This plans are:

1) Still about 15 years later than it should have been
2) Utterly meaningless without also announcing 100% carbon neutral electrical grids

Steps should be build more nuclear reactors first, then you can decommission carbon plants and ban gas cars and trucks.
No construction is "carbon-neutral." Nor is life itself.
 

Neatfeatguy

Posts: 481   +783
I wonder how that'll impact car business, especially when they rely on a good number of sales to be from used cars.

For every new car sold, nearly 2.5 used cars are sold. I wonder how well used electric cars will be able to keep up with how things currently work, if there will be enough to fill demands.

Also, I wonder how manufacturers will be able to keep up....

Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
 

mgwerner

Posts: 128   +138
I wonder how that'll impact car business, especially when they rely on a good number of sales to be from used cars.

For every new car sold, nearly 2.5 used cars are sold. I wonder how well used electric cars will be able to keep up with how things currently work, if there will be enough to fill demands.

Also, I wonder how manufacturers will be able to keep up....

Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
Or, an opportunity for used car dealers in surrounding states.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 1,084   +2,054
2) is impossible.

It really isn't, but severe degrowth strategies that necessarily enter into conflict with Neoliberal capitalist regimes are necessary and yes, this *will* in all likelihood mean violent uprisings when refugee crisis situations brought about by catastrophic weather get out of control and Neoliberalism turns to Eco-Fascism.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,717   +2,870
I wonder how that'll impact car business, especially when they rely on a good number of sales to be from used cars.

For every new car sold, nearly 2.5 used cars are sold. I wonder how well used electric cars will be able to keep up with how things currently work, if there will be enough to fill demands.

Also, I wonder how manufacturers will be able to keep up....

Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
Think there will be a problem ? Why would used car buyers have a problem buying a $5,000-$15,000 new battery pack for their used car ?

Sarcasm aside, EV as they are right now will pose a big problem for lower income car buyers - they most likely won‘t be able to afford owning one.
 

Vrmithrax

Posts: 1,590   +648
I do love how there are all of these initiatives to eliminate fossil fuel powered vehicles, but you never seem to see any associated plans for the MASSIVE updates that will be required in the back-end infrastructure and power generation that will be required to adequately charge and power all of these new electric vehicles.

People love to chant "down with fossil fuels" and wave their flags and create policies to ban gas powered cars, it makes them feel good to feel like they are helping the environment (or, in some cases, it makes them LOOK good, and image is important particularly in politics). It's just that most of these plans feel like they are putting the cart before the horse, because the cart is the shiny thing that everyone will look at and applaud. I'm totally down with reducing fuel powered vehicles, there are a ton of applications where electric makes far more sense than gas, particularly in large cities with congestion and constant stop & go traffic. There just has to be some real definitive answers for power generation to fuel all of those electrics, and that seems to be a detail that just conveniently gets dismissed or waved off as a "problem for later" or something.
 

Vrmithrax

Posts: 1,590   +648
I wonder how that'll impact car business, especially when they rely on a good number of sales to be from used cars.

For every new car sold, nearly 2.5 used cars are sold. I wonder how well used electric cars will be able to keep up with how things currently work, if there will be enough to fill demands.

Also, I wonder how manufacturers will be able to keep up....

Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

I remember an interesting concept that was tried out, a company called Better Place. They contracted for vehicles to be built around an exchangeable battery module - I think Renault was one of the car companies they worked with. Consumers would buy the car, but the battery was owned by the company. The idea was that you drove around, could charge your car normally, or had the option to drive into an automated setup (similar to a car wash) where the battery was swapped out within minutes, and you are off on a full charge again. There was a subscription type of service charge you paid, which was based on usage I believe, and would come in far below comparable gas costs for an ICE vehicle. It was a clever concept, made the battery maintenance and upkeep (and potential upgrading later with new technology) something that wasn't a concern to the operator/owner. Plus, it eliminated the battery concern for the used electric vehicle market.

Of course, the concept didn't make it much past planning and some test markets, but it had some promise for eliminating some of the pitfalls of electrics. Might have just been before its time - you'd be looking at quite the infrastructure needed for making sure battery swap locations were available. And charging stations, but this was all early 2010s, much has changed over the last 10 years in the widespread availability of charging locations.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,945   +2,241
TechSpot Elite
This plans are:

1) Still about 15 years later than it should have been
2) Utterly meaningless without also announcing 100% carbon neutral electrical grids

Steps should be build more nuclear reactors first, then you can decommission carbon plants and ban gas cars and trucks.

2) using the US's average mix of coal, NG, nukes, renewables etc., an EV gets to lower overall emissions than an ICE after about 15,000 miles. Yes, that includes making the EV's batteries.

Calling that meaningless is just defeatist. It's not perfect but it is a very big improvement. Just going EV reduces carbon emissions, even when over 20% of those are powered by coal.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 1,084   +2,054
2) using the US's average mix of coal, NG, nukes, renewables etc., an EV gets to lower overall emissions than an ICE after about 15,000 miles. Yes, that includes making the EV's batteries.

Calling that meaningless is just defeatist. It's not perfect but it is a very big improvement. Just going EV reduces carbon emissions, even when over 20% of those are powered by coal.

Is that taking into account the emissions that would result in increasing the electrical demand by at least an order of magnitude? Once such an unprecedented demand is needed if we don't have strict protocols to prepare to meet that demand with *just* renewables and not a "combination" then it just moves the issue from the streets to generation.

If we don't explicitly tie the increase demand for electricity to also continue to expand the renewables also by orders of magnitude of what we have today then what would happen is just a bunch of old coal and gas sites come back into the grid to meet the demand called by the new electric cars and trucks.

Now I can concede that the efficiency is better than nothing, but I made points 1) and 2) together because if we had worked towards 2) 20 or 30 years ago then we'd be ok with a more gradual transition to super electric demand that needs to be transitioned to renewable.

At this point latest studies show we're probably at or past the point of no return: things would need to chance *IMMEDIATELY* and *DRASTICALLY* to just stay on the verge of climate change being irreversible.

Saying "It's not perfect but is a very big improvement" ignores the gravity of 1) and the fact that we're already too late and we probably cannot revert climate change even if we didn't talk about solutions that are 15 years into the future too late and are just a partial fix and not a full fix anyway, which really makes it more than 15 years late.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,945   +2,241
TechSpot Elite
Is that taking into account the emissions that would result in increasing the electrical demand by at least an order of magnitude? Once such an unprecedented demand is needed if we don't have strict protocols to prepare to meet that demand with *just* renewables and not a "combination" then it just moves the issue from the streets to generation.

If we don't explicitly tie the increase demand for electricity to also continue to expand the renewables also by orders of magnitude of what we have today then what would happen is just a bunch of old coal and gas sites come back into the grid to meet the demand called by the new electric cars and trucks.

Now I can concede that the efficiency is better than nothing, but I made points 1) and 2) together because if we had worked towards 2) 20 or 30 years ago then we'd be ok with a more gradual transition to super electric demand that needs to be transitioned to renewable.

At this point latest studies show we're probably at or past the point of no return: things would need to chance *IMMEDIATELY* and *DRASTICALLY* to just stay on the verge of climate change being irreversible.

Saying "It's not perfect but is a very big improvement" ignores the gravity of 1) and the fact that we're already too late and we probably cannot revert climate change even if we didn't talk about solutions that are 15 years into the future too late and are just a partial fix and not a full fix anyway, which really makes it more than 15 years late.

And 15 years from now other people will say the same thing about now.

So it's time to get those changes started now and not just give up.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 1,084   +2,054
And 15 years from now other people will say the same thing about now.

So it's time to get those changes started now and not just give up.

I'm advocating for more changes, not sure why you think me saying "This isn't enough" means "Let's all collectively kill ourselves and do nothing" so if it wasn't clear, it is now: Demanding we do things faster and better is not the same as suggesting we give up.
 

Dimitrios

Posts: 901   +677
Maybe they should worry and focus on crooked Democrats in those states first...................

Dems, the true dictator.Banning straws large soda's plastic bags etc. Just keeps getting better.It's like they live in their own world instead of reality.
 

Norsiiii

Posts: 84   +110
I do love how there are all of these initiatives to eliminate fossil fuel powered vehicles, but you never seem to see any associated plans for the MASSIVE updates that will be required in the back-end infrastructure and power generation that will be required to adequately charge and power all of these new electric vehicles.

People love to chant "down with fossil fuels" and wave their flags and create policies to ban gas powered cars, it makes them feel good to feel like they are helping the environment (or, in some cases, it makes them LOOK good, and image is important particularly in politics). It's just that most of these plans feel like they are putting the cart before the horse, because the cart is the shiny thing that everyone will look at and applaud. I'm totally down with reducing fuel powered vehicles, there are a ton of applications where electric makes far more sense than gas, particularly in large cities with congestion and constant stop & go traffic. There just has to be some real definitive answers for power generation to fuel all of those electrics, and that seems to be a detail that just conveniently gets dismissed or waved off as a "problem for later" or something.
Where I live they have realised that the electrical grid is woefully inadequate as it is, and is totally incapable of transporting the modicum of wind generation capacity that has recently been constructed ~200 miles west of the capital city, and so in the name of environmentalism and protecting our fragile ecosystems they are proposing to build a 250ft tall high voltage power line through a national park.......

Society has lost the plot
 

psycros

Posts: 3,612   +4,456
The pipe dream will remain a pipe dream long after we've realized that it never would've made a bit of difference to global warm-errr, global cooli-eeer, *climate change*. ALL human activity still accounts for about 0.02% of atmospheric Co2. A single average volcanic eruption releases almost 20 years worth of man-made emissions. The only things unsustainable are the public debt, population growth and the big lie of anthropogenic climate change.