Proposed California Car Ban a Perfect Mix of Hubris and Silliness

Seeks to ban registration of vehicles that aren't zero emissions, in 2040.


It's about time that members of Congress and the California legislature got really serious about combating the nation's pollution problem. Just as Jonathan Swift had a "modest proposal" to keep poor Irish children from being a burden to their families and their country (by selling them to wealthy English people as food), I, too, have a modest proposal for dealing with the unconscionable level of pollutants that are emitted in the U.S. to produce electricity. Let's propose a plan to shut down the nation's power plants.

The facts are unmistakable: An environmental group in 2009 reported that the "nation's power plants emitted 2.56 billion tons of global warming pollution… which is equivalent to the pollution from nearly 450 million of today's cars—nearly three times the number of cars registered in the United States in 2007." Even cleaner natural-gas fired plants, which have become more prevalent in ensuing years, "release 21—120 times more methane than earlier estimates," according to a summary of a Purdue University/Environmental Defense Fund report from last year.

Do you care about clear air, the health of our children and the future of the planet? Of course you do. So there's little reason to complain about this idea. Before you chalk it up to one columnist's silliness, consider that some California policy makers are proposing something equally "modest" and ludicrous. Yet they seem totally serious about it.

Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) and some other Assembly members have introduced legislation that would ban the registration of passenger vehicles that are not "zero emissions." Assembly Bill 1745 would, beginning in 2040, prohibit the California Department of Motor Vehicles "from accepting an application for original registration of a motor vehicle unless the vehicle is a zero emissions vehicle."

Likewise, California Air Resources Board chairwoman Mary Nichols told Bloomberg in an interview that Gov. Jerry Brown (D) "has expressed an interest in barring the sale of vehicles powered by internal-combustion engines." The governor reportedly wondered why China is able to do this and lawmakers haven't considered it in California. So now California's legislature is indeed considering something that would, according to the article, "send shockwaves through the global car industry due to the heft of California's auto market."

Shockwaves for such a modest proposal? It's not as if the underlying concept—banning stuff that our political leaders don't like—is anything new. As a colleague noted, perhaps California lawmakers ought to simply ban the production and sale of meat-based products, also, given the ill effects of slaughterhouses on the environment, our diets, and on the quality of life of the animals that end up on our dinner tables. We've got to think out of the box.

The bill would exempt large commercial vehicles and cars brought to California from other states. Perhaps legislators aren't thinking big enough. Sure, this column has a mocking tone and hasn't dealt with the actual arguments in favor of a ban on gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles, but there really aren't any serious arguments for doing this. The apparent goal is to reduce pollution, but the real goal may be about making a moral statement and grabbing headlines.

Journalist H.L. Mencken wrote that politics is about keeping people alarmed "with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." That's a bit overstated, sure. Pollution remains a serious problem, but it's best handled through market advancements, not by allowing politicians to scare us into embracing fake "solutions."

It's reality time. California is not going to get rid of polluting vehicles—or power plants, for that matter—by banning them. It would mostly harm the poor, who cannot afford the pricey new electric vehicles. But maybe they can consider selling their children to help afford the latest Tesla. EVs are great advancements, but even though they have no tailpipe, they will increase our reliance on power plants. Hence, the importance of my modest proposal to go along with the one pitched by legislators and Brown.

But there I go foolishly giving these proposals more serious analysis than they deserve. There's an old libertarian maxim about political crises and solutions. To be really effective at what Mencken describes above, a politician needs to propose something that isn't imminent, but could possibly take place a couple of decades into the future. It has to be far enough away that it won't affect anyone's lives, but close enough to justify "doing something."

The proposed ban fits that perfectly. The automotive industry is advancing so rapidly that it's impossible to predict what it will look like in 22 years. By the time a law would go into effect, few of us might even drive cars. We might be leasing autonomous vehicles. The bill is hubris. So if we're going to posture, we should do it right—and pass bans on power plants, slaughterhouses and any other bad thing we can think of, also.

This column was first published in the Orange County Register.

NEXT: Movie Review: 12 Strong

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I applaud this message.

    1. I don’t. The alternative is coming up fast. With human caused climate change, time is life that survives the climate change. 2040 is a generous amount of time to convert over. As society progresses along, the time can always be extended. Its not that hard.

      1. The future is in nuclear energy young man.

        Use modern nuclear energy to eventually replace carbon-based generation and all the California posturing and global warming, er, climate change nonsense evaporates.

        1. Nuclear is a really great source of energy until……… ………………… …………… fails catastrophically.

          1. renewableguy: “it fails catastrophically.”

            By “catastrophically,” do you mean it actually kills someone? If so, there’s been a single incident in the entire history of nuclear-generated electricity, and that was in the Soviet Union, which had a terrible history of ignoring safety standards.

        2. Nuclear is unlikely to be the replacements for carbon-based generation. And the reason for that is COST.

          Let us look at average levelized cost of energy generation for new power plants: (without subsidies)
          Coal: 9.51 cents per kwh
          Nuclear: 9.62 cents per kwh
          Solar PV: 7.37 cents per kwh
          Onshore wind: 5.58 cents per kwh
          Natural Gas: 5.38 / 5.86 cents per kwh (depending on type)
          Hydro: 6.39 cents per kwh
          Geothermal: 4.4 cents per kwh

          It is pretty obvious that nuclear is simply not cost competitive. Especially when solar and wind have been dropping in price so quickly. Solar has been dropping specifically fast at 2X drop in price every 5 years. Wind is close by.

      2. You make either a serious miscalculation or purposeful exclusion that such standards or regulation don’t have any negative effects. Do those negative effects offset gains? Do those negative effects actually cause society to fall to 100 year old maladies? Or worse, is there any potential for violent upheaval.

        Your intentions may be benevolent but could pave the road to hell.

        1. I drive electric now. Most of my work is done with a battery based supply. With improvements in batteries continuing along more and more work is getting done on all electricity. Its going into the marine environment, and also airplanes. Short haul will win simply because of the superiority of batteries in keeping costs down. Long haul is just a decade or two away.

          1. You mean you drive a coal car. Due to California’s malinvestment in wind and solar and their shutting down of nuclear they now import over 1/3 and soon to be 50% of their power from primarily coal and natural gas fired states like Utah Arizona Wyoming and Nevada.

            1. California is now 40% renewable energy, where are you getting 50% coal from. I think you are way off on that one bud.


              Califoria has gone from 20 coal plants down to 4. I’d say they are doing great.

              1. A fair point. The poster was referring to the fact that California imports a high (and growing) percentage of its electricity, and that includes coal-generated electricity. While California gets about 4% of its in-state electricity from coal, it gets about another 6% (best guess — it’s hard to determine exactly, as electricity is fungible) from neighboring states. So say about 10%. That’s not bad, compared to my state — Indiana — which in the most recent data I’ve found gets about 85% of its electricity from coal. But your car /is/ using CO2-based electricity (coal plus natural gas), unless you’re charging your batteries via your own solar or wind generator.

                [NOTE: Indiana’s heavy use of coal means that a good hybrid like the Prius or the Honda Accord Hybrid is as carbon-efficient as a purely electric vehicle.]

                CA electricity imports

                Indiana coal use

          2. You are the proverbial useful idiot. You do know that making batteries and solar panels produces more toxic waste than any of the much more viable (and cheaper) energy alternatives?

            Or, what, did the man that has made billions off batteries and solar panels and insanely believes that people can live on Mars not tell you that?

            1. Hi Chucky, You are living up to your name.

              Lets see, there is nuclear waste. Solar and battery easily are safer and better for than that.

              There is coal ash and carbon pollution. Hmmmm, again solar and batteries easily have much less negative impact than coal.

              Then there is carbon pollution from natural gas, plus leakage from our piping system, both are ghg’s. There is some negative impact from renewable energy, but it is by far superior choice than natural gas. Eventually all renewable energy infrastructure will be made on renewable energy. Sounds really clean in comparison.

              Solar maintenance is so low that it now is making competitive bids around the world.

      3. It’s a generation. It’s called kicking the can, putting the economic burden on those who today are not old enough to vote or even born, but will be coming into adulthood in 22 years.

        It’s intergenerational theft. Government excels at it.

      4. someone drank Al Gore’s koolaid….repent the end be nigh, the sea levels rise in an apocalyptic deluge and wrathful weather will punish humans for their fossil fuel burning sins!!! Build an ark …or an electric car and fill it with rescue dogs or any other animal in two by two formation! Disbelievers be damned for they ignore the high priests of science and shall be labeled heretics…or deniers rather. Repent!

        It’s good to recognize a cult masquerading as “science” when you see it

        1. Gore just follows the science. You know that overwhelming evidence that humans did 100% of the warming.

          Its your right to believe otherwise with no evidence.

          1. Actually, the sun did 100% of the warming. Maybe we should just extinguish the sun?

    2. Im making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
      This is what I do =====???

    3. Finally! There is a great way how you can work online from your home using your computer and earn in the same time… Only basic internet knowledge needed and fast internet connection… Earn as much as $3000 a week…….

    4. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…
      Read more here…..

  2. The governor reportedly wondered why China is able to do this and lawmakers haven’t considered it in California

    A perfectly reasonable thing to be wondering.

    1. California isn’t forcing people to work and live in sweatshop skyscrapers for $5 a day. I wonder why China is doing this and lawmakers haven’t considered it in California.

      1. China also doesn’t have open borders and even has a Great Wall.

        If Greens weren’t really Watermelons, they’d either be more hostile to immigration than Trump or want to make California itself a shithole country. Shithole countries have very low per capita carbon footprints, though their emissions per $GDP are generally worse than OECD countries.

        1. Greens just don’t really follow your rules Chippy.

    2. Hasn’t China executed a number of politicians that were shown to be corrupt? Why hasn’t that been considered in California?

      1. Have to start with Trump. Most corrupt President ever.

        1. How are you doing today, Tony?

          1. I’m not Tony.

            1. Don’t deny, control freak asshole. Fuck off, slaver.

              1. This site is called Reason. Acting the way you do, does that officially make you a troll.

  3. and any other bad thing we can think of, also

    Rich people!



    (Hmm… I wonder if there’s some way to make this more efficient. Maybe kill two birds with one stone or something…)

    -lightbulb switches on-


  4. would ban the registration of passenger vehicles that are not “zero emissions.” Assembly Bill 1745 would, beginning in 2040, prohibit the California Department of Motor Vehicles “from accepting an application for original registration of a motor vehicle unless the vehicle is a zero emissions vehicle.”

    – So you just don’t have to register your car. Libertarian Moment? No drivers licenses next!!!

    1. For those who don’t know, a vehicle, passenger vehicle and motor vehicle are all terms for commercial vehicles. Your privately owned automobile (car) doesn’t fall into those categories.

      1. Yeah, right. The friendly folks on the CHP motorcycles are sure to see it that way too.

  5. They’re getting all their ideas from Demolition Man. Can’t wait to find out how the whole sea shell thing works once they ban toilet paper.

    1. I’m looking forward to all restaurants being vegetarian Taco Bell.

  6. These are probably the same idiots trying to shut down nuclear power plants. Fucking idiots.

    1. I am completely unable to get people to understand how useful nukes are in reducing greenhouse gasses. Yeah, electric vehicles are great, but they’re still running on fossil fuels in most of this country. I don’t understand how people can seem to think that houses are powered by magical elves running on hamster wheels in the walls.

      1. The answer is they don’t think, period.

      2. Go the other route.

        Talk about the horrors of nuclear power, how every day people all over the planet forget to slather themselves in protective goo and get dosed with radiation to the point where their skin turns a pain filled red, possibly even to the point where it dies and peels off. Every year people die of cancer due to this radiative horror.

        Then point out it’s the source of their wondrous solar power. See if their heads explode, and if not, point out that nuclear power plants are less dangerous than the sun and the in both cases the benefits far outweigh the downsides.

        And yeah, I’m aware of the difference between fusion and fission – it’s not relevant to this comment.

        1. Or you get those completely ignorant answers like “oh well the sun is natural so its not as bad as man-made radiation”. Sadly these people are allowed to vote and breed.

          1. The sun is also an entirely different nuclear reaction.

            The problem, seems to me, isn’t so much ignorance about what nuclear is (though there is plenty of that too) as poor assessment of relative risks.

            1. While we all thorium reactors here, the latest news is we want real can size uranium reactors for Mars. No news on how we handle the risk of sending WalMart uranium reactors into orbit.

        2. point out that nuclear power plants are less dangerous than the sun and the in both cases the benefits far outweigh the downsides.

          I still come across plenty of people unaware that the no one died as a direct result of the ‘Fukushima Disaster’. Everyone at the plant survived the tsunami, earthquake, and core meltdown(s). The most direct deaths were the result of evacuating everyone and then exposure as people were kept outside the containment zone and died of exposure and other causes while, in actuality, it was safe(r) to return to their homes.

          1. I’ve run across people who swear Three Mile Island wiped out an entire region and killed a lot of people.

            It would be entertaining to revisit all the 20 year old stories of the imminent horrors due to spent fuel rod storage concerns. It must be nice not to have a memory good enough to recall all of ones past dire predictions.

            1. TMI is one I remember. We were in Lebanon, about 30 miles away. Nobody got close to dangerous radiation. There wasn’t even any private property damaged.

          2. So the harm from the disruption is ok? You don’t have to have mass evacuation with renewable energy or serious disruption of lives.


            Many deaths are attributed to the evacuation and subsequent long-term displacement caused by the nuclear disaster. For evacuation, the estimated number of deaths during and immediately after transit range from 34 to “greater than 50”.[4][14][15] The victims include hospital inpatients and elderly people at nursing facilities who died from causes such as hypothermia, deterioration of underlying medical problems, and dehydration.

            For long-term displacement, many people (mostly sick and elderly) died at an increased rate[14] while in temporary housing and shelters. Degraded living conditions and separation from support networks[16] are likely contributing factors. As of February 27, 2017, the Fukushima prefecture government has tallied 2,129 “disaster-related deaths” in the prefecture.[17][15][18][19] This value exceeds the number that have died in Fukushima prefecture directly from the earthquake and tsunami.[20]

            1. Hope many would have never reached that age since your beloved replacements have no logical capability to replace the energy demand that nuclear provides? How much land would be lost through solar? How many people wouldn’t have fuel for heating or travel. Your fantasy is just that.

              So many of us want some other method, but too many of you “greenies” are completely without pragmatism. When everything you say is voraciously lambastic don’t be surprised when you’re derided as a crank.


                For Illinois where I live it would be .55% of land area. Most home roofs can get about 50% of electricity needs with solar, take that with serious energy efficiency yyou can approach close to 100%.

                Other studies get similar results.

                So who is unprepared for this? Seems you haven’t done your homework. Ignorance must be your strong point.

      3. Have you ever heard of the backfire effect?

        In theory, it’s nearly impossible to convince anyone of anything. The brain seeks to prevent this happening – much like a firewall. We’re not built to be re-programmable from the outside, at least not easily.

        It makes our species more likely to survive than not, but it’s admittedly a right pain in the bum.

        1. That was a pretty interesting read (endless scroll) and inspirational ending. Thank you.

        2. In theory, it’s nearly impossible to convince anyone of anything. The brain seeks to prevent this happening – much like a firewall. We’re not built to be re-programmable from the outside, at least not easily.

          I believe that Reason already covered this or something similar in recent history. Basically, the backfire effect suffers from selection bias (turns out running MRI’s on hyper-political college students doesn’t reflect reality) and isn’t broadly repeatable.

          It makes our species more likely to survive than not, but it’s admittedly a right pain in the bum.

          Both of these are exceedingly questionable assertions. It’s not like lions were going to dissuade us (or our genetic ancestors) from the truth and then eat us and there’s a bit of Goldilocks anthropomorphism with assuming it’s a pain in the bum.

      4. The electric utility is shifting cleaner. California where the most electric cars are, is #8 in the United States for percentage of renewable energy.

        1. Since renewables are so wonderful and economical, everyone will switch to them because it’s cheaper, right?

          That means we don’t need 80 jillion pages of government mandates (with guns behind them) forcing us to do things the way our masters want, right?


          1. Paranoid?

            At some point you just don’t get to decide for people what’s true and what’s not. Your paranoid vision of the world is yours and not mine.

    2. California’s last nuclear plan is shutting down this year

  7. “The bill would exempt large commercial vehicles and cars brought to California from other states”

    This is how you know it is bullshit.

    1. States rights appeal to you?

    2. Now if the Cali-greenies were really serious, they would ban all imports not produced or delivered using renewal energy. Just how long does a sailboat take from China?

      1. China just may reach 100% renewable energy before we do. Our present government has their heads in the sand.

        1. For fear of feeding the Troll China can do that mainly cause they could care less if No Dum Luk and his family freeze during the winter.

  8. Commifornians are getting what they deserve by voting in these dimwits as politicians.

    “The bill would exempt large commercial vehicles and cars brought to California from other states.”
    Taxifornia would need supplies from outside the state brought via trucks and without enough gas powered vehicles on California roads, the entire pretext of massive taxation of Taxifornia residents to pay for “postal roads” would be in question.

  9. And then everyone will have Nevada license plates. It will solve nothing. In Missouri (STL area) tons of people have Illinois plates because to avoid a vehicle tax.

  10. California lawmakers want to exploit the labor of African children in order to make cars that nobody but the very wealthiest will be able to afford.

    Hype Meets Reality as Electric Car
    Dreams Run Into Metal Crunch

    1. The Chinese will come to the rescue.

  11. It would mostly harm the poor, who cannot afford the pricey new electric vehicles.

    Let them ride bicycles! Or walk…What? They live too far from their jobs and can’t afford to live in pricey “walkable communities? Too bad! We will always know what’s best for them because we are Darwin’s chosen people!

    1. Electric vehicles are 1/3 the operating cost of a gasoline vehicle. It will cost me $1.50 to drive 35 miles home tonight from a pay charger. Otherwise out of my home, its less than that.

      1. That’s half of the statistic, and you know it. It’s the initial cost, asshat. How much is even the wholly shitty Nissan leaf? And that effing car might get me one way at peak performance to or from work. For 30% less money initial investment I get a car that gets me nearly 33mpg with zero highway driving and no hybrid technology. Could I afford a Tesla? Yes, but spending 50k or more on something that depreciates stupid quick is a stupid thing to do to save money.

        1. Well Nunya. Hold your horses there fella. If you take advantage of rebates, yyou can get a 230 mile electric car for around 25000 dollars. Over the life time of the car, you have more money in your wallet than giving it to fossil fuels and car mechanics. That one is a realty you just can’t wish away.

  12. This all seems very reminiscent of when California became the first state to ban smoking indoors back in the 90s. Yes, smoking rates are lower there than in most other states, but you can still buy cigarettes because the state needs its tax $. So what will happen to all the revenue they get from the gas tax? Will they start taxing electricity to make up for it? Nope, the EV owners will scream bloody murder. So they will just keep increasing the gas tax to nudge people into buying EVs. 2040 is still 22 years away, a lot can happen before then, like the big one crashing Cali into the ocean (oh well, one can hope).

    1. It’s reminiscent of when California’s Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Mandate. The 1990 ZEV Mandate mandated that by 1998, 2% of the vehicles for sale in California had to be ZEVs, increasing to 5% in 2001 and 10% in 2003.

      The ZEV Mandate was revised as the real world became more clear as the dates approached.

      Such craziness is not confined to California. The Bush Administration mandated that a significant fraction of motor gasoline be comprised of cellulosic ethanol, which is derived from switch grass, woody vegetation, or similar raw material. No viable technology was available at the time of the mandate, and none was developed despite the feds squandering about a half-a-billion on academics and other cronies. Curiously, the feds did not revise or rescind this mandate. Instead, it was overturned in federal court. Even the NYT wrote that the green mandate that it had supported turned out to be based upon “wishful thinking rather than realistic estimates”.

  13. I had a relative who worked for air resources when the state mandated that 10% of all cars be electric 1999. she was so proud of what they were going to force Californians to do and I had a discussion with her about how that was literally impossible from a technical point of view and the state couldn’t force people to buy what they don’t want. she was to proud to listen. Anyway I was right however thanks to the ACA the state can now force people to buy what they don’t want

    1. Actually, I think the ultimate goal is to ban people form owning cars period-electric or otherwise. What they want is to force everyone onto mass transit, self-driving cars (which will most likely be widely available by 2040), and walking/bicycling. This won’t just be in Cali, but the urban Northeast too.

      1. “NoVaNick|1.19.18 @ 12:15PM|#

        Actually, I think the ultimate goal is to ban people form owning cars period-electric or otherwise. What they want is to force everyone onto mass transit, self-driving cars (which will most likely be widely available by 2040), and walking/bicycling. This won’t just be in Cali, but the urban Northeast too.”

        That is precisely it. The progressives have been working on that since the 70’s. The worst thing to happen to the progressive movement was the invention of the car and likewise the suburb. After WW2 the working man left them at the alter. They thought everyone would continue to live in cities in planned societies were their political machines control everything. But when the people moved to the suburbs machine politics and the progressive agenda it supports got hurt.

  14. By 2040 most of the vehicles sold will probably be electric anyway so….

    1. We will need a whole lot more electric generating or storage capacity if that is true.

      It probably can’t happen without embracing either fission reactors or some currently untapped technology

      1. Graphene.

      2. Solar, wind, energy efficiency will go a long ways to solve this. Night time charging when wind is more prevalent, new battery storage for grid growing all the time. This will be handled.

        1. t’s gonna be the biggest, smartest electrical grid in history, believe me. Just beautiful. Nobody knows electricity better than I do. Believe me.

    2. In 22 years?

      Unless the government mandates it, I don’t think so.

      1. Graphene batteries.

      2. Unless the government mandates it, I don’t think so.

        Well, there you go–when the Government says something, you know its true.

      3. The electric car will be superior to the ICE vehicle by then.

  15. It says, “original registration”, which would imply a new vehicle. Not that it makes this completely sane– just slightly more sane. It wouldn’t directly hurt the poor, who shouldn’t be buying new vehicles.

  16. Seeks to ban registration of vehicles that aren’t zero emissions, in 2040.

    CA seriously needs to secede. Alternatively, is it possible for us to eject them?

    At any rate, car-makers may no longer have to meet standards of The Peoples Republic of Commiefornistan. So that’s a plus.

    1. Second statement was in reference to cars with gas engines, obvs.

      1. They are meeting the standards of China now. China is demanding more electric cars now as a market percentage. They make California look tame in your zeal for no government.

    2. Not a good idea. Cali produces 80% of our fruit and vegatables.

  17. “A perfect mix of hubris and silliness” is a pretty good description of California government in general.

    1. Yeah, I don’t think “modest” can ever be applied to California governance, not even in Swiftian employ.

  18. California is unhinged. But they can do whatever they want.

    The problem though is the rest of the continent looks to it as if it’s some forward looking paradise and tries to copy their schemes.

    The other thing is, this is further proof there are waaaayyyy too many people trying to justify their jobs.

  19. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbor told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. This is what I do



    1. Sheesh, wixow — it never crossed my mind.

  20. “nation’s power plants emitted 2.56 billion tons of global warming pollution.”

    “And don’t even get me started on their NON global warming pollution!”

    1. Electricity is an excellent method of transmitting and storing energy, but it is not a source of energy itself.

  21. Still more efficient to generate the power to propel a car within the car than to generate it 300 miles away and then transmit the power to your garage to be transferred to your car.

    If you’re really concerned about the environment, live close to where you work so you can walk or bike. If you need a car, buy a local high mpg used car so a new vehicle doesn’t have to be built and shipped to you. But then your friends won’t know you’re woke and you won’t be able to speed past them in the HOV lane or get the reserved parking for low EVs at Trader Joe’s.

    If electric cars were really more efficient than gasoline powered cars, they would cost less without any tax breaks.

    1. Graphene batteries are just around the corner.

    2. ICE vehicles are less than 20% efficient of gas out of the tank, while BEV are more than 80% efficient straight out of the battery.

      1. Yes, batteries are efficient stores of energy, but the energy has to come from somewhere. If that somewhere is the conventional electric grid, then the inefficiency is just pushed up the supply chain: coal powered plants, AC lines, etc.

        1. And the fucking batteries have to come from somewhere (and last time I checked, lithium does not grow on trees).

          1. Mining materials and assembly of batteries is way far less destructive than fossil fuels. The carbon bubble is fast approaching with acceleration of the electric car market. Electric cars will follow the S curve like the smart phones and refrigerators.

        2. Most electric cars are in California and they are 40% renewable energy and only 2 coal power plants that are soon to be phased out. I live in Illinois that has about 60% nuclear power and about 7000 electric cars. Coal still has political clout in Illinois and will take longer to phase it out. We have a law to be 25% renewable energyy by 2025.

      2. Ok, half of the statistic….again. But what is the total useable energy stored by each? And at what IS TOTAL cost (including initial investment as a major barrier)? Hint, sum total cost anD all money required for travel of three hundred miles.

        Now, take that total cost, assume that someone even has the credit to make the purchase, and plot what their required monthly income would have to be to still have money for savings, money for investment, expendable cash, and obviously money for all living expenses. You might then see how many people cannot afford your proposed nirvana.

        1. The nightmare is to stay on ICE vehicles. Its ugly reality is catching on and the bright lite of electric is growing. Its onlyy a matter of time.

  22. Banning cars in California. Hah! hah!

    Hah hah hah hah ha! Ha ha!



  23. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

    HERE? ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

  24. whatever proposed solution also needs to be far enough away that when we start seeing the effects people wont remember how we got there, or else they might start questioning the efficacy of governmental solutions to governmentally created problems, and who wants that?

    1. A fossil fuel perpetuated problem needs government to get us out of the woods.

  25. especially the left, since they essentially have only one argument (same initials as Anne Hathaway, coincidentaly), and it’s phallacious from the get-go.

  26. “Journalist H.L. Mencken wrote that politics is about keeping people alarmed “with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” That’s a bit overstated, sure. ”

    Apparently, you don’t actually read the majority of Reason’s political coverage. That is not overstated in the least.

  27. God I hate fucking liberals, I wish they’d all fucking die. Control freaks.

    1. Reason is about thinking and not being emotional. Hate many times is unreasonable its outcome.

  28. I can see what your saying… Raymond `s article is surprising, last week I bought a top of the range Acura from making $4608 this-past/month and-a little over, $10,000 this past month . with-out any question its the easiest work I’ve ever had . I began this five months/ago and almost straight away startad bringin in minimum $82 per-hr


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.