3 ms·

Massachusetts to Ban Sale of New Gas-Powered Cars by 2035

28 points by clouddrover 6y ago

toomuchtodo 6y ago
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehic... for a comprehensive list of jurisdictions with similar legislation.
tedjdziuba 6y ago
At least they can keep the electricity on, which is more than we can say for California.
bleah1000 6y ago
This always feel like political theater. This is so far down the road that we don't even know if gas powered vehicles would be in wide-spread use in the US at that time. And how much do you want to bet that if they are, this date will just be pushed back. And they are only banning new car sales of gas powered vehicles, so you could go to the next state to get a gas car, or buy a used car.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  You only need enough jurisdictions onboard to push manufacturers to only build EVs. Once they’ve made the capital investments, they’re not going back. That’s the goal: to get us across the Rubicon to where the only way forward is EVs, and to make it untenable to revert to building new combustion vehicles. Many more states and countries still needed to make these declarations, but you don’t need all of them, just enough. Keep an eye out for more announcements from other states in the near future.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    You only need enough jurisdictions onboard to push manufacturers to only build EVs. Once they’ve made the capital investments, they’re not going back. What does that look like? Is the idea that Ford is going to make dramatically less money per vehicle if they start building ⅓ the ICE engines that they build right now? Typically they offer multiple engines per vehicle, and have quite a range of engines across their product line, so it seems like maximal volume isn't an issue.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      > What does that look like? Factory and assembly line reconfigurations. Increased automation and the capex that comes with that. Worker retraining, reskilling, and replacement. Suppliers of ICE components who attrition out of the supply chain, simply because there are so many less moving parts in an EV powertrain (for each, they will reach a point where the diminished volume no longer supports a continuing business supplying automakers).
      - maxerickson 6y ago
        Right, but it's likely enough that they can profitably make a fairly small fraction of current production volumes. For instance, if they move 1 factory out of 2, then they don't haven any capex or retraining associated with the factory they don't move. What I was getting at with the quite range of engines that they choose to produce is that they seem to have quite a lot of capacity to make money at lower volumes.
        toomuchtodo 6y ago
        Ford’s margin is ~%10. Not a lot of wiggle room imo, even less if their volume declines as someone like Tesla takes market share (Cybertruck is at ~1 million reservations).
        maxerickson 6y ago
        On a huge range of vehicles once you look at what they make is what I am getting at. Do they bother stopping selling popular vehicles if 33% of the US market bans IC engines?
        toomuchtodo 6y ago
        Will have to model specifics and follow up.
stormbrew 6y ago
2035 woopdidoo. Like 6 or 7 different governments will have come and gone by then, this is basically like promising a unicorn that someone else has to find. How many of these laws will just be revoked or softened the year they're supposed to take effect? If we want to take action on this we really need to be acting on much shorter time horizons that actually create any accountability at all.
kepler1 6y ago
Sigh, it just takes us sooo long to do things like this, and even then it's half measures. It's not the best or most useful example, but some cities in Asia/China almost overnight banned not only the sale but operation of gas powered mopeds/motorcycles within city limits. And all we can do is ask people nicely to stop buying gas powered cars, and wait 15 years for the fleet half-life to happen. Yes, yes, authoritarian regimes can do lots of things, and bad things, etc. But they seem better at addressing a low level growing problem that no individual has the will to change. Do you remember when the HD tv transition happened in the USA and how long that took? Germany turned it off with ~1 year of notice -- the logic was "everyone waits until the last minute anyway, so let's just do it now". Sigh.
ngngngng 6y ago
I often wonder how good public transportation would be all over the world if we pooled all the money we collectively spend on cars and roads and put it into public transit. I spend a LOT of money on cars each month between my loan payment, gas, and insurance. Is there a reason we don't just throw that money into public transit instead of trying to phase out gas like this? What am I missing?
- thoughtstheseus 6y ago
  Status quo bias.
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  > What am I missing? You could buy cheaper, older cars that you can afford without financing. These have no manufacturing environmental impact, since they are already made. Insurance is cheaper, and you can dispense with full coverage making it cheaper still.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    Increased demand for used vehicles increases demand for new vehicles. I think it's not true that there is a bright line where the first buyer of a relatively durable good is the one that creates environmental impact.
- souprock 6y ago
  You're missing many issues that won't be fixed by more money: 1. Much of the world is low-density. (and we like it that way) Public transportation would be running empty nearly always. Anything less, and service times become awful. 2. We've learned that public transportation isn't OK in a world with viruses. 3. People keep personal stuff in cars. 4. Lots of people don't feel safe on public transportation. 5. Even "good" public transportation isn't normally door-to-door. People will need to walk much more. That could mean getting sweat-drenched and smelly in hot humid weather, getting frostbite in cold weather, struggling with disability, or trying to keep kids from straying or straggling. 6. Public transportation is dirty. The germs aren't from family. Everything is gross and nasty.
maxerickson 6y ago
Someone on reddit links https://www.mass.gov/doc/ma-2050-decarbonization-roadmap/download https://www.mass.gov/doc/ma-2050-decarbonization-roadmap/dow... A footnote on page 37 explains that Massachusetts has a law requiring the state to adopt California emissions regulations that are more strict than federal laws. Probably won't be that big a deal in 15 years, and if it is, seems like registration would be more important than sale. Or imagine the shit show of people putting low impact mileage on out of state vehicles to push them into the 'used' purchase category. (pdf page 36, document page 37)

28 points by clouddrover 6y ago

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehic... for a comprehensive list of jurisdictions with similar legislation.

tedjdziuba 6y ago

At least they can keep the electricity on, which is more than we can say for California.

bleah1000 6y ago

This always feel like political theater. This is so far down the road that we don't even know if gas powered vehicles would be in wide-spread use in the US at that time. And how much do you want to bet that if they are, this date will just be pushed back. And they are only banning new car sales of gas powered vehicles, so you could go to the next state to get a gas car, or buy a used car.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
You only need enough jurisdictions onboard to push manufacturers to only build EVs. Once they’ve made the capital investments, they’re not going back. That’s the goal: to get us across the Rubicon to where the only way forward is EVs, and to make it untenable to revert to building new combustion vehicles. Many more states and countries still needed to make these declarations, but you don’t need all of them, just enough. Keep an eye out for more announcements from other states in the near future.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  You only need enough jurisdictions onboard to push manufacturers to only build EVs. Once they’ve made the capital investments, they’re not going back. What does that look like? Is the idea that Ford is going to make dramatically less money per vehicle if they start building ⅓ the ICE engines that they build right now? Typically they offer multiple engines per vehicle, and have quite a range of engines across their product line, so it seems like maximal volume isn't an issue.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    > What does that look like? Factory and assembly line reconfigurations. Increased automation and the capex that comes with that. Worker retraining, reskilling, and replacement. Suppliers of ICE components who attrition out of the supply chain, simply because there are so many less moving parts in an EV powertrain (for each, they will reach a point where the diminished volume no longer supports a continuing business supplying automakers).
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      Right, but it's likely enough that they can profitably make a fairly small fraction of current production volumes. For instance, if they move 1 factory out of 2, then they don't haven any capex or retraining associated with the factory they don't move. What I was getting at with the quite range of engines that they choose to produce is that they seem to have quite a lot of capacity to make money at lower volumes.
      - toomuchtodo 6y ago
        Ford’s margin is ~%10. Not a lot of wiggle room imo, even less if their volume declines as someone like Tesla takes market share (Cybertruck is at ~1 million reservations).
        maxerickson 6y ago
        On a huge range of vehicles once you look at what they make is what I am getting at. Do they bother stopping selling popular vehicles if 33% of the US market bans IC engines?
        toomuchtodo 6y ago
        Will have to model specifics and follow up.

stormbrew 6y ago

2035 woopdidoo. Like 6 or 7 different governments will have come and gone by then, this is basically like promising a unicorn that someone else has to find. How many of these laws will just be revoked or softened the year they're supposed to take effect? If we want to take action on this we really need to be acting on much shorter time horizons that actually create any accountability at all.

kepler1 6y ago

Sigh, it just takes us sooo long to do things like this, and even then it's half measures. It's not the best or most useful example, but some cities in Asia/China almost overnight banned not only the sale but operation of gas powered mopeds/motorcycles within city limits. And all we can do is ask people nicely to stop buying gas powered cars, and wait 15 years for the fleet half-life to happen. Yes, yes, authoritarian regimes can do lots of things, and bad things, etc. But they seem better at addressing a low level growing problem that no individual has the will to change. Do you remember when the HD tv transition happened in the USA and how long that took? Germany turned it off with ~1 year of notice -- the logic was "everyone waits until the last minute anyway, so let's just do it now". Sigh.

ngngngng 6y ago

I often wonder how good public transportation would be all over the world if we pooled all the money we collectively spend on cars and roads and put it into public transit. I spend a LOT of money on cars each month between my loan payment, gas, and insurance. Is there a reason we don't just throw that money into public transit instead of trying to phase out gas like this? What am I missing?

thoughtstheseus 6y ago
Status quo bias.
throwaway201103 6y ago
> What am I missing? You could buy cheaper, older cars that you can afford without financing. These have no manufacturing environmental impact, since they are already made. Insurance is cheaper, and you can dispense with full coverage making it cheaper still.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  Increased demand for used vehicles increases demand for new vehicles. I think it's not true that there is a bright line where the first buyer of a relatively durable good is the one that creates environmental impact.
souprock 6y ago
You're missing many issues that won't be fixed by more money: 1. Much of the world is low-density. (and we like it that way) Public transportation would be running empty nearly always. Anything less, and service times become awful. 2. We've learned that public transportation isn't OK in a world with viruses. 3. People keep personal stuff in cars. 4. Lots of people don't feel safe on public transportation. 5. Even "good" public transportation isn't normally door-to-door. People will need to walk much more. That could mean getting sweat-drenched and smelly in hot humid weather, getting frostbite in cold weather, struggling with disability, or trying to keep kids from straying or straggling. 6. Public transportation is dirty. The germs aren't from family. Everything is gross and nasty.

maxerickson 6y ago

Someone on reddit links https://www.mass.gov/doc/ma-2050-decarbonization-roadmap/download https://www.mass.gov/doc/ma-2050-decarbonization-roadmap/dow... A footnote on page 37 explains that Massachusetts has a law requiring the state to adopt California emissions regulations that are more strict than federal laws. Probably won't be that big a deal in 15 years, and if it is, seems like registration would be more important than sale. Or imagine the shit show of people putting low impact mileage on out of state vehicles to push them into the 'used' purchase category. (pdf page 36, document page 37)