California Mulls Combustion-Engine Car Ban: "You Could Stop All Sales By 2030"

California, the state which single-handedly turned Elon Musk into the billionaire that he is today by forcing taxpayers to subsidize his unprofitable electric vehicle scam via "Zero Emission Vehicle" credits, is now considering a full ban of combustion-engine cars by as early as 2030. The potential ban was discussed by Mary Nichols of the California Air Resources Board, the same folks who decided to regulate cow farts last year, who told Bloomberg that Governor Jerry Brown has expressed interest in a ban.

Governor Jerry Brown has expressed an interest in barring the sale of vehicles powered by internal-combustion engines, Mary Nichols, chairman of the California Air Resources Board, said in an interview Friday at Bloomberg headquarters in New York. Brown, one of the most outspoken elected official in the U.S. about the need for policies to combat climate change, would be replicating similar moves by China, France and the U.K.


“I’ve gotten messages from the governor asking, ‘Why haven’t we done something already?’” Nichols said, referring to China’s planned phase-out of fossil-fuel vehicle sales. “The governor has certainly indicated an interest in why China can do this and not California.”


California has set a goal to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. Rising emissions from on-road transportation has undercut the state’s efforts to reduce pollution, a San Francisco-based non-profit said last month.


“To reach the ambitious levels of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, we have to pretty much replace all combustion with some form of renewable energy by 2040 or 2050," Nichols said. “We’re looking at that as a method of moving this discussion forward.”


"There are people who believe, including who work for me, that you could stop all sales of new internal-combustion cars by 2030. Some people say 2035, some people say 2040,” she said. “It’s awfully hard to predict any of that with precision, but it doesn’t appear to be out of the question.”

Electric Car

Of course, the irony that seems to be lost on Jerry Brown and Mary Nichols is that, according to Morgan Stanley, electric cars generate more CO2 than they save.  As a stark reminder to our left-leaning political elites who created these companies with massive taxpayer funded subsidies in the United States, Morgan Stanley pointed out that while electric cars don't burn gasoline they do have to be charged using electricity generated by coal and other fossil fuels.

This is where Tesla, along with China’s Guoxuan High-Tech fall short.


“Whilst the electric vehicles and lithium batteries manufactured by these two companies do indeed help to reduce direct CO2 emissions from vehicles, electricity is needed to power them,” Morgan Stanley wrote. “And with their primary markets still largely weighted towards fossil-fuel power (72% in the U.S. and 75% in China) the CO2 emissions from this electricity generation are still material.”


In other words, “the carbon emissions generated by the electricity required for electric vehicles are greater than those saved by cutting out direct vehicle emissions.”


Morgan Stanley calculated that an investment of $1 million in Canadian Solar results in nearly 15,300 metric tons of carbon dioxide being saved every year. For Tesla, such an investment adds nearly one-third of a metric ton of CO2.

Meanwhile, despite Brown's desire for "Hope & Change," even the U.S. Energy Information Administration says that "renewables" will represent less than 20% of electricity generation in the U.S. by 2040.


Of course, the problem is that a California ban on combustion engine cars would effectively be the same as a full U.S. ban given the size of the California market. 

Embracing such a policy would send shockwaves through the global car industry due to the heft of California’s auto market. More than 2 million new passenger vehicles were registered in the state last year, topping France, Italy or Spain. If a ban were implemented, automakers from General Motors Co. to Toyota Motor Corp. would be under new pressure to make electric vehicles the standard for personal transportation in the most populous U.S. state, casting fresh doubts on the future of gasoline- and diesel-powered autos elsewhere.

The end result of this effort to 'save the environment' will be more expensive vehicles, landfills full of lithium-ion batteries and more coal-fired generation plants...but, somehow we suspect those 'inconvenient facts' are lost on our politicians and enviros who seem determined to subsidize Elon's trip to Mars.


knukles skbull44 Tue, 09/26/2017 - 20:41 Permalink

And now the auto company lobbyists in Sacramento's budget just went from some pretty pernicious stuff to infinite.This is exactly how lawmakers get richBeing bought AgainAnd Again And AgainEDIT:  They are correct.  They could stiop all sales of cars in CA forever.  Third world .....10 years ago I'm riding to SF for a days golf and a couple those ugly first Priuses went by and I said to myself; "That's what they're gonna have us driving.  Pelosi mobiles."

In reply to by skbull44

Slack Jack SilverRoofer Tue, 09/26/2017 - 22:42 Permalink

California Mulls Combustion-Engine Car Ban: "You Could Stop All Sales By 2030"

This seems silly; Obviously, the vehicle greenhouse emissions are just changed to electricity power plant greenhouse emissions. How does that help.

Record-Setting Hurricanes; Record temperatures; Record-Setting Wildfires; ya think it might be global warming?


So, why is the global rise in temperatures so worrisome?

For one thing, as temperatures rise good farmland will become desert (e.g., dust-bowl conditions will probably return to the American Midwest).

Another major problem is sea-level rise.

Have a look at

The U.S. Geological Survey people claim that;

The Greenland ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 6.55 meters (21.5 feet),
the West Antarctica ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 8.06 meters (26.4 feet),
the East Antarctica ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 64.8 meters (212.6 feet),
and all other ice melting will raise sea-level 0.91 meters (3 feet).

For a grand total of about 80 meters (263 feet).

So, what does an 80 meter (263 feet) rise in sea-level mean. Have a look at the following map of the world after an 80 meter rise. It means that over one billion people will have to be resettled to higher ground and that much of the most productive agricultural land will be under water. Fortunately, at current rates, the Greenland ice sheet will take over a thousand years to melt and the Antarctica ice sheet, much longer. However, the greater the temperature rise the faster the ice sheets will melt, bringing the problem much closer. Remember, the huge ice sheet that recently covered much of North America, almost completely melted in only 15,000 years (today, only the Greenland ice sheet, and some other small patches of it, remain). Since then (15,000 years ago), sea-levels have risen about 125 meters (410 feet), only 80 meters to go.

The ice sheets have been continuously melting for thousands of years. What is left of them today, is still melting, and will continue to melt. Human caused global warning will cause this remnant to melt significantly faster. This is a big, big, problem.

For HUGE detailed maps of the "World after the Melt" go to:

Global temperatures are increasing. And by quite a lot each year.

2016 is the hottest year on record for global temperatures.

This is 0.0380 degrees centigrade hotter than the previous record year which was 2015.

0.0380 is a large increase in just one year.

2015 was the hottest year (at that time) for global temperatures.

This was 0.1601 degrees hotter than the previous record year which was 2014.

0.1601 is an absolutely huge increase in just one year (at this rate temperatures would increase by 16 degrees in a century).

2014 was the hottest year (at that time) for global temperatures.

This was 0.0402 degrees hotter than the previous record year which was 2010.

The conspiracy to hide global warming data.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is given tax money to make global temperature records available to the public. However, certain people at NOAA continually sabotage this aspect of NOAA's mandate. For example, these people have (deliberately) sabotaged the web-page that delivers the temperature records.

Look for yourself:

Go to the page: scroll down to the The Global Anomalies and Index Data section and click the download button and see what happens. Well, you get the message:

"Not Found. The requested URL /monitoring-references/faq/anomalies-download was not found on this server."

I guess that the 2017 data must be truly horrible if they have to hide it away.

It turns out that this seems to be the case; NASA reports that:

July 2017 had the hottest average land temperatures on record.

The new July 2017 record was +1.20 degrees centigrade above the 20th century average (of the July data). The previous record average land temperature for July was just last year. It was +1.10 degrees above the 20th century average.

Did the media bother to tell you about this? No!

The average land temperatures for August 2017 are second only to those of last year, August 2016.

In reply to by SilverRoofer

IH8OBAMA Automatic Choke Tue, 09/26/2017 - 20:25 Permalink

So, Califonication wants to switch from Gasoline which has been catalitic converter coverted to a pretty clean fuel to nuclear, coal and natural gas.  Plus some transmission loss of energy.  And, build a whole new infraststructure for charging cars.  And, find an economical way to recycle a huge number of lithium batteries.Does this make any sense?When is that Cascadia fault supposed to slip creating the tsunami that will wipe out the west coast for 10 miles inland?

In reply to by Automatic Choke

GUS100CORRINA Automatic Choke Tue, 09/26/2017 - 20:28 Permalink

California Mulls Combustion-Engine Car Ban: "You Could Stop All Sales By 2030"My response: WHAT A CROCK OF CRAP!!!! The legislative leaders in CA are so LOST, BLIND and STUPID that it boggles the mind.If I lived in CA, I would be more concerned about the NUCLEAR PLANTS BUILT ON TOP OF EARTHQUAKE FAULT LINES.Maybe CA should focus their efforts on the conversion of these NUCLEAR plants to clean, cheap, plentiful and abundant natural gas.

In reply to by Automatic Choke

Billy the Poet jcaz Tue, 09/26/2017 - 20:14 Permalink

ask Jay Leno Funny story. Almost 20 years ago Keith Olbermann had a piece about how we used to have clean cars that ran on steam -- the Stanley Steamer. Leno called in and KO took the call live. Leno pointed out that all that clean, natural steam was produced by the inefficient burning of coal.Liberals continue to make exactly the same mistake today.

In reply to by jcaz

El Vaquero Billy the Poet Tue, 09/26/2017 - 22:47 Permalink

There is a new company that is making radial steam engines that take ~60 seconds to go from cold to running and maybe another minute or so to be at full power.  They can run on waste oil, gasoline, etc... and they have an enormous torque to weight ratio. Will something come of it?  Who knows?  Their technological take on old technology is too new to tell.  Pretty cool idea though.  I hope it works.  

In reply to by Billy the Poet

ThuleNord jcaz Tue, 09/26/2017 - 20:44 Permalink

Phase out ALL combustion engines, seriously? Even if they could lower recharge times to 20 minutes it would still be way too obnoxiously long. They're going to ban hybrids too then, the only sensible option for using EVs?

Then again in 15 years California is going to be nothing but non-whites squatting on the remains of a 1st world civilization and none of this will matter anyway.

In reply to by jcaz

El Vaquero ThuleNord Tue, 09/26/2017 - 22:51 Permalink

Not to mention that all of the mining equipment for all of the materials those cars would be made out of is often a good way away from the power grid.  Meaning combustion engines, because you're not going to run a big-ass excavator or one of those giant dump trucks with wheels bigger than my jeep on solar panels.  If you want to get away from fossil fuels, the only answer that doesn't crash us back to a 18th century standard of living (if we're lucky,) is breeder reactors and using that energy to manufacture liquid fuels.  

In reply to by ThuleNord

yarpos yomutti2 Wed, 09/27/2017 - 02:18 Permalink

Ever noticed who everything about renewables and Musk inparticular is always some time in the future, going to, getting cheaper, growing rapidly  you would think after all this time something woud have arrive mainstream.   This is usefull niche technology,   we have not yet seen what the real answer looks like.

In reply to by yomutti2

HRH Feant2 Bigly Tue, 09/26/2017 - 20:55 Permalink

What about the guy that wrote, "Alcohol can be a gas," David Blume! He wrote about ethanol being made at small distilleries. I don't think he ever thought we would make ethanol from corn.

Anyhow, reading the second book in the Deep Winter series, Shatter, and at the end he meets a guy that converted various vehicles to ethanol. It can be done if you are a mechanic.

In the mean time do I buy ethanol laced fuel? Oh hell no. It will ruin my car.

In reply to by Bigly