this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
216 points (98.6% liked)

News

23275 readers
4957 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

New Jersey will prohibit the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035 as part of an effort to improve air quality and reduce planet-warming pollutants, officials announced Tuesday.

A rule that will take effect Jan. 1 commits the state to an eventual move toward zero-emission vehicles, the state Department of Environmental Protection said in a news release.

It is one of a growing number of states to do so, including California, Vermont, New York, Washington, Oregon, Massachusetts, Virginia, Rhode Island, Maryland and Connecticut, according to Coltura, a Seattle-based nonprofit advocating for an end to gasoline vehicle use.

New Jersey will start limiting the amount of new gasoline-powered cars that can be sold in the state starting in 2027, eventually reaching zero in 2035.

all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] blazera@kbin.social 27 points 11 months ago (3 children)

yeah set it for way off in the future so it has plenty of time to be struck down before it affects those profits

[–] CoderKat@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I get what you're saying and that's obviously a concern, but at the same time... doesn't it have to be reasonably far in the future? We don't have either the infrastructure or even enough supply of EVs to change this too quickly.

That said, I wish they'd use a gradual approach. Start ramping up taxes on gasoline with the proceeds entirely going to EV infrastructure (and similar for purchasing new gasoline vehicles and licensing existing vehicles). Start small and increase as we get closer to the cutoff date. Start limiting gas station development and create zoning regulations for EV infrastructure (especially charging for apartments, which is a huge gap). Make all the laws ramp up gradually so that it's always small, incremental changes that are never too difficult to do at a time, but will get us in a better place in 10-15 years.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 months ago

The used car market will still go strong for years to come. Few people will be forced to buy an EV until probably at least 2040-2050.

Get your new gas car in 2034, drive it for ten years, probably be able to pick up a lower mileage used one in 2045 drive it for another 5 years. Buy an EV in 2050 when all the kinks and infrastructure has been ironed out.

[–] blazera@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

This is a gradual approach. The problem is, even the first step of that approach is several years away. The infrastructure needs to start being built now, with priority. And while more would be great, its not like we dont already have electrical infrastructure, every home with electricity is already capable of charging an EV.

We are so shamefully behind on taking action that we are still increasing oil production!

[–] freeindv@monyet.cc -1 points 11 months ago

As it should be

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub -1 points 11 months ago

My thoughts exactly. It's so far in advance, so many people will change seats... effectively a vague threat that this could be banned sometime in the future.

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 7 points 11 months ago

If you think about the life cycle of cars though, even without everyone just going to buy their car in NY there will be plenty of 16 year old gas powered cars still driving around NJ in 2050. Hopefully we get a cash-for-clunkers type deal before then.

[–] alienanimals@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

Maybe if we keep kicking the can down the road for another decade climate change will solve itself?

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago (6 children)

I'm surprised that this is something voters support. I see plenty of people who like electric cars on the internet, but I assumed that that was because the web pages I go to attract unusual people. I would have guessed that the majority of Americans wouldn't trust new electric technology and that they would get pretty angry if they wanted a new car but they weren't permitted to buy a gas-powered one.

Is this an issue of environmentalists being a vocal minority while most voters simply don't care what politicians promise to do twelve years from now?

[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I would have guessed that the majority of Americans wouldn’t trust new electric technology and that they would get pretty angry if they wanted a new car but they weren’t permitted to buy a gas-powered one.

You would be correct with your guess. People, as a whole, do not like bans.

The way to win people over is to make EVs the better product. Cars didn't beat out the horse and buggy because cars were mandated, they won because they were a better product. You can still drive a horse and buggy on the streets today, just ask the people in Pennsylvania, USA.

[–] BanditMcDougal@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

I'm extra shocked to see this in NJ; it is one of only two states where you are not allowed to pump your own gas. Efforts to change pump laws have been massively unfavorable because, among other things, they create jobs.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

Well, if you notice, it's only blue states that support it. Red states like their gas guzzlers.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

Well, if you notice, it's only blue states that support it. Red states like their gas guzzlers, but they'll be forced to follow suit eventually.

[–] vividspecter@lemm.ee -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Electric cars will be well and truly dominant by 2035, and likely well before then. Why would people want to buy crappy outdated tech by that point?

It would be like buying a horse and cart after cars have taken over during the 20th century.

The same goes for gas stoves and the like. They are trash compared to induction cooktops, and people will come to understand that once they use it.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I've used an induction cooktop, it had the most ridiculous user interface imaginable, using capacitive buttons on the cooktop. Gas is much more intuitive to use.

[–] vividspecter@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

That's not inherent to the technology, just a particular implementation.

[–] JJROKCZ@lemmy.world -3 points 11 months ago

Most of the people who vehemently hate vehicle progress will be dead in 1-2 decades or at least will have lost their license to age or dui

[–] pan_troglodytes@programming.dev 3 points 11 months ago

might be we'll have "classic" gas/diesel powered vehicles for the next 60 years, like Cuba

[–] Rhaedas@kbin.social 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Every new science finding always says "faster than expected", but we sure aren't acting like the clock is running out. Attacking car emissions without doing something about cars themselves (that cause and/or are a cause of a larger problem) isn't really going to solve much, and certainly not if that's all we change in more than a decades. How about less cars? Easier to just shift the marketing and keep on producing something.

[–] vividspecter@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The problem is that fixing infrastructure for a "less cars" world will take decades. Unless you want a war-time level mobilisation, which I would personally be okay with, but most won't give up even the slightest convenience so it's hard to expect many would be fine with that.

So pushing EVs is the more realistic alternative, and it will also help with distributed storage so that more of the increasing level of home and grid scale solar and wind can be used at night.

[–] Rhaedas@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

Unless you want a war-time level mobilisation

Some of the more "radical" scientists have been calling for such a thing for a while now. Meaning that it's needed even more now since we haven't done much to change anything and more damage has been done. You aren't wrong, addressing the core problems would be a long and intensive process and most people would resist even required participation (which says something about the chances of voluntarily doing much).

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago

It's not a coincidence that the car lifestyle is so widespread in the USA - many (most) people really like it. I don't think you're ever going to see a lot of support for switching away from it, regardless of the condition of the environment.

[–] macaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 11 months ago

Something something cart before the horse (lol)

[–] DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 11 months ago

This is going to work out great for people like me living in an apartment. But at least I'm not in South Jersey. Those people are really going to be fucked.